[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Wyoming, Malcolm Wallop, and many others in this body, in 
opposition to this bill.
  I share my colleagues' strong concerns about the many problems this 
legislation will create for private property owners, those who enjoy 
recreation on these lands, and those who derive their livelihoods from 
these lands.
  I would also remind my colleagues that this issue is not a new one to 
the Congress. Our former colleague, Senator Alan Cranston, had 
introduced legislation on this issue in both the 101st and 102d 
Congress.
  Throughout those years, he modified his legislation many times. I am 
informed that many of the changes he adopted to ease the concerns of 
others are not incorporated in this legislation. That is, indeed, 
unfortunate.
  It is my view, Mr. President, that the cost of this legislation will 
most adversely affect many people who will likely never see or drive by 
this proposed wilderness system.
  Mr. President, the costs of land acquisition alone for this proposal 
will ``break the bank'' for the rest of the country. I will provide 
just three examples. There are many more that can, and likely will, be 
discussed on the floor during the remaining hours of this Congress.
  I would urge my colleagues to keep a question in mind as we discuss 
the costs of this legislation: ``What will be the source for these 
funds? Will they come from general revenue, or will they come from some 
other source, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund?''
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is funded from taxes assessed 
from offshore oil and gas production. Perhaps some of my colleagues 
would like to keep that thought in mind before they cast their votes.
  The money must come from somewhere. But in any case, it will 
ultimately come from our taxpaying constituents.
  One portion of the proposed California Desert Wilderness System would 
be the East Mojave National Scenic Area: known as EMNSA.
  The EMNSA would comprise 1.5 million acres; 200,000 acres of that is 
now in State or private ownership. Those lands will have to be 
purchased.
  Even if the powers of condemnation are used, which could prove to be 
necessary, the Constitution requires payment of ``just compensation.''
  Even using very conservative estimates, that compensation will be a 
great deal of money. For example, up to 36,090 acres of private land 
would be acquired to create up to 20 new wilderness areas. That will be 
in addition to taking 818,978 acres of Federal land and 39,424 acres of 
State land out of multiple use.
  Just 3 years ago, the Bureau of Land Management estimated the cost of 
acquiring the private lands in this single proposed wilderness area.
  The private lands in this area range from homesites, to presently 
producing gold mines. Since 1988, the BLM has been managing these lands 
and has been negotiating for exchanges and acquisitions. They have not 
been very successful.
  It is clear that the price of these lands will be higher than 
anticipated if full acquisition is to take place without using the 
power of condemnation.
  The most recent estimate available, based on the 1991 report of the 
BLM, is that the costs of acquiring the 144,000 acres of private land 
within the proposed East Mojave Park could range from $36 to $57.6 
million. If Congress requires these ``inholdings'' to be acquired, most 
of the private land will have to be acquired by direct purchase.
  The same problem exists for State land acquisitions. Purchase of 
those lands could add another $13.75 to $22 million in land acquisition 
for the State lands.
  We are already approaching a potential cost--conservatively--of up to 
$79.6 million for a single portion of the vast undertaking which is the 
``California Desert Protection Act.''
  Land costs, as given in the BLM report, do not include the 
administrative costs associated with acquisition and exchanges. Both 
the National Park Service and the BLM would bear additional 
administrative costs in the millions of dollars to perform such duties 
as: Surveys, appraisals, adjudication, mineral reports, and appraisals, 
hazardous materials clearances, cultural clearances, and endangered 
species clearances.
  In a 1986 National Park Service analysis of the proposed park units, 
the Park Service cites full, fee-simple, title acquisition as the 
principal land protection method. The report concluded that this was 
the only method of preventing ``incompatible'' economic uses and 
development.
  ``Incompatible uses'' is another way of saying ``multiple use.'' Make 
no mistake about it, this legislation would ``lock up'' land which has 
been used for a variety of legitimate and nonharmful purposes ever 
since this portion of our country was settled.
  The entire East Mojave Park--which is already protected as the ``East 
Mojave National Scenic Area''--would be withdrawn from entry under this 
legislation. Many of the lands in this area are already strongly 
protected under various classifications.
  When Congress protected the East Mojave region, by designating it as 
a national scenic area in 1988, most of that area was designated as 
multiple use lands. Some areas, referred to as ``class L'' were 
afforded greater protections. Those protections are in effect today and 
work very well to preserve sensitive natural, scenic, ecological and 
cultural resources. The remaining multiple use lands provide for lower 
intensity, and carefully controlled, multiple use activities such as 
recreation.
  The land management plan for this area already works well to protect 
the resources of this region.
  There are currently 41,125 acres withdrawn from mineral development. 
