[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        ON THE ISSUE OF GRIDLOCK

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to make a couple observations 
about what has just been discussed.
  I, too, listened to my friend, the Senator from Texas, and I am 
always interested and sometimes probably even often entertained by the 
Senator from Texas. He certainly does not pull any punches. I sometimes 
think this is a rehearsal. These discussions on the floor of the Senate 
are sort of a rehearsal for a wider audience that he will take on the 
road in New Hampshire or Iowa, or wherever he may travel, and they are 
always interesting, always interesting discussions.
  The thing that bothers me, the thing that continues to bother me is 
the caricature of those discussions about us as a political body and 
about politicians, especially politicians on the Democratic side of the 
aisle.
  The suggestion is, and a frontal suggestion, that those on this side 
of the aisle and, incidentally, the occupant of the White House, have 
really a couple of goals. One, get as much money as you can from people 
in the form of taxes because Democrats like to do that, he seems to 
assert, and then spend it and preferably spend it unwisely if you get 
half a chance.
  That is the caricature that is given by the Senator from Texas. He 
knows better than that.
  Last year, we had a vote here in the U.S. Senate. It was a vote on a 
budget. It prevailed by one vote--one. It was not an easy vote. In 
fact, not one Member of the minority in the Senate voted yes--not even 
one. The vote was to try to reduce the Federal budget deficit, because 
we are mortgaging our kids' future. We are $4.5 trillion in debt. It is 
ratcheting up, largely because of health care, of course, and a number 
of other things.
  The question is, are we going to do something? Are we going to try to 
deal with this deficit problem?
  So constructed was a budget package that did a lot of things, some of 
them very unpopular. Yes, it raised some taxes, it raised gasoline 
taxes, did a number of things to cut some spending, for example, in 
areas that were not very popular. But in that combination of budget 
proposals, in taxes and spending, were some very tough choices.
  Now, I wonder if the Senator from Texas or others thought it would be 
fun for anybody to vote yes for that. No. I would think everybody here 
would sooner vote against anything that is as difficult to swallow as 
were some of those proposals. But the question that confronted us was 
not: Is this a tough vote? Of course, it is a tough vote. The question 
is, are we going to do something? Are we going to address this deficit 
or not?
  Yes, the possible judgment and, incidentally, the political judgment 
would have been for every single one of us to say, ``Not me. I'm sorry. 
Just count me out. I can find two dozen things I don't like about this, 
so I vote no. And I will be popular back home. Nobody likes taxes. They 
do not like the deficit, but increased taxes, no one would want that. 
They want all the spending. So just count me out. I'm not going to vote 
for this sort of thing.''
  But enough people, fortunately, voted for that package to reduce the 
deficit and it passed. And the deficit was reduced not by a little, but 
by a lot. That deficit is coming down.
  Now, did we do the right thing? Well, I think we did. Was it the 
popular thing? Of course not. Can we be attacked for it? I suppose.
  I mean, that is what politics has become these days--draw a 
caricature, say those who voted for that are people who are gleeful at 
raising taxes or who love to take from the taxpayers and spend on some 
nonsensical thing. That is a caricature that I reject.
  I did not get involved in public service because I want to have 
public debates that were thoughtless. I mean, there are plenty of 
things that we can debate in a thoughtful way between people here of 
differing philosophies and probably could come to a conclusion that 
strengthens the sides that are represented in the debate on both sides. 
But instead, we tend to lower the bar and lower the standard lower and 
lower and lower and lower.
  In fact, I have mentioned on the floor before and I think I will 
mention again, there is one set of instructions that has been spread 
around Capitol Hill here by a prominent politician on Capitol Hill that 
says:

       Here is an instruction manual on how you should be involved 
     in politics. When you talk about your opponent, use these 
     words--these are the words you ought to use--use ``liar.'' 
     Use ``pathetic.'' Use the word ``sick.'' Yes, even use the 
     word ``treason.''

  And the list goes on and on and on. I am serious. I could bring it to 
the floor and read the whole thing. That is what politics, 
unfortunately, for some has become.
  It is kind of a wrecking crew operation. Anybody that has ever 
watched a building crew and a wrecking crew knows that it takes 
eminently more skill to construct than it does to tear down. It takes 
more time, more skill. And, it seems to me, the same is true in 
politics. The easiest thing in the world is to oppose and to obstruct.
  Now this country faces some enormous challenges. We have accomplished 
some significant things in this country's history, but we face now some 
enormous challenges, as well.
  It seems to me that we can dwell on the negative. And I certainly 
have talked about the negative in this country--23,000 murders, murder 
capital of the world; cocaine capital of the world; 110,000 rapes every 
year; 1.1 million aggravated assaults; one-quarter million babies born 
every year without a father; we have 9 million people out of work; we 
have 25 million people on food stamps; we have 40 million people living 
in poverty. I mean, we could talk about some pretty tough statistics 
about where this country is and all that relates to human misery.
  It seems to me we can also talk in these contexts about what we can 
do together to try to address some of these things.
  The fact is, some things that are wrong in this country cannot be 
addressed in the Congress, cannot be solved by Government, can only be 
solved at home, can only be solved by parents, and can only be solved 
in the neighborhood and in the community by people who care. So some 
things we cannot do much about.
  And the American people who complain about those things have to 
decide that this is a matter of self-responsibility. We have to roll up 
our own sleeves and look in our own home and our own neighborhoods and 
figure out how they can help themselves.
  There are other things that we can and we must address. Does anyone 
think that our education system is just fine? It is not fine. We have 
enormous challenges. The question is not whether, the question is how 
do we fix them.
  Does anybody here really believe that our health care system is just 
fine the way it is? Well, if you believe that, then you also believe we 
ought to have a higher Federal deficit because, I guarantee you, next 
year the Federal deficit will be higher than this year--well, not next 
year.
  My point is, health care spending as a part of the Federal budget 
will be higher than this year, not because some here said let us charge 
more for health care but because health care prices are rising and 
rising too fast and it costs not just us, not just the Federal 
Government, not just Medicaid and Medicare, not just State governments, 
but especially the American family and especially businesses, more and 
more and more for health care.
  Now if we say that does not matter, that is one thing. Then let us do 
nothing. But if we believe it matters, if we believe it matters that 
this is going to increase Federal spending and put the pressure on the 
family structure, then let us try to construct a method by which we 
achieve quality health care and try to control in some responsible way 
the costs.
  You know, it is interesting, when you look at health care, with the 
combination of disgruntlement these days about Government and the 
disconnection in our country with Government. I was in a town meeting 
one time and a fellow who was there was just awfully crabby. Nothing 
was right. He hated Government; the Government was awful. He was in his 
mid-seventies, I guess. During the whole town meeting, he was berating 
Government--Government was spending too much; the Government is just a 
wasteful spending institution.
  Then I discovered this fellow had recently had open heart surgery, 
paid for with Medicare. I am thinking to myself: how was there a 
disconnect here? How would a person that just went through open heart 
surgery, paid for by Medicare, think that the program, which was a 
Government program, was such an awful system?
  Is there not some connection by which we can look thoughtfully at 
these things and decide that, you know, there are some things we do 
well, let us keep doing them; some things we can do better, let us 
improve them.
  But the point that I wanted to make that I think the Senator from 
Delaware and the Senator from Massachusetts have made better than I is 
that you really face a couple of choices. You can decide that none of 
these things matter.
  Crime. Does anyone think that we do not have a problem with crime? 
The debate really ought to be over the solution, not whether there is a 
problem. Crime and schools and a whole range of those issues.
  The question is not whether we do something in these areas. The 
question is, what do we do?
  And what we have is a circumstance today where some people feel very 
self-fulfilled by virtue of being able to prevent anybody from doing 
anything, and then blaming later the institution because nothing got 
done. It might be self-fulfilling for some but it is very frustrating 
for others who feel we should make some progress.

