[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              S. 21, THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I rise in opposition today to talk about a 
few of the many problems with the California desert bill. And more 
important, I rise to speak on the problems it causes to the rest of our 
outstanding National Park System.
  The impact of S. 21 on the integrity of the National Park System is 
substantial. The bill increases the National Park System by over 4 
million acres, but there is no new funding for these additions to the 
Park System.
  Put in simple terms, this legislation adds the equivalent of two new 
Yellowstone National Parks to the System, and pays for it by taking 
something away from each of the other 367 units of the National Park 
System.
  Mr. President, no one in this Chamber would advocate reducing the 
needed funding and the number of ranger personnel from a national park 
within their State. Yet, that is exactly what will occur should this 
legislation be enacted.
  I know the two Senators from California would wage a battle royal on 
this floor if there was legislation to reduce the funding and the 
number of rangers at Yosemite or Point Reyes or at Santa Monica 
Mountains, yet that is exactly what they are doing.
  Mr. President, we all know that there is no new money, there are no 
new ranger positions. In order to maintain and operate this equivalent 
of two new Yellowstone's, other parks in the System will be raided to 
fund and operate these new parks. The alternative is to let California 
desert lands remain under BLM management where they are currently being 
protected by a plan created with and negotiated by California 
environmentalists.
  Under President Clinton's plan to reinvent Government, the National 
Park Service must reduce its work force by 1,350 positions. S. 21 will 
further reduce the number of park personnel at existing parks. Adding 
new parks is degrading old parks. Congress must stop.
  According to the National Park Service in its 1992 self-appraisal, 
the Vail Agenda, Park Service employees concluded ``there is a wide and 
discouraging gap between the Service's potential and its current state, 
and the Service has arrived at a crossroads in its history.''
  From the Grand Canyon to Acadia and back across the country to the 22 
parks in California, infrastructure decay, accelerated by deferred 
maintenance, is clearly punishing not only the Park System's roads but 
its trails, septic systems, employee housing, and visitor facilities as 
well. Americans deserve better.
  According to the most recent edition of National Geographic, the 
Superintendent of Great Smokey Mountains speaks to the park's 800 miles 
of erodible backcountry trails ``* * * we can't keep up with it.'' The 
Superintendent at Sleeping Bear Dunes states in the same article, ``we 
have scores of historic 19th century buildings here, and they're all 
just moldering into the ground.''
  Mr. President, Great Smokey Mountains and Sleeping Bear Dunes are not 
unique. The problem is nationwide. According to the General Accounting 
Office, 60 percent of National Park Service employee housing needs 
repair at an estimated cost of $500 million. We do not even have the 
ability to properly house the caretakers. If we can't properly house 
rangers in existing parks because we don't have the money, how can we 
stand here and authorize millions of dollars for new parks? It is not 
right. Our priorities are completely out of order.
  According to information supplied to Congress by the National Park 
Service, the agency currently faces a 37-year backlog in construction 
funding and a 25-year backlog for land acquisition. No one argues that 
the cost of existing infrastructure repair is literally in the billions 
of dollars while the cost of authorized but unacquired land acquisition 
seems to mimic the national debt.
  This bill would add another 700,000 acres of private property to the 
list the Federal Government must acquire. To add insult to injury, the 
House added another 6,000 acres of private property when they included 
the Bodie Bowl provisions in their version of the legislation. Mr. 
President, many of America's national parks are, and indeed the Park 
Service itself is, now in trouble. There is no money to repair or 
replace the broken pieces. there is certainly no money to add new units 
to the System without further raiding and in the process degrading 
existing units.
  The Congress' appetite for new parks is tremendous and its stomach 
for appropriations is nonexistent. It is absolutely irresponsible to 
buy new parks when you cannot fix the existing ones.
  To live up to its promises to restore the original vision of the 
parks, Congress needs to act in a responsible fashion.
  We have yet to pay for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 
Area. Members of the California congressional delegation have already 
introduced legislation referred to as the headwater bill to buy out a 
private landowner in northern California to the tune of $1.5 billion. 
They have also introduced legislation which would extend Point Reyes 
National Seashore to Bodega Bay which will cost $4 billion. These bills 
were introduced before we have even disposed of this very expensive 
piece of business. It is not only irresponsible, it is outrageous.