There are 3,065 areas designated as Public Water Reserves. That 
designation places strict controls on agricultural use--indeed, it 
prohibits agricultural and mining development.
  The East Mojave is currently protected by a special designation 
within the California Desert Conservation Area which has its own 
management plan and protection measures.
  It is not necessary or efficient to add additional ``layers'' of 
management by making this all a national park.
  The BLM has several other special designation areas in this region, 
including areas of critical environmental concern, research areas, and 
national natural landmarks. These areas are already ``locked up'' from 
any human impacts.
  There are many other thorny problems that must be addressed if this 
legislation is enacted.
  And, I would again point out to my colleagues that I am speaking with 
reference to a single portion of the proposed park: The East Mojave. It 
is a fraction of the total scope of this legislation. There is much, 
much more.
  There are presently four waste dumps in the proposed East Mojave 
portion of the park. One of these is managed by the county as a solid 
waste disposal facility. The remainder are on private lands near three 
towns. These sites could already contain hazardous waste.
  The Federal Government will have to pick up the tab to clean these 
sites. While some might argue that the Government could leave them 
alone and do nothing, I would ask, then, what purpose is being served 
by making a trash dump a national park?
  Certainly, these sites will need to be cleaned sometime in the future 
if this legislation is enacted into law. Undoubtedly that will be at 
great cost.
  Mr. President, there is much more I could say with respect to the 
proposed East Mojave Park portion of the proposed legislation. However, 
there is another proposed addition I wish to speak about, and I know 
that there are others who wish to speak.
  So I will conclude my discussion of the East Mojave with this 
observation: The valuable resources, scenic and ecological, which exist 
in this area are already protected. The public may enjoy these lands 
under current designation with no fear of any future development. This 
legislation is not necessary to protect any resources and will be 
nothing more than a very expensive Federal land grab for the areas that 
remain in private or State ownership.
  I would now call my colleagues' attention to another portion of this 
legislation: Proposed additions to the Death Valley National Monument.
  Mr. President, designation as a ``national monument'' is not 
something to be taken lightly. Strong restrictions on human activity 
accompany such designation. Our Nation's first national monument was 
Devils' Tower, in northeastern Wyoming.
  I have some degree of knowledge about how such resources are managed 
and I can assure my colleagues that this is one of the single most 
restrictive land use designations that the Government can impose. 
Virtually every imaginable human activity is strictly controlled, 
regulated, and in most cases, prohibited. A ``national monument'' is, 
indeed, protected.
  This legislation would add four separate parcels to the already 
existing Death Valley National Monument. It would then be designated as 
the Death Valley National Park. That ``redesignation,'' in my view, 
actually removes some protection under current law.
  I do not believe that any of these lands are appropriate for park 
designation.
  The first parcel that would be designated as a national park is the 
``Saline parcel.'' This parcel is approximately 910,000 acres. There 
are significant issues that are yet to be resolved and the sheer size 
of this parcel raises many tough administrative problems.
  Among the many significant issues raised by the proposal to declare 
these lands as a national park are the following:
  Economic impacts on mining and ranching operations.
  Administrative costs to the Government associated with boundary 
locations, surveys, and inholding acquisition costs.
  The difficulty of determining park and wilderness boundaries.
  One wilderness, the Inyo, would be managed by three different 
agencies of the Government: The Park Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
  $1.7 million would be spent for survey work alone.
  There are air traffic conflicts for military overflights.
  The change in management status will have severe impacts on local 
economies and rural lifestyles.
  Disposition of 1,121 mining claims involving hundreds of valid 
existing rights will be a very expensive undertaking--all paid for by 
the taxpayer.
  62 active mining plans of operation would have to be terminated.
  Two grazing allotments would be taken and 29 range projects would 
have to be eliminated.
  Elimination of the last major herds of wild horses and burrows that 
are solely on public lands could be required.
  Park designation would eliminate hunting, and would severely restrict 
bighorn sheep and other wildlife management projects.
  Park designation would place severe restrictions on future utility 
development for California cities: Powerline and pipeline approvals 
would be most difficult to obtain.
  Recreational uses would be restricted or eliminated. Activities such 
as ``rochhounding,'' car camping, hunting, and access to the elderly 
and disabled would be severely curtailed.
  This area is very popular with the general public, Mr. President, and 
the public enjoys a variety of benign uses. Expanding this into a 
giant, monolithic, national park would eliminate many of those 
activities. I do not see how the general public or the resource will be 
best served by this legislation.
  The second parcel that would be included is the 207,000 acre 
``Owlshead'' parcel. Analysis of the wisdom of designating these 
holdings as a national park have raised the same issues I have just 
listed.