  I come from a town of about 300 people. In my hometown, like the 
hometown of virtually everyone here, we had some folks who would sit 
around and play cards every day. They were retired, and basically were 
commentators on what was going on in town, and also critics of what was 
going on in town, and, really, never wanted to do very much of 
anything. Every time somebody else would start something, they would 
look at it and say, ``Oh, look at those people over there. This makes 
no sense.''
  While they were playing cards and criticizing all the things that 
were going on in town, the other folks in town were rolling up their 
sleeves and paving the main streets and doing the things that were 
important to do to build our hometown. I tell you, this institution is 
not very much different than my hometown. There are some powerful 
influences here who kind of like to sit around and bring everything to 
a halt. There are some others who get a lot done--probably too much, in 
some cases. And there maybe is a broad middle in which we ought to 
decide there is a whole range of good ideas between both sides of this 
aisle, and instead of preventing either from winning we ought to get 
the best of what each can give. Somehow, we just miss that connection.
  I understand some others want to speak and are probably waiting for 
other business. Let me just finish by telling a story about one of the 
folks I served with in the U.S. House of Representatives that my 
colleagues will remember, a fellow named Claude Pepper. Claude was a 
wonderful man in a lot of ways. He served in the Senate and then served 
in the House. Claude was in his eighties when, one day, outside of the 
Cannon Office Building, he and Congressman Jimmy Hayes, who still 
serves over in the House, were standing visiting. And this fellow in 
his eighties, Congressman Pepper, and young Jimmy Hayes, a freshman 
Congressman, were just talking and apparently a Boy Scout leader with 
several scouts bustled up the sidewalk. He did not know who these two 
fellows were, and he stopped and said say, ``Could you tell me where 
the Jefferson Monument is?''
  Claude says, ``Why, of course. You go right across the Capitol Plaza 
to the building with the flag on top and then go down one block to the 
second building, it will be right there.''
  And young Jimmy Hayes, freshman Congressman, after the Boy Scout 
leader profusely thanked them and rustled off with his Boy Scouts in 
tow, Jimmy looked with sort of a strange look on his face at Claude 
Pepper, this 84-year-old Congressman.
  Claude said, ``Jimmy, I see you think I have sent them in the wrong 
direction. I see you think that I have given them bad directions.''
  He said, ``You know, that fellow asked where the Jefferson Monument 
was. Of course I know the Jefferson Memorial is down near the 14th 
Street Bridge, everyone knows that. He was asking where the Jefferson 
Monument was. Of course, Jefferson was not in the United States when 
the U.S. Constitution was written, he was in Europe, but he contributed 
much through writings, especially to the principle of the Bill of 
Rights and especially the principle of free speech.''
  He said, ``I figured if they wanted to see a monument to Jefferson 
this morning, I would send them over to the front of the Dirksen 
Building where there is a demonstration going on on the subject of 
abortion. Nowhere is there a better monument to free speech in 
Washington, DC than that monument to Jefferson's work.''
  All of us revere the ability of free speech and free exchange of 
ideas and the kind of political combat that we do on the floor of the 
Senate, the House, and in this country in elections. But I do worry, as 
others have suggested, that the engine of disaffection runs so deep and 
is so relentless these days, and the new language of politics crosses a 
threshold that is lower than in the past. And it does fray, I think, 
the trust of representative government.
  One day, one way, soon we need to decide how we construct together 
the kinds of real solutions that address the real problems that people 
in this country know exist and know threaten their future. When we do 
that, I think we will once again restore trust. But as we do that, all 
of us, Republicans and Democrats, need to start using the language of 
debate that is thoughtful rather than thoughtless, and encouraging our 
constituents to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, this is one of the more successful 
beginnings of a filibuster in my experience. Those of us who have an 
opposition to the bill in front of us have now spent a little better 
than 2 hours without hearing a word spoken on it--other than a 
peripheral patter from time to time from the Senator from Delaware. 
What we have heard is all the evening news speeches. All the politics 
are coming out. Certainly, I do not have any objection to all the 
politics. But it is interesting, one thing keeps raining in on me is I 
cannot figure out what it is that is on the Democratic Party's mind. 
Half the time you hear monumental speeches of all the successes of this 
Congress. They prattle on about NAFTA and the crime bill and everything 
else. The other half of the time you would think nothing had happened.
  What is most interesting, I think, from the standpoint of the evening 
news, is that what has not happened may be more beneficial to Americans 
than what has happened. Nobody will know that until time proves it. But 
I would just say, those who have been prattling on cannot have it both 
ways. It either was a good Congress or it was not a good Congress; it 
was not both a good one and a bad one.
  I think I also heard the Senator from Delaware make mention of the 
fact that the purpose of this filibuster was to make Congress look bad. 
I have not found that to be a challenge that anybody in the Senate had 
to rise to.
  Let us, though, pay some attention to the issue before us. It has 
been said that the reason for the opposition to it is, somehow or 
another, a political argument that must be settled against the Senator 
from California. If it is the cause for some, it is not the cause of 
the Senator from Wyoming. It is of no concern to me that a bill of this 
nature costs jobs in the Senator from California's State. It is no 
concern to me that 12 percent of her State ends up in a no use land 
classification. And it is no concern to me that 15 percent of her State 
ends up in restricted use. That is an issue for California, and that 
does not trouble me.
  What is not an issue for California, but is an issue for me, is what 
this does to the National Park Service and the National Park System. I 
have said before, there is not a Senator in here who would admit to 
reducing the budget of any park in America. There is not a Senator in 
here who would admit to reducing the personnel of the park system and 
the parks in America. Yet, practically speaking, there is not a Senator 
in here who has not done just that by adding parks without adding 
resources--but with obligations beyond comprehension and condemnations 
of private property beyond comprehension. And with chores for the 
National Park Service for which it has no resources whatsoever to deal 
with--just new tasks. New tasks.
  Here we are considering putting in a park that is twice the size of 
Yellowstone Park without putting in the necessary resources. The 
Senator from California is saying that money is being assigned to it--
but, from what? And she says personnel are being assigned to it--but 
from where?
  The Secretary of the Interior, who goes around the country boasting 
of his commitment to the parks and the environment and everything else, 
stands in California and looks out over the ocean and says, ``Before I 
leave as the Secretary, I am going to put another 4 billion dollars' 
worth of land at Point Reyes National Seashore into the park system.''
  In the land to be added to the park system in this bill is the 
property of a number of Americans whose property titles will be clouded 
for the rest of their living days because there is not money to take 
their land and pay for it. So we just take it by putting it under park 
management, and by making it certain that there are no other options 
available for that land. And we have done it all over America. In fact 
we even passed a law requiring the Park Service to come in and report 
to us their priorities. We asked them what they thought was the 
outstanding debt of America to buy from Americans that which we have 
placed in the hands of the National Park Service.
  And this administration blithely ignores the law. They did not reply 
last Congress when we were doing the energy bill and they did not 
follow it this Congress. They refuse to give us this information. When 
I came to the Senate, the backlog was said to be around $2 billion. And 
every year for 18 years we have added and added and added to the 
backlog of Americans whose property has been put into the park system 
but for whom no money has been set aside.
  Uncle Sam has become the worst kind of neighbor. And those of us who 
come from land backgrounds--I come from a ranching background--know 
precisely what kind of a neighbor that is. That is a land hungry, money 
grubbing neighbor who sees land and acquires it and leaves it for his 
neighbors to fix the fences and leaves his neighbors to look after his 
livestock because they do not have money enough to keep up their 
buildings or keep up their fences.
  They just acquire more and more land. But in the instance of Uncle 
Sam, it is worse yet. Uncle Sam takes the land and does not pay for it. 
All over this country, there are backlogs. That figure must now be 
close to $6 billion or $7 billion worth of Americans' lands that have 
been put in the parks for which no money has been set aside and for 
which no intention to pay has ever been exhibited.
  This is not the kind of country that I thought we grew up in. Most of 
us do not believe that it is the appropriate thing for the Government 
of the United States to condemn people's property and then not pay for 
it. We have no money to do it, even if we wanted to.
  In this bill before us, I think the figure is something in the 
neighborhood of 500,000 acres of private and State land. Some of this 
will be traded for other public land in California. The most important 
of the private landowners will be accommodated, but the little people 
will not be. Those titles are going to be clouded. They will try to 
sell a piece of property. And the reason people will do it is because 
they cannot do anything with their own property. The Park Service will 
come along and deny them the ability to build on it or change the use 
of it or do anything else because it will spoil the park.
  The people will say, ``Pay me,'' and the reply will be there is no 
money. Who can they sell it to? Nobody. But they have the privilege of 
paying taxes to the Government of the United States and to the State of 
California on property whose use has been absolutely squeezed down to 
its current, present use. Notwithstanding the fact that somebody may be 
going broke, notwithstanding the fact that somebody may have another 
idea as to how to use it, notwithstanding all of these things, that is 
going to be taken from them.
  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 without, as I said, any new funding for these additions.
  Put in simple terms, the legislation adds the equivalent of two new 
Yellowstone National Parks to the system and pays for it by taking away 
from each of the other 367 units of the National Park System.
  My State of Wyoming has the original national park, Yellowstone. This 
country has allowed the rangeland in Yellowstone Park to degrade due to 
overgrazing by wildlife to where it is in essentially the worst 
condition of any rangeland in the State. This country allows the 
rangers in this National Park to spend their winters there helping and 
protecting Americans and guiding them to their enjoyment in temporary 
summer housing. This country has allowed the road system of that park 
to degrade to such a point where $300 million is essential, not to 
improve the roads but just to bring them up to standard. No new roads, 
no road expansions, nothing else.
  This country has allowed that and it has done it in Yosemite and it 
has done it in the Redwoods, and it has done it at Point Reyes, so they 
want more. It has done it in Chattahoochee, in Indiana Dunes, up here 
on Skyline Drive, and it has done it, and done it, and done it. And it 
is allowing, day after day, each of these parks of this great system to 
degrade.
  But does that stop its appetite for new parks? Certainly not. Does 
that stop the appetite of Members of the Senate for new parks? 
Certainly not. Everybody professes their admiration for the National 
Park System, and so they put in things that are of political 
satisfaction, but they have nothing but detrimental effects on the 
American National Park System.
  Mr. President, you could not get a Senator to stand up in this body 
and say, ``I advocate reduction of the funds for any park in America.'' 
``I advocate a reduction in the personnel of the parks in America.'' 
But that is what they are doing, and that is what the Senator from 
California is doing, and that is what the Secretary of Interior is 
doing, who not only did not request enough money to even fund the 
pension obligations of the National Park System, but is taking 3,700 
people out of the National Park Service, curiously enough, I think over 
700 of which are going into the Office of the Secretary.
  It is clear the bureaucracy of the Department of Interior is more 
important to him than the parks of America. But my point is this: Here 
we have an enormous new park with no funds and no personnel.
  I know that the two Senators from California would wage a battle 
royal on this floor if there was legislation to reduce the funding or 
the number of rangers at Yosemite or Point Reyes or Santa Monica. I 
know that they would tell the papers and the press in their States that 
they would not do that, but they are. That is precisely what they are 
doing.
  Mr. President, we all know that there is no new money for this park 
and there are no new ranger positions. In order to maintain and operate 
the equivalent of two new Yellowstones, other parks in the system will 
be raided to fund and operate them.
  The alternative--and there is one--is to let the California desert 
lands remain under BLM management, where they are currently under 
protective management, a plan created by a negotiated settlement with 
the environmentalists, the users, and the land managers of America, for 
which the environmentalists only a couple of years ago stood and patted 
themselves on the back for its completeness and ingenuity and its 
success.
  So the BLM has it in its budget. They are talking about transferring 
personnel. But that does not answer the problems that are created by 
this park. California environmentalists were so proud of themselves. 
They praised themselves in the Los Angeles Times; they praised 
themselves on television; they praised themselves in their magazines. 
They said that this was the means by which the desert would be and 
could be adequately protected in its great beauty.
  They now have forgotten that. They now refuse to admit that they once 
had in mind a plan that worked, and still works. Had it not worked, it 
would not even have been possible to consider this for park status. Had 
it been abused and had it been threatened, it would not have been in 
condition to be considered for this status.
  According to the National Park Service itself, in its 1992 self-
appraisal called the Vale Agenda, Park Service employees concluded, and 
I quote:

