[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10537-S10539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT

  The bill (H.R. 233) to designate certain National Forest System lands 
in the Mendocino and Six Rivers National Forests and certain Bureau of 
Land Management lands in Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, and Napa Counties 
in the State of California as wilderness, to designate the Elkhorn 
Ridge Potential Wilderness Area, to designate certain segments of the 
Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California as a wild or scenic 
river, and for other purposes was considered, read the third time, and 
passed.


                               section 10

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with Senators Domenici, Boxer, and Feinstein concerning a provision in 
H.R. 233, the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. 
Although I strongly supported the Senate companion measure, S. 128, 
which passed the Senate last year, I am concerned with some of the 
changes made by bill as passed by the House of Representatives. Of 
particular concern is section 10, dealing with commercial fishing 
permits in Redwood National and State Parks in California. The section 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized 
vehicle access for commercial surf fishing at designated beaches within 
both the National and State Parks. The section provides that the number 
of permits

[[Page S10538]]

shall be limited to the number of valid permits that are held on the 
date of enactment of this Act, and that the permits ``so issued shall 
be perpetual and subject to the same conditions as the permits held on 
the date of enactment of this Act.''
  I understand from the National Park Service and the bill sponsors 
that presently 15 permits are issued for commercial surf fishing within 
the park. I was concerned that the language stating that the permits 
shall be perpetual might be construed as creating a right vesting in 
the permit holder, which would be contrary to the way permits are 
issued throughout the National Park System. However, I understand that 
the intent of this language is simply to ensure that the National Park 
Service not reduce the number of permits issued below the current level 
of valid permits, assuming there is sufficient demand for the remaining 
permits. Furthermore, I understand that there is no intent for the 
requirements of section 10 to be construed as an implied waiver of 
applicable laws, including the National Park Service Organic Act and 
the Endangered Species Act, but rather a directive to the Park Service 
to discontinue its plan to completely phase out these permits. I would 
like to ask Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the Senate 
sponsors, whether they agree with me that it is their intent that the 
language in section 10 does not create a property right and whether 
they also agree that the sole purpose of the language is to limit the 
number of permits to the number of valid permits in existence as of the 
date of enactment of H.R. 233.
  Mrs. BOXER. I agree with Senator Bingaman's understanding. It is not 
our intent to create any new right with respect to these permits.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICl. I agree.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The language in section 10 requires the Secretary of 
the Interior to issue permits allowing for authorized vehicle access to 
designated beaches, including Gold Bluff Beach, within Prairie Creek 
Redwoods State Park, which is located within the broader national park 
boundary. This provision is unusual in that, on its face, it appears to 
require the Secretary to authorize access to a beach that is within a 
State Park and managed by the California Department of Parks and 
Recreation. However, I understand that nothing in this section is 
intended to override the responsibilities of the State of California 
and its management of state park. Is that the understanding of the 
chairman and bill sponsors as well?
  Mrs. BOXER. I agree. The language in this bill does not impose 
requirements on the State of California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleagues for helping to clarify this 
issue. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Congressman Thompson, 
the sponsor of H.R. 233, be printed in the Record. His letter indicates 
his agreement with our colloquy. Based on the common understanding of 
the purpose and intent of section 10, I will support passage of the 
bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2006.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
         Committee,
     Dirksen Senate Offlce Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Bingaman, Senator Feinstein and Senator 
     Boxer: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my 
     intent on a provision in H.R. 233, the Northern California 
     Wild Heritage Act.
       Section 10, which deals with commercial fishing permits in 
     Redwood National and State Parks in California, directs the 
     Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for authorized 
     vehicle access for commercial surf fishing at designated 
     beaches within both the National and State Parks. The section 
     provides that the number of permits shall be limited to the 
     number of valid permits that are held on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and that the permits ``so issued shall 
     be perpetual and subject to the same conditions as the 
     permits held on the date of enactment of this Act.''
       I want to clarify that this language should not be 
     construed as creating a right vesting in the permit holder, 
     which would be contrary to the way permits are issued 
     throughout the National Park System. The intent of this 
     language is simply to ensure that the National Park Service 