  In addition to those problems, inclusion of this land as a national 
park would raise troubling law enforcement problems. The BLM agents who 
currently have jurisdiction are physically located an hour closer than 
any National Park Service personnel would be.
  Nearly 3,000 acres of private land would become inholdings--many of 
these lands are held under existing mineral patents.
  Another 9,300 acres of State land would have to be acquired, either 
through purchase or exchange.
  Existing access routes would be curtailed or eliminated. This area is 
a popular area for recreation with the public. That would be eliminate 
or severely curtailed.
  The third parcel proposed for acquisition, ``Saddle Peak'', also 
raised all of the above issues and concerns. This area contains 3,000 
acres and is also heavily used for recreation purposes. Those 
activities would end or be severely restricted.
  The fourth proposed parcel to be designated in this portion of the 
proposed California Desert National Park is the Greenwater parcel. This 
includes 258,000 acres of land. Designation of this parcel as national 
park raises all of the above concerns and even more, Mr. President. 
Including this land as national park would also require moving an 
entire town.
  The town of Ryan is a mining town. People live and work and workship 
there. This legislation tells those good people that they simply do not 
matter. It tells them that their lives and contributions are 
insignificant when compared to the perceived ``need'' for still another 
national park.
  This legislation is not just about a park in a single state, Mr. 
President. This legislation is about people.
  Southern California is one of the most densely populated ares of our 
county. The people who live there need open spaces to which they can go 
to relax and, yes, to ``recreate.'' We do them no service by placing 
even more restrictions on use of those public lands than already exist.
  But this legislation impacts more than the good people of California. 
During the continuing debate over Federal land management policy in the 
West, in particular the rangeland reform proposals, we have heard much 
about how the ``public lands'' belong to more than just the residents 
of a particular State.
  That same philosophy should apply to this debate as well, Mr. 
President.
  Designation of national park lands on the scale contemplated in this 
legislation will certainly impact all of our constituents.
  Our constituents may wish to travel to this area. They may wish to 
stop and enjoy themselves and to share the recreational experiences 
that currently exist for those who reside there. Sadly, Mr. President, 
this legislation will make the California desert as nothing more than a 
``scenic byway.'' The public may drive through only.
  The public may be permitted to stop long enough to take a photograph, 
but then must leave. The public may stay only in designated campsites 
or a few designated lodging facilities.
  There must be areas of our public lands that are truly open. That is 
why a Federal policy of differing levels of protection exists.
  National park designation does not ``open'' lands, it closes them. If 
any one of my colleagues doubts that, I would suggest a brief trip to 
the nearest national park.
  Upon entering, you will likely be given reading material telling you 
briefly what you may ``see,'' but then telling you the many things you 
may not ``do'': Most parks that I am familiar with a long list of 
restrictions on public activity.
  That is not ``public'' land. That is not ``recreation'' and that is 
not ``ecosystem management.'' That is only about building barriers to 
human access and charging visitation fees.
  There are many ``costs'' associated with this legislation. I do not 
believe we have seriously considered all of those costs in this debate.
  There are the monetary costs. I mentioned those briefly regarding 
only a single portion of this tremendously broad proposal.
  Those costs will be very high indeed and we have still not been 
provided with a true and accurate estimate for the total Federal 
expenditures that will result from this legislation.
  But there are also a great many costs that cannot be quantified in 
dollars. There are costs to the people who will lose their lifestyles. 
There are the costs to the people who use these lands for recreation 
and relaxation and who will lose that treasured freedom--where will 
they go next? They will go somewhere, and the added pressure resulting 
from that ``recreation migration'' will have its own unique costs on 
other economies and lifestyles in other areas.
  So there are also the costs imposed by this legislation in terms of 
freedoms lost. People will lose the freedom of movement that they 
currently enjoy and that will, Mr. President, result in a social cost 
that no one can adequately describe or quantify.
  In closing, Mr. President, the more we consider this sweeping 
legislation, the more we come to realize that there are a great many 
problems that have not been considered. If considered, they have been 
dismissed as ``unimportant.''
  I disagree. I believe it is very important to be very cautious with 
such legislation. We should err on the side of caution and we should 
defer to maintaining current, proven, management practices rather than 
sweeping change when a need for change has not been identified.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``nay'' on the coming cloture 
vote. This legislation is too costly and it is just not necessary.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during the last few days Congress has been 
discussing the conference report filed for the California Desert 
Protection Act. While we can all agree that there is a need to preserve 
this natural resource, there are many areas of concern as to the 
approach for that preservation.
  More than 7.5 million acres of desert wilderness and 5.5 million 
acres of national parks and preserves are created through this 
legislation. Of primary concern is that no new funding is provided to 
manage these new park units or wilderness areas. Until we find a way to 
better care for the parks we already have, adding new park lands will 
only stretch our existing limited resources.