       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.

  That was 1992. That crossroads in its history is that since 1992, the 
Senate of the United States and the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee and Senators and Members of the House of Representatives have 
been adding, and adding, and adding, obligations in the form of new 
parks, and new acreage, and new dimensions, and new interpretive 
requirements, and new building requirements, to the inventory of 
America's national parks.
  It was just reported the other day that the famous old fighting ship, 
the U.S.S. Constitution, now under the care of the National Park 
Service, requires another $25 million in repairs to prevent it from 
sinking. Can you believe, Mr. President; to prevent it from sinking. 
This is the kind of care that America gives its park assets.
  From the Grand Canyon to Acadia, back across the country to the 22 
existing parks in California; infrastructure decay, accelerated by 
deferred maintenance, is clearly punishing not only the park system's 
roads but its trails, its septic systems, its employees' housing and 
its visitors' facilities as well, and Americans deserve better.
  The Congressman from Minnesota has determined, in his wisdom, that 
there is no need to provide ranger housing, and because the bill 
contains my name, he is holding it up, punishing not the Senator from 
Wyoming, who is leaving the Senate with certain tacit regret, but 
punishing the rangers, the personnel of the park system. And that is 
what this bill does, too. That is what the Senators from California are 
doing, too. They are punishing the rangers and they are degrading the 
system of America's national parks.
  According to the most recent edition of the National Geographic, the 
superintendent of Great Smokey Mountains speaks of the park's 800 miles 
of erodible back country trails. ``We just can't keep up with it,'' but 
we can add new parks with new trails that will have to be maintained 
and kept up, new roads that will have to be maintained and kept up, and 
new obligations for personnel and new buildings and new interpretive 
centers and other things when we cannot keep up with 800 miles of 
trails in the Great Smokies.
  The superintendent at Sleepy Bear Dunes states in the same article, 
``We have scores of 19th century buildings here and they're all just 
moldering into the ground.'' But we can add a new park, twice the size 
of Yellowstone.
  Mr. President, the U.S.S. Constitution, the Great Smokey Mountains, 
Sleeping Bear Dunes, none of these is unique. The problem is 
nationwide. According to GAO, 60 percent of National Park Service 
housing, employee housing, needs repair at an estimated cost of $500 
million. And we do not have it. But we are saying here that we have 
money enough for a new park, and we have money enough to load new 
obligations.
  Now, if we cannot properly house rangers in the parks that we have 
because we do not have the money, how is it possible to stand here in 
any kind of good conscience and authorize millions of dollars for a new 
park? It is not right. Our priorities are completely out of order. The 
political benefit is what is sought and not the benefit to the park 
system of America.
  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. But according to 
this bill, we have money enough to require 500,000 additional acres of 
private lands to be acquired and enough for a new park to be 
established. This is when that park is already under competent, 
negotiated management. Thirty-seven years backlog of funding, but we 
have money enough to do this. Twenty-five years to acquire Americans' 
lands that we have condemned for our personal privileges to their 
detriment, but we have money enough and time enough to add to that 
backlog.
  Mr. President, it is disgraceful. And no one argues, certainly not 
this Senator, 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 adds another 500,000 acres to the list of the private 
property that the Federal Government must acquire. We do not have money 
enough to buy it from Americans who have been condemned to live in that 
state.
  I see my friend and colleague from the Energy Committee here. We have 
talked about this problem, but we have done nothing.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WALLOP. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I simply want to say, although the 
Senator from Wyoming and I happen to disagree on this particular bill, 
we do agree very much with one of the points that the Senator from 
Wyoming is strongly making, and that is that the National Park Service 
is being starved in its revenues; that we are, indeed, adding 
additional burdens on the Park Service and are not, in fact, giving the 
Park Service the sustenance, the increases which they need.
  I would simply like to say to the Senator from Wyoming, who is, of 
course, my dear friend and for whom I have the highest regard, and 
whose service in this Senate, I think, has been really exemplary for 
this country, for what he has produced, for what he has done--and he 
knows I feel that way--I would simply like to say his point is a proper 
one. It is not a new one. It is not a point that he makes for the first 
time on this Desert Protection Act. He has made the point repeatedly 
not just in this Congress but in previous Congresses, and I hope, as he 
goes into retirement in some new incarnation, in which I know he will 
be extremely successful, I hope upon his departure that in the next 
Congress we will find a way to deal with this problem.
  As he knows, the solution which I have had in the past is to increase 
the revenue stream of the Park Service. I believe even in a time of 
short resources this country is big enough, strong enough, rich enough, 
and that its citizenry is in favor of increasing the resources for the 
Park Service, which is the solution not only I have-- after all, it is 
a very small amount percentagewise of the Federal budget. It is on the 
order of one-tenth of 1 percent, as I recall, the amount of money going 
to the Park Service.
  So I say to the Senator from Wyoming that I commend him for raising 
the issue of starving the parks. I commend him for being consistent in 
that concern. Not just on this Desert Protection Act, but on a host of 
other bills and in other years and in other Congresses he has raised 
that question.
  So while I disagree with him on this Desert Protection Act, I very 
much agree with his point, and he has, I think, spurred and pricked the 
conscience of at least this Senator, and I think the whole Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  I hope, having made this point so eloquently, so strongly, and so 
consistently, we will rise to the occasion and find a solution for it. 
I guess my question is, does the Senator not agree?
  I guess that would be an unfair question because, really, what I have 
is a commendation for the Senator for the contribution he has made on 
this issue, as well as others in this Senate. So in this what I hope 
will be our last evening--I do not wish it to be the last day of the 
Senator's service because, as he knows, I would like for him to have 
stayed on in the Senate because of my regard for him personally and for 
what he has contributed to this Senate. But I hope that it will be the 
last day of our service other than the lame duck in this session, and 
so in what I hope will be his last day, I simply did not want the day 
to go by without giving my personal salute to the Senator from Wyoming 
for what he has done and to say that in the next Congress we will be 
aware of this issue.
  Speaking at least for the senior Senator from Louisiana, we will 
search for solutions to this question of starvation of the Park Service 
in terms of revenues. Even if we created no new park in this Congress, 
that issue would be with us because we have already starved the Park 
Service. And I wish to tell the Senator from Wyoming I will be 
searching for ways to help solve that problem. And I know he knows that 
I am aware of that, and so I salute him for his service and for what he 
has done on this issue as well.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
pointing out--and I hope the Senator from California heard--that this 
is not a new issue with us. Nor have I singled out her park. I have 
stood in the breach over the course of half a dozen years on this 
issue.
  My problem is that we have developed a fine stream of rhetoric but no 
priorities. If we honestly believe what the Senator from Louisiana 
said, we would not make it partisan. It is not threatened land. It is 
under good and competent management under an agreement that was 
negotiated by California environmentalists. We cannot gain the 
attention of this body if there is no penalty for proposing a park 
except that you have a few extra hours at the end of a closing session 
by the Senator from Wyoming, or somebody like that, and the rhetoric 
gets well placed and ever more eloquent to no avail, to no end.
  I have been doing this for 16 of my 18 years, and since the backlog 
is 37 years, I have been here while half of that backlog has been 
developed. We have been doing it more and more in recent years because 
everybody seems to think that it is politically important for them to 
go home with a park.
  I say to my friend from Louisiana, who would remember, that there 
have been a number of parks that were critical to people's reelection 
which we have authorized, and they get reelected--the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Percy, on the Illinois Canal and a couple of other ones 
come to mind. It has not been a great success as a tool. But it does 
not stop the erosion of the capacity of the Nation to deal with its 
problems. If this were terribly threatened, it would be a different 
story, but it is not. It is not threatened. It can be made a park 
anyway. The land is not going to go to Japan or Mexico or to Argentina. 
The land is there under a management plan that people have found 
sufficiently good to praise themselves and it innumerable times. They 
have said how good they were in the negotiation of it.
  As I said, there is now another 500,000 acres that we have to 
acquire; that the Federal Government must acquire. But to add insult to 
injury, the House added yet another 6,000 acres of private property 
when they included the Bodie Bowl provisions in their version of it.
  So, Mr. President, many of America's national parks are--many of them 
are--and indeed, the National Park Service itself is now in serious 
trouble. There is no money to repair or replace the broken pieces. 
There is certainly no money to add huge new units to the System without 
further raiding and in the process degrading the existing units.
  This measure, many Senators may not realize, constitutes the largest 
land withdrawal since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act of 1980. If this becomes law, California will have the most 
wilderness ever designated in any State except Alaska. So much of 
California will be designated Federal parks and wilderness that there 
is not enough public land in that State left to trade off for the 
private inholdings created by this bill. There is not enough left, so 
much of it is condemned. And if there is not enough money and not 