  Mr. President, I am extremely disturbed, even angry that we are 
apparently willing to assist in the destruction of what used to be 
considered the best park system in the world.
  Throughout my Senate career, I have been one of the strongest 
advocates for the National Park System. There have been times when I 
have disagreed with certain actions taken by the individuals in the 
Service, but I have always been supportive of the concept and vision 
that was created in 1872.
  This year I have been instrumental in advancing the Presidio 
legislation--not because it adds a new park to an overburdened system, 
but because the legislation as written would reduce the expenditures 
that would otherwise be required by the National Park Service. 
Unfortunately this legislation, S. 21, only serves to increase National 
Park Service expenditures of funds and personnel. It does absolutely 
nothing to enhance the system.
  I am further troubled by the fact that the Secretary of the Interior 
explained to us during his confirmation hearing that he was going to 
listen to the professionals in the field. Well, when you ask the 
professionals in the field privately, they will tell you that the Park 
Service cannot afford legislation of this magnitude. The Secretary may 
be listening, but he has ignored the advice of the professionals.
  The bill places the National Park Service in a position of managing a 
multiple-use unit. Given our experience at the Big Cypress Preserve, it 
is very apparent that the Park Service has more than a difficult time 
managing such an area. They just cannot philosophically adjust to 
multiple-use activities. They are not in that business nor should they 
be. The Secretary knows this, he has heard from the National Park 
Service professionals but he has chosen to ignore their pleas.
  This legislation is unfortunate for the National Park Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, and for the people of California who believe 
that being in a preserve will protect their property rights and their 
lifestyles. The opposite will be true. The National Park Service will 
impose all sorts of limits on multiple-use activities--they always do, 
and it places the service in constant conflict with its neighbors.
  The administration's agenda is clear, and only the users of the 
public lands will become endangered in this administration's war on the 
West.
  Mr. President, the California desert is about 12 million acres of 
which 8 million acres will be made into parks and wilderness. Another 3 
million acres will be set aside as critical desert tortoise habitat 
which leaves 1 million acres for multiple-use activities. 
Unfortunately, the 1 million acres are not contiguous, they are 
scattered throughout the desert and most are surrounded by wilderness 
making those parcels of land inaccessible anyway. Also, thousands of 
miles of roadways have been included in wilderness and will be closed.
  The Federal Government currently owns more than half of all the land 
in the 12 Western States. Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the 
Clinton administration have made it clear that the Federal Government 
is managing these lands for the benefit of specific political interest 
groups with little regard for the legitimate interests of western 
citizens and businesses.
  As a result, citizens of western States have little or no control 
over vast areas of land that were contemplated as a source of their 
livelihood at the time of statehood.
  In effect, another 12 million acres will be added to the Federal 
reserve if this legislation is enacted. The people of the Inyo, San 
Bernadino, Kern, Riverside, and Imperial counties must be thrilled to 
death. The bill will withdraw over 8 million acres of land from any 
further mineral exploration and development, affecting jobs and economy 
in California forever. While the senior Senator eliminated a few of the 
larger mining companies from getting entrapped in wilderness, hundreds 
and hundreds of other businesses were not so fortunate.
  Golden Quail Resources Ltd. is just one example. According to their 
prospectus they have proven reserves of approximately 200,000 ounces of 
gold having a market value of $80 million and have potential for much 
more. To date they have spent over $3 million on their project 
including over $200,000 in claim fees to the BLM. They also pay local 
taxes. All of this will be gone if this bill passes.
  The company has some 2,000 American stockholders, 500 of whom are 
Californians. All of them invested in a project with certain ground 
rules and now their own Government is looking to change those rules to 
their detriment. The project will close.
  There are many other similar cases in this parade of horribles, but 
all have the same bottom line, they will be out of business.
  In enacting S. 21, we're handing the National Park Service a one-way 
ticket to mediocrity, and sentencing the thousands of affected private 
landowners to a generation of injustice. If we continue ill-considered 
ideas such as this, historians will look back at the demise of our 
great park system and characterize it as ``death by a thousand hugs.'' 
Unfortunately everyone loved it, wanted more of it, but they couldn't 
pay for it. No Senator will admit to doing that, but each Senator who 
supports this bill is doing just that.

                          ____________________