     not reduce the number of permits issued below the current 
     level of valid permits, assuming there is sufficient demand 
     for the remaining permits. Furthermore, there is no intent 
     for the requirements of Section 10 to be construed as an 
     implied waiver of applicable laws, including the National 
     Park Service Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act, but 
     rather a directive to the Park Service to discontinue its 
     plan to completely phase out these permits. The language in 
     Section 10 does not create a property right and the sole 
     purpose of the language is to limit the number of permits to 
     the number of valid permits in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of H.R. 233.
       In addition, the language in Section 10 requires the 
     Secretary of the Interior to issue permits allowing for 
     authorized vehicle access to designated beaches, including 
     Gold Bluff Beach, within Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, 
     which is located within the broader national park boundary. 
     However, nothing in this section is intended to override the 
     responsibilities of the State of California and its the 
     management of the state park.
       Thank you very much for all your time and effort on this 
     very important bill. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mike Thompson,
                                               Member of Congress.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a great day for California.
  After years of hard work by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and 
Congressman Mike Thompson and I, the Northern California Coastal Wild 
Heritage Wilderness Act passed the Congress today. It now goes to the 
President's desk for his signature.
  I want to thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and Congressman Mike 
Thompson for all of their great work on this bill. Without their 
tireless support, we would not have gotten to this point.
  Anyone who has ever visited California or been fortunate enough to 
live there is keenly aware of the State's natural beauty indeed, more 
than most States, California's wild beauty--is an essential part of its 
identity.
  California's natural beauty and way of life has enticed millions to 
come and live there but that very enticement is now threatened by 
exponential growth--35,900,000 people live in my State, according to 
the 2004 U.S. Census estimate, and that figure is growing by leaps and 
bounds daily.
  That is why so many Californians have come together to support this 
bill and protect some of the last great natural places in the State.
  Thousands of average citizens and over 200 local businesses, outdoor 
groups, and other interests support the bill these include Harwood 
Industries, the Adventures Edge Mountain Bike Store, and K.B. Homes, 
the largest homebuilder in California.
  There have been 23 supportive votes or resolutions from city 
councils, county boards of supervisors, tribal councils, and other 
boards since 2001.
  Our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supports it, as do 40 former or 
current local elected officials of both parties in Lake, Mendocino, 
Napa, and Humboldt Counties.
  When one considers what we are trying to preserve, it is easy to see 
why Congressman Thompson and I have such broad support for our 
legislation. I would like to share a few examples.
  First and foremost is the spectacular King Range, the wildest portion 
of California's coast--it boasts the longest stretch of undeveloped 
coastline in the lower 48 States. Next, I would like to share Cache 
Creek it is home to the second largest wintering bald eagle population 
in California and a herd of rare Tule elk, which is the world's 
smallest elk. Cache Creek is popular with white water rafters for its 
rapids and scenery.
  Next, the Middle Fork Eel River, which hosts 30 to 50 percent of the 
State's summer-run steelhead trout population, an endangered species, 
and critical to California's fishermen and tribes. It also has 
spectacular ancient forests of oak pine and fir. Our bill provides 
improved protections for this pristine area.
  These are but three of the dozens of examples I could show you today. 
Californians want to protect the sanctity of these lands, and our bill 
does just that.

[[Page S10539]]

  Before I conclude, there are some people I need to thank. First, I 
again thank Senator Feinstein, my partner in the Senate on this bill. 
Her work on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee was invaluable, 
and John Watts of her staff helped greatly. Congressman Thompson 
tirelessly championed this bill in the House, and Jonathan Birdsong, 
his legislative director, put in countless hours of work to accomplish 
this.
  I also thank Senators Bingaman and Domenici of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. They, along with Senators Craig and Wyden, have 
worked very well with me to protect these special places and helped me 
move this bill forward. Finally I need to thank David Brooks and Frank 
Gladics of the Energy Committee staff for working so carefully and 
conscientiously on this bill.
  God has given Americans an exceptionally beautiful treasure in its 
wild landscape, and my State is blessed with some of its best.
  We must be good stewards of that gift and share it with future 
generations that is what Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, John Wesley 
Powell, Ansel Adams, and other great Americans did, and we have places 
like Yosemite and Yellowstone to cherish because of their actions.
  Mr. President, because the Congress passed this bill today, future 
generations will be thanking us for preserving places like the King 
Range and other parts of the stunning, wild, and unspoiled northern 
California coast.

                          ____________________