enough land to trade, what will happen to the private property 
condemned by the Federal Government? They simply have to wait in line 
for the $3 billion to $4 billion to $6 billion backlog of authorized, 
but not acquired, inholdings throughout the Nation. And the private 
citizens of America will be the ones who wait while we and those with 
the political whimsy create a park that is not necessary to protect it, 
and certainly is detrimental to the service to which it is added.
  Our appetite for parks is absolutely boundless. But our stomach for 
paying for them is nonexistent. That is why the backlog grows every 
year. In addition to our refusing to pay, and in addition to our adding 
to the obligations, the price of land generally rises and we still do 
not do anything with it.
  So to live up to its promise to restore the original vision of the 
parks which Congress makes routinely, annually--this is not the first 
time the Senator from Wyoming has been on the floor doing this--
Congress needs to act in a responsible fashion, and it has not. And it 
will not.
  California has a tremendous appetite for parks. We have yet to pay 
for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Members of the 
California congressional delegation have legislation referred to here 
as the ``Headwater bill,'' the buyout of private landowners in northern 
California to the tune of $1.5 billion. This is not the 500,000 acres 
that are new into this bill. This is yet another piece of California's 
desire to spend Americans' money to protect its land.
  They have also introduced legislation which would extend Point Reyes 
National Seashore to Bodega Bay; cost, $4 billion. This is not the 
500,000 acres that we have added. These are new acquisitions. These 
bills were introduced before we have even disposed of this very 
expensive piece of business.
  It is not only irresponsible, Mr. President, it is outrageous. It is 
unfair to say that anybody has affection for or admiration for the 
National Park Service or System and do this. It is simply not honest to 
say that you have an affection for this kind of service and this kind 
of tradition in America, and then do this to it.
  I am disturbed, I am even angry, that we are apparently willing to 
assist in the destruction--this body is about to--of what used to be 
described as the best National Park System in the world. It was the 
model for the world. It was designed and invented here. It was the 
place where the rest of the world visited. Now some of the parks we 
would rather not show because of the condition into which they have 
fallen.
  Throughout my Senate career, I have been one of the strongest 
advocates for the System. There have been times when I have disagreed 
with certain actions taken by the Service because I have been 
supportive of the concept and the vision that was created back in 1872.
  This year, I tried to worked with the Senators from California--sad 
to say, because of problems on their side of the aisle--in advancing 
the Presidio legislation, not because it adds a new park to an 
overburdened System, but because the legislation, with the cooperation 
of the Senator from California, as we wrote it, would reduce the 
expenditures that would have otherwise been required of the National 
Park Service and given us a model by which we might have traveled and 
to which we might yet travel in future years. But, unfortunately, this 
piece of legislation, S. 21, serves only to increase the National Park 
Service's expenditures of funds and increase demands on its personnel. 
But it does nothing to enhance the System.
  I am further troubled by the fact that Secretary Babbitt, who 
explained to us during his confirmation hearing that he was going to 
listen to the professionals in the field, has not. 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 does not hear. We have had that trouble with him 
in other instances. He has ignored the advice of his professionals.
  The bill places the National Park Service in the position of managing 
a multiple-use unit. Think of that, managing a multiple-use unit. The 
park personnel are not prepared to do that. That is not their order. 
That is not their mission. That is not what they were trained to do. 
But in our rush to do this, we are providing them with a series of 
obligations that are not in any way consistent with the obligations of 
the National Park Service.
  Given our experience in another Park Service-managed preserve, the 
Big Cypress Reserve, the Park Service has had just a terrible time. 
They are incompetent at managing such an area. They simply cannot 
philosophically adjust to multiple-use activities. In a way, there is 
no reason why they should, except that we are obliging them knowing 
that they cannot, and knowing it is inconsistent with the philosophy 
and mission of the National Park Service. The Secretary knows this. 
Secretary Babbitt knows this and has chosen to ignore the advice.
  This legislation is unfortunate for the National Park Service, for 
the Bureau of Land Management and, I might say, for the people of 
California, who believe that being in a preserve will protect their 
property rights and lifestyles.
  Mr. President, mark my words now: The opposite will be true. Every 
instance in which the National Park Service has had such a challenge, 
they have gone back on their word to America, every single instance. 
The National Park Service will impose all sorts of limits on the 
multiple-use activities. They always have. There is no instance in 
which they have not. The National Park Service does not like multiple 
use and, in fact, there is a growing cadre within them that does not 
like human use. It wants these all to be put into some sort of far-off 
viewing bowl. The limitation on the inholders will place the service--I 
promise you, Senators from California--in constant conflict with its 
neighbors, and they will have been placed in that conflict by this 
action.
  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. The California desert consists of about 12 million acres of 
public lands, of which more than 7 million--12 percent of California--
will be made into parks and wilderness. Over 3 million other acres will 
be set aside as critical desert tortoise habitat, which leaves but 1 
million acres available for multiple use activity. And over 25 percent 
of California will have constrained activity on it as a result of this 
legislation.
  I have to ask the indulgence of my colleagues on all these acreage 
figures. The truth is that nobody knows how many acres are involved. We 
know that the totals are huge, even beyond simple comprehension. When 
my staff approached the majority and the California Senators' staffs 
for exact figures, they were told that the numbers might be available 
later but, for now, they were still adding them up. We have the bill on 
the floor, but they are still adding them up.
  We do know that the 1 million acres is all that remains of multiple-
use land, and those acres are not contiguous. They are scattered 
throughout the world of the desert. Most are surrounded by wilderness, 
making those parcels of land inaccessible anyway. Furthermore, 
thousands of miles of established roadways have been included in 
wilderness, and they will be closed. The people of California are 
thinking they are having protection, and they will find they are the 
ones that are protected out of the traditional uses that they thought 
they had and that they thought would be protected.
  The Federal Government currently owns more than half the land in the 
12 western States. Unfortunately, the actions taken by the Clinton 
administration have made it clear that the Federal Government is 
managing these lands for the specific political interest groups, with 
little regard for the legitimate interests of western citizens and 
their businesses.
  The Secretary has said as much--that multiple use is a concept whose 
time has passed. The Secretary now believes that there are only two 
fundamental uses--wildlife and watershed. And America's citizens in the 
West be damned. As a result, our citizens in the western States have 
increasingly less control over the vast land areas that at the time of 
statehood were contemplated to be available as a source of their 
livelihoods. In effect, another 12 million acres will be added to the 
Federal Reserve if this legislation is enacted. I say this because this 
legislation takes so much of the five-county area into the most 
restrictive forms of Federal control that the whole area will be 
considered a Federal reserve. The people of Inyo, San Bernardino, 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 the jobs and future economy of 
California forever--not for the moment, but forever.
  While the senior Senator from California eliminated a few of the 
larger mining companies from getting entrapped in the wilderness, 
hundreds of other businesses were less fortunate. Golden Quail 
Resources, for example, is just one. According to their prospectus, 
they have proven reserves of approximately 200,000 ounces of gold, 
having a market value of $80 million--pretty small peanuts for the 
Secretary of the Interior. 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.
  Mr. President, if this bill passes, that is all gone; it is simply 
taken from them--their investment, their resources, their ingenuity, 
and their future. The company has 2,000 American stockholders, 500 of 
whom are Californians. All of them invested in the project with certain 
ground rules, and now their Government is changing those rules to their 
detriment. That project will close. Their Government has walked out on 
its ground rules.
  There are many other similar cases in the parade of horribles, and 
they all have the same bottom line. They will be out of business. After 
all, the California desert produces 97 percent of America's rare earth 
metals--97 percent; 43 percent of the Nation's pumice; 11 percent of 
its gold; 100 percent of borates; 12 percent of the sand and gravel. 
The existing mineral rights that would have to be purchased by the 
United States runs into billions and billions of dollars. The 1992 
Bureau of Mines study estimated that the value of 701 mines and mineral 
prospects in private ownership in the Mojave National Preserve alone is 
$7.7 billion. There are 10,000 mining claims in the Mojave. Each will 
have to be reviewed, evaluated, and resolved with the owner. At what 
cost?
  It is not just California's business. It is the business of the 
taxpayers of the United States, I say to my friends, ordinarily knowing 
that the tradition of this body has been that when two people agree on 
the land use treatment of their State, the rest of us agree. And I 
would, but the rest of us are going to be faced with paying this bill 
and having our park systems taxed and our park personnel reduced.
  So in enacting it, we would be handing the National Park Service a 
one-way ticket to further mediocrity, and sentencing thousands of 
private landowners to a generation of injustice. If we continue these 
ill-considered ideas, historians will look back at these days as the 
demise of this great park system and characterize it as the death by a 
thousand hugs, all of us professing our admiration and affection, each 
of us contributing to its demise.