  Significant land acquisitions required by this legislation will also 
add to the overall costs. I am concerned that private property rights 
of individuals affected by these acquisitions are not adequately 
protected. I continue to support the need for a takings impact 
assessment before going forward with any administrative or legislative 
rules.
  We also need to address the broader economic impact of this 
legislation. The potential prohibition of multiple-use activities such 
as grazing or mining way restrict future activity that provides an 
important economic base for this region.
  As I have mentioned before, traditionally the Senate has given 
latitude to the Senators from the State in which the land lies. 
However, I would like to enter for the record a letter from the four 
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who represent the area in 
question and are in opposition to this legislation. Their views in 
concern for the areas they represent should not be overlooked.

                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Senate Republican Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: As representatives of the California 
     Desert, we would like to convey our strong opposition to the 
     Senate consideration of S. 21, the California Desert 
     Protection Act, and urge you and your colleagues to oppose 
     the motion to invoke cloture.
       S. 21 is based on a myth--that the deserts of California 
     are currently unprotected, and open to the ravages of greedy 
     corporations and careless off-roaders who would destroy the 
     desert for pure pleasure or the almighty dollar. This is a 
     useful emotional lever, but it is patently false. The facts 
     are these: in its passage of the landmark Federal Land and 
     Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Congress among other 
     things mandated that a plan be prepared for the protection of 
     the California deserts. At the direction of Secretary Cecil 
     Andrus, an Advisory Committee representing the various desert 
     user groups was formed to analyze and evaluate the California 
     Desert Conservation Area for wilderness or nonwilderness 
     designation. After an extensive outreach program which 
     included years of public hearings and over 40,000 public 
     comments, the Advisory Committee proposed that 2.3 million 
     acres in 62 wilderness areas be preserved--far less than the 
     eight million acre land grab we are considering today. 
     Although these recommendations were introduced by the five 
     desert Congressmen as H.R. 2379, our bill was never given a 
     proper hearing by the House Committee on Natural Resources.
       The second flaw of S. 21 is the enormous cost to the 
     taxpayers of acquiring and managing the nearly eight million 
     acres of proposed wilderness and park land protected by the 
     bill. Not only does this measure fail to provide the funds 
     necessary to acquire private inholdings, but it also neglects 
     the 26-year, $1.2 billion backlog in land acquisition faced 
     by the National Park Service. Moreover, the Park Service 
     admits an additional 37-year, $5.6 billion backlog in capitol 
     construction and maintenance costs. By adding over three 
     million acres to our already beleaguered system, three 
     certainties will result: increases in visitation, decreases 
     in budgets and staff, and accelerated deterioration of our 
     National Parks.
       The third, and perhaps the most troubling, shortcoming of 
     S. 21 is the omission of the thoughts and views of desert 
     residents--most of whom are the best and most knowledgeable 
     caretakers of this resource. Since this debate began, we have 
     collectively received thousands of calls and letters from 
     people who fear they will be locked out of the desert they 
     have enjoyed for generations. Under a wilderness designation, 
     areas will be accessible only on foot or on horseback, a 
     daunting challenge considering the extreme heat and 
     ruggedness of the terrain. Only the most physically able will 
     be able to enjoy these expanses, underscoring the lack of 
     foresight exercised by the armchair environmentalists who 
     drafted S. 21.
       We had hoped to help Senator Feinstein craft a sound desert 
     bill in this Congress, but our offers of assistance were 
     repeatedly ignored. Aside from a few minor concessions, none 
     of our concerns saw the light of day until the legislation 
     reached the House floor. This treatment and the resulting 
     lack of balance in the compromise bill leaves us with no 
     recourse but to oppose S. 21. It angers us that we have been 
     painted into this corner, and we resent the hardball tactics 
     of Senator Feinstein and a small band of her environmental 
     allies. Without a doubt, the California Desert Protection Act 
     will incur consequences and set unwanted precedents that will 
     affect not only California, but also every other state in the 
     Union. For these reasons, we respectfully request that you 
     oppose the motion to invoke cloture. In a time when the 
     federal government should be reined in, we are facing a 
     dangerous expansion of federal authority under this 
     legislation--at a price taxpayers cannot afford.
       We thank you for your time and your consideration, and are 
     available to you individually or as a group should you have 
     any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Jerry Lewis M.C.
     Duncan Hunter, M.C.
     Al MaCandless, M.C.
     Bill Thomas, M.C.
     Howard `Buck' McKeon, M.C.


                            position on vote

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, if the Senate had conducted a rollcall 
vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany S. 21, the 
California Desert Protection Act of 1994, I would have voted in the 
negative.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now is 
on agreeing to the conference report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________