[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the 
comments in the Chamber a very short time ago by someone I have learned 
to respect, and that is the minority whip. I happen to have the 
privilege of serving with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I have a 
great respect for him. We have tried to work together on matters 
involving immigration, with which he is a recognized expert. In his 
comments in the Chamber, he indicated he did not believe that the 
Republicans were really responsible for the gridlock facing this Senate 
at this particular point in time and that very often they felt their 
amendments did not see the light of day; that they felt stiffed, I 
think the word was, on some occasions.
  I tried to apply his tests and his criteria to a piece of legislation 
that I authored which is being held hostage at this particular point in 
time and see if it was true. The bill is the California Desert 
Protection Act, which is a major bill which impacts California.
  As I thought about it, as I listened to the distinguished Senator, I 
thought how can the minority, if this is true, be holding hostage the 
Desert Protection Act? And I began to look back.
  Have I worked in a bipartisan way on the Desert Protection Act? The 
answer is yes. Sixteen Republicans voted for the bill when it passed 
the Senate. I worked in a bipartisan way with the House as well. The 
House has also passed the legislation. The legislation has been here 
for 7 years. And when I took it over, I talked with various Members of 
this body on both sides of the aisle. I said, ``What do you need to 
vote for this legislation?''
  I made more than 60 amendments in the bill to accommodate what I felt 
were legitimate needs the Cranston bill did not accommodate. I worked 
with the committee, attended the committee hearings, heard the comments 
of the committee, agreed to further amendments, heard amendments by the 
Republican side, agreed to many of them.
  So when the bill left here, it passed by a substantial margin. It 
passed the House of Representatives a slightly different bill. And now 
I find the bill is being blocked from going to conference. So I went 
back and I found out. What does it usually take, when a bill affects 
one State and has passed both Houses, to stop it?
  What I learned is, well, if one of the two Senators do not like the 
bill, that is usually enough to stop it. Is that true in this case? No, 
it is not. The bill from the beginning has had the strong and active 
support of my colleague and friend, Senator Barbara Boxer. So both 
Democratic Senators from the State of California support this bill.
  If the bill could get to conference, I know the issues could be 
reconciled in a way that I could keep the bill's integrity and the 
commitments to the Republican Members who voted for and are concerned 
with the bill. I know we could produce a good bill for the people of 
California.
  So I have worked in a bipartisan way. We have both Senators of the 
affected State supporting the bill. And not only that, we have support 
from the Association of Southern California Governments which includes 
the affected counties: Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, San 
Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. We have the support of 16 boards of 
supervisors representing 16 counties in our State. We have the support 
of 36 city councils representing 36 cities, including the 8 largest in 
California; 15 California newspapers have endorsed the bill; 118 
conservation groups including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, 
the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Garden Clubs, the 
National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, and the Fund for Animals all support the bill. Public 
support in my State is very strong.
  An independent Field Institute Poll showed that 75 percent of the 
residents of the impacted areas support the bill, and about the same 
number do statewide. The bill has 47 cosponsors in this body--47. Not 5 
or 6 or 12 or 15 or 20 but 47 people have asked to cosponsor this bill. 
It passed, as I said, overwhelmingly on April 13. On April 13 of this 
year this bill passed the Senate by a vote of 69 to 29. Two Democratic 
Senators, who I believe would be in support of the bill, namely, 
Senators Shelby and Biden, were not present. If they were, that would 
have brought the total to 71. The House passed a similar version by a 
vote of 298 to 128; a substantial victory in the House.

  This is, as I say, a balanced bill. It protects some very significant 
resources and yet it recognizes important use of desert lands.
  Over 60 amendments have been made to it. They provide reasonable 
vehicle access to important routes. They protect all private property. 
No private property is taken in the Senate bill. It permits all active 
mines to continue; and all livestock grazing to continue. It maintains 
hunting opportunities on over 10 million acres. And I have indicated 
that I have agreed to accept the House language on the preserve. It 
satisfies all military and law-enforcement needs. So accommodations 
have been made for this bill
  Well, I found that Republican holds had been put on the bill. The 
chairman of the committee made an offer to the Republicans to put some 
bills that he thought the Republican side wanted on top of this bill to 
get it moving. Then the hold became revolving and it continues to this 
day. So it could be one Member holding a bill that has been 
overwhelmingly voted on by this body and by the other body that has the 
support of both Senators.
  And I must tell you, Mr. President, I do not understand this. I do 
not understand how one or two or three or four or five people can 
effectively kill a piece of legislation which has been discussed in 
this body for 7 years, amended, and with which I did everything that I 
felt someone should do, which is consult on a bipartisan basis, bring 
in Republicans.
  I placed phone calls before the cloture vote to 16 Republicans. I 
know I have better than 60 votes on every cloture motion. The first 
cloture motion on this bill had 73 votes to grant cloture. I know I 
have at least 60 on any other motion that is made. And yet, the 
minority will not let the bill pass.
  So perhaps, as these speeches are made on the floor, it can be 
understood that there is frustration on both sides of the aisle. This 
is a bill that Republicans in the State of California support. It is a 
bill that Democrats in the State of California support. It is a bill 
that both Senators from the State of California support. It is a bill 
that has passed this House overwhelmingly. It is a bill that has passed 
the other House overwhelmingly. It is a bill we know the President will 
sign. It is a bill we know that can be conferenced successfully and 
come back to this House and be passed successfully.
  And yet, one, or two, or three, perhaps, hold up an entire piece of 
legislation which for 7 years we have tried to pass in this body, the 
largest wilderness protection bill since the passage of the Alaska 
Lands Act. And it is held hostage, for reasons I do not understand, by 
a very few people.
  If it is to deny me a victory, Mr. President, I would submit to you 
that that is not the case. I got this bill through the Senate. My 
predecessors could not get this bill through the Senate. That victory 
is already there.
  What the people who are holding this bill hostage are doing are 
denying a victory to the people of the State of California, 75 percent 
of whom want this bill passed by an independent poll--not my poll, but 
the California Field Poll. I have worked literally with hundreds of 
groups and individuals to remove their objections. I have tried to see 
that residents of the desert are protected and will not lose their 
property. The Senate bill does this. And yet the bill is held hostage. 
It is a good bill, Mr. President.
  And so what I want to say to the distinguished minority whip is there 
is certainly frustration on both sides of the aisle. And I do not know 
what the solution is. For those of us who come to this body, bringing 
Democratic ideals, Republican ideals, I have always thought the 
challenge was to reconcile our differences, come together, bring our 
perspectives, try to develop a consensus. And we have done it on this 
bill. We have done it on the California Desert Protection Act.
  There is consensus. True, it is not unanimous, but support is 
overwhelming. We know we will get cloture. And yet, just a few Members 
can stop something which is of major impact and importance to a major 
area of the great State of California.
  Perhaps it can be understood why frustration exists on both sides of 
the aisle.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________