  It will be reported that everyone loved it and wanted more of it but 
would not and could not pay for it. No Senator will admit to having 
done that, but each Senator who supports this bill is guilty.
  (Mr. MATHEWS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, we are today discussing the California 
desert issue and its implications to public land emancipation and 
management. What do I mean by emancipation? I mean the realization that 
there is an overwhelming Federal influence in the West and the need to 
greatly limit the ponderous Federal influence on the West exists. We 
are not diminishing it, but we are adding to it should we pass this 
bill.
  In the West today, we are faced with an administration that is 
reaching unprecedented levels of Government intervention into every 
single aspect of each of our lives, using the terms ``ecosystems,'' 
``environmentalism'' and ``fair market value'' as spears which they 
chuck at every perceived public resource management problem.
  Increasingly, the role of the Federal Government has become one of 
ruling Americans, not serving them. They are the masters, and we have 
become their servants. And if you listen to the rhetoric of the 
Secretary of the Interior, you have to know that that is what is on his 
mind when he said ``the worst mistake that this country ever made was 
giving the States control over their own waters.'' Guess what? Because 
if you control the water of California, or of Wyoming, or of any State, 
you control that economy and its people. They are subservient. And he 
wishes to have us be just that, subservient. The Secretary of the 
Interior wishes to be king of the West, the emperor of all of us that 
we have to pay to and say, ``Can I have my water, sir? Can I use this 
piece of land, sir, for just one more day?
  ``No, I am sorry. We have a better use for it than your traditional 
use.''
  I do not often agree with the Clinton administration, nor its 
spokesmen, but no one has expressed the problem in a more articulate 
manner than the man who I just quoted, Secretary Babbitt.
  But the quotes I am about to give now were when he was a Governor, 
when he actually was not the emperor but when he was one of us, before 
he assumed this mantle of power that is so heavily resting on his 
shoulders that he thinks he must control and rule us. Let me quote to 
you what he said when he was one of us.

       I share the concerns of my fellow Governors. My sense of 
     alarm is perhaps a little more extreme. A lot of observers in 
     this country feel that, taken on a historic scale, the States 
     are obsolete, they are headed the way of the passenger pigeon 
     and the Edsel.
       Even the optimist, I think, would say the States at best 
     are in dire danger of becoming administrative agents of 
     Washington * * * it didn't begin that way.

  He went on to say.

       The proper role between the States and the Federal 
     Government * * * was the centerpiece * * * of the most 
     brilliant debate in the history of western institutions.
       That debate * * * has gone neglected. The result is a 
     Federal system * * * in total disarray.
       The United States Congress has lost all sense of restraint. 
     It no longer asks the question that Hamilton, Madison, and 
     Jefferson considered to be the central question * * * Is this 
     an appropriate function of the Federal system?
       * * * Hamilton and Jefferson would certainly ask * * * how 
     have we allowed their creation, a carefully layered 
     construction of Federal, State, and local responsibilities, 
     to become scrambled into one great undifferentiated, 
     amorphous omelet by a cook in Washington?

  Mr. President, that cook in Washington was a pale, pale, pale chef 
when Babbitt spoke those words compared to the Julia Childs the 
Government is now that Babbitt rules. What he once fretted over as a 
Governor, he now recklessly imposes as an emperor.
  Fourteen years have passed since Bruce Babbitt spoke those words in 
the last year of the Carter administration. Today the current 
administration's concept of the ``New West'' has rapidly degenerated 
into a war on the West. Government officials have been transformed from 
environmental problem solvers to environmental storm troopers with the 
power to punish, to prohibit and to take.
  Virtually all Federal agencies are making decisions on the use of 
land and resources in unquestioning response to an ill-conceived 
environmental agenda which ignores the human side of the equation and 
disregards the concept of private property rights. In this instance, we 
are disregarding the concept of private property rights. Worse still, 
it ignores Governor Babbitt's concern that the Federal Government, as 
Governor Babbitt--note I did not say Secretary Babbitt--his concern 
that the Federal Government has lost all sense of restraint and the 
concepts of Jefferson and Madison.
  Listen to how different this man has become, I say to my friend from 
California.
  In 1994, this year, in a speech to the Sierra Club's annual dinner, 
Bruce Babbitt, now Secretary Babbitt, said:

       We need a new western land ethic for non-wilderness. The 
     old concept of multiple use no longer fits the reality of the 
     new West.

  Let me inject here to my friends from California when they are making 
the National Park Service a multiple use management area that is 
contrary to its mission and its philosophy, and they have this man as 
their Secretary. The Senator's plans, however honorable those 
intentions may be, will not be delivered to her or her citizens. They 
will not.
  Let me go back to Babbitt's words.

       The old concept of multiple use no longer fits the reality 
     of the new West. It must be a concept of public use. From 
     this day on, we must recognize the new reality that the 
     highest and best, most productive use, of western land will 
     usually be for public purposes, watershed, wildlife, and 
     recreation.

  Typically, this man made no distinction in this speech between public 
and private land, because he does not believe in private property.
  Unlike his views in 1980 as a western Governor, he now feels that the 
Federal Government deserves to be omnipotent, and he deserves to be the 
plenipotentiary of the operation.
  The Clinton administration's agenda is clear, and only the users of 
the public lands will become endangered in the war on the West. 
Citizens have been threatened with rules and regulations denying them 
access to guns, rock collecting, and other forms of recreation. And now 
the chief of the Forest Service is talking about having a Federal 
hunting license when the Federal Government takes over the management 
of the game that the States once felt was not only their obligation but 
which they have done better at managing than has the Federal 
Government.
  In order to pay for increased control by that big Government, we see 
increasingly the proposals to increase our fees. Hunters, outfitters, 
radio broadcast users, commercial air tour operators, ski area 
operators, concessioners, and any other use that requires a Federal 
permit are being asked to shoulder a bigger and bigger burden. Not all 
these permit holders will be able to stay in business after paying the 
new fees on top of their existing expenses, and their existing expenses 
are being daily added to by an administration which provides for them 
obligations of compliance that they never had before. So not only do 
they have new fees, but they have new compliance obligations, and these 
will all be part, I say to my friend, the Senator from California, of 
the obligations of the citizens whose lives are encompassed by these 
areas.
  In addition, many of us have traditionally enjoyed a cooperative 
partnership with the Federal Government over the years, including 
counties and municipalities, and they are now being asked to help pay 
the costs for more Federal control. In a conversation with the Senator 
from California a little while ago, she said ``Why do they increase?'' 
I reply that one of the reasons why is to try to keep up with the new 
demands that the Federal Government is putting on our local communities 
to exist not cooperatively but subjectively to the Federal Government. 
So what we might have once had where we private lands as taxable 
resources, we are now begrudged the payment in lieu of taxes to them 
and yet we are having new obligations daily descending upon our local 
areas of government to try to live with and under the Federal 
Government.
  Have we forgotten in this Senate that the original concepts of 
Jefferson and Madison were really very simple, that the Federal 
Government derived its power from the States. And guess what? The 
States are now begging the Federal Government for the authority to 
exist.
  It has taken power from the States, taken power from its citizens. 
This bill S. 21 takes power from citizens to own property and rights to 
which their Government had promised them. This bill by producing the 
National Park Service as the administrative agency will take rights of 
usage that the Senators believe they have assured but will not be there 
when the administration is in place and fully operational.
  Recently, the Secretary of the Interior was forced by the courts to 
obey the law. What a terrible statement that is on the arrogance of 
power that has become Washington--forced by the courts to obey the law. 
He had to issue patents on a Nevada gold mine. He had the nerve to 
characterize this as a steal and giveaway of land and minerals.
  He had the nerve to characterize obeying the law as a giveaway of 
land and minerals. And it made good press for the uninformed, and the 
press is uninformed and it used it as good press.
  But the Secretary failed to state that the Barrick Goldstrike Mines 
in Nevada have developed over 1,700 jobs that did not exist before. 
They were not there. The Federal Government did not provide those jobs. 
Those jobs would not have existed had it not been for the steal that he 
was required by law to accomplish. It means millions of dollars in tax 
revenues to the counties and States and, yes, even the Federal 
Government. But it is a steal because he was forced to obey the law.
  The Secretary failed to mention $1 billion, Mr. President, that that 
company spent on developing the technologies to extract that mineral. 
The Federal Government would not have spent $1 billion. Can you 
imagine? We cannot even buy the land that is going into inholdings 
under S. 21 or any other lands. Can you imagine us spending $1 billion 
to develop an unknown technology on a gold mine? Who would appropriate 
it? The Senator from California sits on the Appropriations Committee; 
never would she do that. And should she do it, she would be criticized 
by the press. Nobody would know there was an outside edge.
  So Government could not have done any of this that Secretary Babbitt 
calls a steal--could not have done it, would not have done it. The jobs 
would not have existed. The $1 billion that was spent and provided 
other jobs in upstream technology--science and technology and other 
kinds of things--would never have been spent, but it is a steal. The 
taxes that the Federal Government now receives in income taxes from 
those 1,700 high-paying jobs, and the counties and cities of Nevada, 
never would have existed. But that is a steal, according to the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  He also forgot to mention that the land he was conveying was worth 
nothing. They could not sell it. It was the private sector, by settling 
it, that gave the Nation wealth and gave the Nation revenue. Washington 
does not know how to mine a damn thing, Mr. President; never will know 
how to mine minerals. And Congress will not ever pay $1 billion. And 
you know it and I know it and America knows it.
  What was created from these lands was wealth and jobs for Americans. 
And it was realized by the private sector's willingness to commit 
capital and technology to a plan that it had no way of knowing was 
going to be successful.
  And now I refer you back to the acreage that is withdrawn forever 
from access to this kind of creativity and wealth and jobs and future 
for America.
  The battle in the war on the West, if won by this administration, 
will only serve to send the private mining sector to foreign 
countries--the jobs Americans might have had--to Colombia, to Uruguay, 
to the Pacific rim, to Russia. And the wealth that was derived from it 
will also be in Uruguay and Colombia and Chile, and the Pacific rim. 
Those riches will not belong to Americans, nor will the environment 
have been taken care of in anything like the detail and care that would 
be taken care of were it possible in this country. But here we are 
taking 7 million acres forever out of America's riches or ability to do 
it.
  So, Mr. President, this is an example of the arrogance of which I 
speak. During the grazing debate, for example, we were told by the then 
Director of the Bureau of Land Management: It does not matter if 
Congress acts. If they do, well and good; if they do not, we will do it 
administratively.
  Democracy is an inconvenience for this Secretary of the Interior. And 
democracy, I suggest, is an inconvenience for those who live on this 
land whose lives, livelihood, and flexibility will be greatly 
constrained by it.
  Mr. President, this arrogance continues unabated. More recently, the 
Secretary seriously missed the point when he claimed that a Federal 
judge's recent decision to take the gnatcatcher off the endangered 
species list--again in the Senator's State--was a procedural error. 
This man does not wish to follow the law. This man mocks the law. And 
when he is called to account, he calls it a steal or a procedural 
error.
  Any observer can see that Judge Stanley Sporkin's detailed analysis 
of that case of administrative arrogance on the part of the Secretary 
and the administration is a road map to the serious shortcomings of 
environmental actions under the Endangered Species Act and under other 
pieces of management legislation. It highlights abuses that Emperor 
Babbitt has tolerated in his eagerness to show that he can make the 
Endangered Species Act work and his reluctance to follow the law of the 
land in other areas.
  How different from the man of 1980 when he was a Governor and one of 
us, a citizen of the West, not its new ruling master. How sad that this 
man does not view his job as Secretary of the Interior, but as the 
water master, the land master of the West and still the advocate of the 
League of Conservation Voters.
  Mr. President, this bill is a travesty.
  I do not quarrel with the interests of the two California Senators in 
protecting that land. I make the case to the Senate that the land is 
protected. And to put this further protection on it, Mr. President, I 
am saying that the rights of Americans are being simply ignored; that 
jobs will be lost in California, revenues will be lost to America; 
obligations to the taxpayers of the United States that we have no means 
of or intention of shouldering will be laid in place, 500,000 new 
acres, billions of dollars of new obligations. And nowhere, nowhere, 
nowhere has there been even the most remote attempt to identify where 
these revenues would come from. To do what?
  It will not be to save it--it is saved; not to manage it better--it 
is going to be managed worse. The Park Service does not know how to do 
multiple use management. It will not be to protect it forever--because 
it has been protected and it can be protected. It is not going to go 
overseas. It is not going to go to Japan or Hong Kong.
  This is being done for political purposes. It is not for the land. 
The land is well taken care of. But the problem is that the taxpayer of 
America will be the one whose obligation it is to pick up the bill for 
this exercise. And rights in the Constitution of America will be 
flouted under this exercise. And the people of America whose lives and 
property will be affected will be the ones who bear the brunt of this 
exercise. But not for a new and protected piece of property; quite the 
contrary. The property will be the same property and the protection 
will be less. Just the new obligations to the taxpayer and new 
constraints on the citizens of California who reside in that area.
  I say again, California does not now have the land to trade for what 
it is taking in this. It does not exist in that State. And we do not 
have the money. We have already been through that. Even the Senator 
from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, and on the 
Appropriations Committee, has said the same thing.
  There can be only one conclusion out of that and that is citizens' 
property is going to be taken to satisfy a need that does not exist. I 
hope that Senators join me in voting against cloture on this 
legislation and putting the priorities of this Congress where they 
belong.
  It is one thing to say we will do it next year. But it is a statement 
that has been made annually for at least the 16 years upon which I have 
sat on that committee.
  It is one thing to say that we will just add this one and we 
understand there is a problem--but we will add to the problem. You do 
not begin to solve a problem by constantly adding to it and never 
addressing it, and that is what this exercise is all about.
  It is not about people's elections. It is nothing new to the Senator 
from Wyoming. It is my deep concern that this Congress, this Senate, 
those two Senators from California are degrading a park system beyond 
the point at which we can go back and rescue it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to respond to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming and I accept his remarks at face value. I think 
our citizens should really feel fortunate to have an advocate for our 
parks like the Senator from Wyoming.
  As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity not very long ago to fly 
over Wyoming. And what I saw was a magnificent State where about a half 
a million people can live in the outdoors with freedom, with beauty, 
with mountains, with grass, with pasture--an incredible State. And I go 
home to my State, also a beautiful State, but instead of a half a 
million people, there are almost 32 million people.
  I was thinking, as I was listening to the Senator from Wyoming, about 
just the city, San Francisco, which has about 750,000 people in it. I 
grew up in a park there called Golden Gate Park, one of our great 
municipal parks. When I was young there were very few people in the 
park. It was something you looked at and that was all. Today, they have 
to close the drives, there are so many people.
  I will never forget walking in that park one day and I saw a small 
youngster bending over a daffodil. And the child was in wonder. I asked 
the mother, and the mother said, ``My son has never seen a daffodil, 
and that is why we come to the park.''
  Well, our national parks are truly the jewels in the crown of 
America. It is difficult because there are many great national parks--
the Senator from Wyoming has at least two of them in his State, the 
Grand Tetons and Yellowstone--magnificent parks.
  In this situation it is a different situation than Yosemite or 
Yellowstone or any other park. It is a desert unlike any desert--not 
like the Sahara, where winds blow and there are huge dunes. This is a 
desert where there are precious resources: extinct volcanoes, cinder 
cones, Indian hieroglyphics on the walls, and 90 mountain ranges. It is 
also a desert which has been scarred by mining operations that have 
left open pits and sheds and broken-down equipment just there. It is 
also a desert where tens of thousands of people come.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is really not in order. I think 
the Senator from California, who has worked so long on this, deserves 
to have the Senate in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is also a desert where literally 
tens of thousands of people come with off-road vehicles and motorbikes 
and ride across the dunes. I have flown over every part of it at low 
altitude and the soil does not replace itself. The scaring is enormous.
  I have seen petroglyphs where people come and chip out of canyon 
walls with Indian hieroglyphics to take them home and put them on their 
coffee table. I have seen the carcasses of desert tortoises, just 
unnecessarily shot. I have seen the herds of wild burros as they move 
through the desert, and bighorn sheep. It is an unusual place. And the 
largest number of people who view it today are wildlife viewers and 
those who want to see an incredible sunset and incredible carpet of 
flowers of all colors that bloom in the spring.
  I have tried very hard with this bill to make it a bipartisan bill. I 
knew it had been gridlocked in the Senate long before I got here. I 
knew that my predecessors, as Senators, had problems with it, so I 
tried to find out what those problems were. And in many respects I went 
to the other side of the aisle to find out what people's concerns were 
about the bill, because I had a deep feeling that the resources 
somehow, some way, had to be protected and yet the private property 
owners, who are sparse, who are very rural, also have to be protected. 
This is not the traditional national park.
  In the course of making amendments, 19 of the amendments in this bill 
have been offered by Republican Senators and Congressmen and 
incorporated in the bill. From the Argus Range; Bright Star; Piper 
Mountain; law enforcement; wildlife management; water, the Wallop 
amendment, the Death Valley Advisory Commission, the Joshua Tree 
Advisory Commission, hunting, the Mojave Advisory Commission, a general 
management plan, no adverse effect on private property; Volco mining 
claims, the Quillen amendment, the Death Valley Wilderness, the Craig 
amendment, access to private property, the Wallop amendment, State 
exchanges, military overflights, limitations on appropriations, and so 
on.
  And I have worked with Democratic Members to see what it was they 
needed in the bill. About 60 amendments were made to the original 
legislation.
  Every active mine is protected in this legislation. All law 
enforcement needs are protected in this legislation. We worked with the 
Armed Services Committee to see to it that all military rights, 
obligations, and needs are protected in this bill. And we drafted 
language to protect private property: No taking of private property.
  Recently, I went back to Secretary Babbitt, because I was talking 
with some of the private property owners and they said to me: Well, we 
are concerned. We have a house. We are concerned that the Secretary, 
who would control rights of way for electrical power and water and 
utilities, might not allow us to string the necessary lines to develop 
our property.
  And so I went to the Secretary and got a letter from him dated 
September 30, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                   Washington, September 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your call concerning 
     rights-of-way for utility lines to private lands in the 
     proposed Mojave unit of the National Park System.
       We appreciate that private land owners in the East Mojave 
     National Scenic Area may be apprehensive that the proposed 
     transfer of federal lands to National Park Service (NPS) 
     jurisdiction may limit their ability to obtain rights-of-way 
     for utilities to their property. I want to assure you that if 
     S. 21 is enacted, the Secretary still possesses the authority 
     to grant rights-of-way across NPS administered lands to serve 
     the utility needs of these property owners.
       Currently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the 
     discretion, under title 5 of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act, to grant rights of way for utility lines 
     after considering congressionally prescribed standards. Like 
     the BLM, the National Park Service has similar authorities, 
     regulations and procedures for granting rights-of-way for 
     utilities across federal lands. The issuance of rights-of-way 
     over lands administered by the Park Service is governed by 
     statutory authorities in 16 USC 5 (electrical power 
     transmission and distribution, radio and TV, and other forms 
     of communications facilities) and 16 USC 79 (certain other 
     public utilities and water conduits),
       Under 16 USC 5 and 79, the National Park Service regularly 
     issues rights-of-way for utilities, such as electricity, 
     water and telephone, necessary to serve the needs of private 
     property owners. Issuance of a right-of-way under 16 USC 5 or 
     79 is discretionary and contingent upon a finding by the Park 
     Service that the installation of such utility is compatible 
     with the public interest.
       I want to assure you that the Department understands the 
     concerns of private land owners in the Mojave. Upon enactment 
     of S. 21, the Department and the National Park Service will 
     work closely with affected land owners to accommodate their 
     utility rights-of-way needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this letter says:

       Thank you for your call concerning rights of way for 
     utility lines to private lands in the proposed Mojave unit of 
     the National Park System.

  And it goes on to say that the park system will work with all private 
property owners to see to it that they are adequately served.
  Mr. President, grazing is protected. It was not in the Cranston bill. 
I went out and visited with ranchers. I was on their ranches. I 
traveled around. I looked. One of these families drives their youngster 
to school 100 miles every day to the nearest school. It is fifty miles 
to the nearest store. This is the Blair family. Yet, they have an 
active grazing operation that they inherited from their parents, and 
their parents inherited from their parents. It was part of the Old West 
and it should continue. We provide for that right, as well.
  We allow activities to maintain or restore fish and wildlife 
populations and their habitats, including the use of motorized 
vehicles. Senator Murkowski indicated to me today that that was one of 
his concerns. We took that into consideration, and that is in this 
bill.
  This bill was debated in April. We debated the concerns of the 
Senator from Wyoming about the National Park Service. In April, we 
pointed out and I introduced into the Record a letter from Secretary 
Babbitt on the financing of the park which points out that the lands 
were already targeted for acquisition in BLM plans; the land 
acquisition envisioned in this bill is less--is less--than that 
originally planned by the BLM. Thus, these acquisition costs are not 
new and the potential cost to the Federal Treasury will actually be 
less. They are discretionary to the extent that they can be spread over 
a long period of time.
  The comment was made that there is a streamlining within the National 
Park Service, and 3,700 National Park Service personnel will be removed 
from parks and, therefore, to add a new park is wrong because it will 
stretch resources even thinner than thin.
  I called Secretary Babbitt about this and put it in the Record in 
April. What he told me was all of these 3,700 people--Senator Boxer 
will be interested in this--are not coming from the parks. They are 
coming from the Washington office and they are going into the parks. So 
the streamlining that is being done will actually result in more park 
rangers and park personnel where they should be: In the national parks 
of this great country and not in the office buildings of Washington, 
DC.
  I believe, and the Secretary has confirmed, that this present 1995 
budget, if this bill is passed, has adequate resources in it to begin 
this park. As a matter of fact, in comparing it with the Presidio, the 
costs of operating this are less than one-fifth of what this body is 
willing to appropriate for the Presidio. It is not a high-cost national 
park. No taking of private property is required. No land acquisition is 
mandated.
  It is a huge area which will simply change dimensions away from one 
where you can put mines anywhere, leave them to spoil the land, and 
chip out hieroglyphs. Do you know the last remaining dinosaur tracks in 
California have to be hidden because they are afraid that people are 
going to desecrate them? This bill protects those dinosaur tracks so 
that our children can come and look at where there was actually a 
dinosaur trackway, right through a certain area of this park.
  The big issue of contention--the big issue of contention--was the 
East Mojave. As the bill left this Senate with 69 votes, the East 
Mojave was scheduled to be a national park. It went over to the House 
and the House saw differently, and the East Mojave became a preserve.
  We have accepted the House language on the preserve. This was the 
major point of difference--the major point of difference--and we have 
accepted the language. The language in the conference bill provides a 
preserve in the East Mojave.
  This was what, when I negotiated with the Republican Congressman from 
the district, he wanted and he won it in the House of Representatives, 
and the bill passed the House of Representatives handily.
  When it came back, it survived a cloture motion in this body with 73 
votes. I am very proud to say that there are a number of Republican 
Senators supporting this act. I am grateful to them. We have tried to 
work with them. I have tried to respect their needs. Senator Hatfield 
in particular had certain concerns. We took care of those concerns. 
They are still in this bill, as he desired.
  So I have tried to be true as the author of the bill to the needs of 
both sides of the aisle in crafting a bill. That is one of the reasons 
I find it so difficult to understand. If it is not politics, if it is 
not the fact that I am in a close election, what is it? Because we had 
69 votes going out and we can have that many at this point in time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on that point for a couple of 
questions?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not want to interrupt the Senator because she is so 
eloquent on this. But I feel, sitting here listening to you, having 
listened to the Senator from Wyoming, I would just like to get some 
questions on the Record and answered.
  Is the Senator aware that the San Diego Tribune says:

       The bill achieves a balance between environmental and 
     economic concerns.

  That is a recent editorial on the bill in San Diego. Has the Senator 
seen that editorial?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I have, and I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. And has the Senator seen the San Diego Sun? These are 
newspapers that I would call conservative newspapers. They say about 
the bill: ``It aims to protect jobs.'' Has the Senator seen that 
particular comment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, and I believe it protects every active job in 
the area, and I believe it will generate between 1,000 and 2,000 
additional private-sector jobs, based on Park Service estimates.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator that I could not agree with her 
more. We know that this is going to become another jewel, and we know 
people are going to travel there, and that will create jobs.
  I compliment my friend for her tenacity and her courage. I feel that 
if democracy is going to work, we are going to have a bill.
  Let me ask a couple of questions.
  How many years has it taken to bring this desert bill to this point?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Seven years.
  Mrs. BOXER. Has it ever gotten this far before?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No; it has not.
  Mrs. BOXER. And, again, what was the vote the last time this bill 
passed the U.S. Senate?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Sixty-nine to twenty-nine.
  Mrs. BOXER. Sixty-nine votes in favor of the desert bill in this very 
body. I would say--the last question--I know that the Senator and I are 
very concerned about working here for the will of the people of 
California. In the last poll that was taken on this, what was the 
result of that poll? What percentage of the people of California 
supported this desert bill?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There was a California poll, which is an independent 
poll, conducted by Mervin Field, which said that 75 percent of the 
people in the area supported it and over 70 percent of the people up 
and down the State supported the bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the senior Senator from California. I am very, 
very proud to be one of her helpers on this legislation, and I really 
appreciate her answers to these questions because I think these 
answers, the way that she answered the questions, would say to every 
Senator, please stick with us on this bill and on this vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much. She has been quite a 
helper and I am grateful for it. I thank the Senator.
  While the Senator is on that point, I would also like to comment that 
this bill is supported by the southern California Association of 
Governments, which includes Los Angeles County, Riverside County, 
Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. It is supported 
by resolutions passed by 16 California boards of supervisors 
representing 16 counties, 36 city councils representing 36 cities, 
including the 8 largest cities in California; and 15 California 
newspapers have endorsed the bill, 118 conservation groups have 
endorsed the bill.
  There are 47 cosponsors of the desert bill. When we came into this, 
we had 22. It built up in the course of the past 15 months to 47. I 
might say that the House version passed by a vote of 298 to 128. This 
is a balanced bill. It has Republican concerns as well as Democratic 
concerns met. I believe, given all of the accommodations that have been 
made and the breadth and depth of the support for the bill, Senators 
might ask the question: Why are we debating the bill again today?
  I was somewhat chagrined to read this morning an editorial in the Los 
Angeles Times which began:

       Beset by raw, mean-spirited politics, the proposed 
     California Desert Protection Act stands at the precipice. Its 
     fate now rests in the hands of Senator George Mitchell of 
     Maine.

  It goes on to say:

       The only way it can be law is for him to hold the Senate in 
     session over the weekend to allow for a final cloture vote 
     and passage.

  Indeed, I am grateful to the leader for doing that. It goes on to 
say:

       A few Republicans, motivated solely by the determination to 
     undermine Senator Dianne Feinstein's bid for reelection, have 
     resorted to every possible stalling tactic. By thwarting the 
     clear bipartisan will of both Houses of Congress and the 
     people of California, they hope to deny the California 
     Democrat a key legislative victory to use in her race against 
     Representative Mike Huffington.

  That is a direct quote. I ask unanimous consent that the entire 
editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 7, 1994]

                      Chance for a Noble Farewell


     The retiring Mitchell can save desert bill by delaying Senate 
                              adjournment

       Beset by raw, mean-spirited politics, the proposed 
     California Desert Protection Act stands at the precipice. Its 
     fate now rests in the hands of Sen. George J. Mitchell of 
     Maine, the Democratic majority leader. The only way it can 
     become law is for him to hold the Senate in session over this 
     weekend to allow for a final cloture vote and passage.
       A few Republicans, motivated solely by the determination to 
     undermine Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bid for reelection, have 
     resorted to every possible stalling tactic. By thwarting the 
     clear bipartisan will of both Houses of Congress and the 
     people of California they hope to deny the California 
     Democrat a key legislative victory to tout in her race 
     against Rep. Mike Huffington. The House Rules Committee 
     Thursday sent the final conference report on the bill to the 
     House floor, and final passage there is assured.
       However, a handful of Republicans in the Senate have 
     filibustered the bill at every juncture. On the last vote, 
     they lost 73 to 20, with 15 Republicans joining the majority. 
     Only one more cloture vote remains. But Senate rules require 
     a 24-hour notice before such a vote, meaning that the final 
     ballot cannot come before Saturday or Sunday, depending on 
     when the House votes.
       The Senate is scheduled to adjourn today, Mitchell has the 
     opportunity to perform one last, noble act before retiring 
     from the Senate. He can keep that body in session for another 
     day or two to salvage the eight years of work that have gone 
     into preserving California's rich desert heritage.
       The searing desert is far from the rocky down east coast of 
     Maine, but it is important to all of the nation. We implore 
     Mitchell to do what is right in his final days, by helping 
     defeat the crude partisanship that has gridlocked Congress 
     this year.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have done everything one is supposed 
to do when one seeks legislation. There is a broad consensus of support 
for it by the people. It is supported by the administration. It is 
supported by both bodies of this Congress by a substantial majority. It 
is thoughtful. It is well crafted. It takes no one's private property. 
And I believe the Secretary of the Interior will sustain my concerns 
that the Interior Department worked with the private property owners to 
show that this is a bill that is not going to stultify. It is going to 
beautify and enrich and enable people to really utilize the desert. It 
will produce jobs. There will be more visitors. They will need 
overnight accommodations. They will need restaurants. They will need a 
place to stay because the area is large. And that development is all 
permitted within the confines of this bill.
  Mr. President, this is the most important environmental and 
wilderness bill since the passage of the Alaska Lands Act. It is a bill 
that has a majority of support. I earnestly beseech the Members of this 
Senate to let it come into law. I won my victory. I got it through the 
Senate before. This bill now is a victory for the people of the State 
of California, 70 percent of whom, by independent poll, want this bill. 
They want this resource protected.
  In a sense, it goes back to that small child I saw in Golden Gate 
Park while I was mayor who had no garden at home, had no ability to 
know what the outdoors looked like but could come to a public park and 
smell a flower. To those who will have no idea of the vast hidden 
treasures of the California desert, this will open that experience to 
them. It will be an ennobling experience, an enriching experience, and 
I believe that every Member of these two bodies and every resident and 
worker within the desert community will be proud of the dream that can 
be built upon it and the lives that can be enriched.
  I implore this body, let this bill come into law. Do not let a few 
people with their own agenda stop the overwhelming will of the people, 
of the National Government and of the State of California.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WALLOP. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry, or 
point of order?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I make a point of order that there is a 
person on the floor not authorized to be here, not among the listed 
people authorized to be in the Chamber of the Senate.
  I make a point of order that the Secretary of the Interior is not 
entitled to be in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would instruct the Sergeant at Arms 
to follow out the Senator's point.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
California Desert Protection Act. When we finally pass this bill, we 
will protect the California desert and prove once and for all that 
strong environmental policy makes good economic sense.
  The Senate first passed this bill by an overwhelming majority last 
April. the House likewise passed very similar legislation in August. So 
why is the Senate only dealing with the conference of this important 
bill on the last scheduled day of the 103d Congress?
  It is not because this bill is unpopular. Over three-quarters of the 
people of California support this legislation.
  It is not because this bill will hurt California's economy. When 
passed, the California Desert Protection Act will bring in an estimated 
$200 million in new revenue to the Desert, and create up to 2,000 new 
jobs.
  Its not because this bill is bad for California's environment. The 
California Desert Protection Act will protect a unique and magnificent 
desert landscape for my grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren.
  And it is not because this bill lacks bipartisan support. When we 
voted in April 16 of my Republican colleagues joined 53 Democrats to 
pass this legislation by a vote of 69 to 29.
  Mr. President, we are here on what was planned to be the last day of 
the session because there is a small minority of those who simply 
believe that new national parks have no value. Well, I am here to say 
that they do have value and that the arguments of delay; that the 
Desert Protection Act will harm California's economy; that we can't 
afford this bill, and that it will lock up the desert for the people of 
California and the Nation, are absolutely false.

  They argue that this bill will cost California jobs. On the contrary, 
this bill will create jobs and help shatter a myth--the myth that says 
you can't have a healthy environment and a strong economy. This bill 
will protect current mining claims and allow all existing mining 
operations to continue. And as I said earlier, creating two new 
national parks and a new national preserve will help increase tourism, 
create roughly 2,000 new jobs and generate up to $200 million in 
revenue.
  They argue that this bill will stretch the resources of the National 
Parks system to the breaking point. Nothing could be farther from the 
truth. The Joshua Tree and the Death Valley National Monuments, which 
will be elevated to national park status under the bill, are already 
managed by the National Parks Service. Likewise, the Mojave National 
Scenic Area, which will become a National Parks Service Preserve, is 
already federally managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
  The CBO estimates that initial start up costs for this bill will run 
about $6-$9 million in each of the first 5 years of this bill. After 
that initial 5-year period, CBO estimates that increased Parks Service 
management costs under this bill at only $2.5 million per year. Since 
the lands encompassed by this bill are already under Federal 
management, much of these costs must already be met.
  Finally, they argue that the California Desert Act will lock up the 
desert and that people will no longer have access. They say that this 
legislation will hurt the recreational vehicle users. This is untrue. 
Almost 500,000 acres of public land--an area ten times the size of 
Washington, DC--will remain open for trail bikes, for all-terrain 
vehicles and for other types of off-road vehicles. Likewise, as I noted 
above, existing mining claims and allow all existing mining operations 
to continue.
  Mr. President, this legislation strikes the critical balance between 
protecting our fragile desert ecosystems, creating economic growth and 
preserving the legitimate uses of our public and private lands. Listen 
to the San Diego Union Tribune. They say that this bill achieves a 
``balance between environmental and economic concerns.'' The San 
Bernardino Sun agreed, explaining that the bill not only protects 
natural habitat, but ``also aims to protect jobs.''
  After 8 years of hard work--first by Senator Alan Cranston and now by 
my talented and hardworking colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein--we 
finally have an opportunity to pass meaningful desert protection. When 
we pass the Desert Protection Act, we will give a healthy shot of 
adrenalin to the California economy and preserve our desert for 
generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________