[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          USING THE FILIBUSTER

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, yesterday I addressed the Senate on the 
issue of why the Republicans, frequently with the assistance of 
Democrats, have utilized the filibuster during this Congress. The real 
justification for availing ourselves of this procedural right is a lack 
of honest, real--not rhetorical--consultation. I gave several examples, 
and I will not belabor the point.
  Subsequent to my remarks, my distinguished colleague from California, 
Senator Feinstein came to the floor to offer what she believed was an 
example of why my remarks were in error. She cited the California 
Desert bill, S. 21.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated September 23, 1994, which 
I received from five Republican Congressmen who represent that area be 
printed in the Record after my remarks.
  The letter speaks for itself. Essentially, it corroborates my earlier 
remarks which asserted that the common denominator of each use of the 
filibuster is a lack of real consultation. These Congressmen from the 
affected area say that their suggestions for improving S. 21 were 
``repeatedly ignored,'' and that ``none of our concerns saw the light 
of day.'' They cited the ``hardball tactics'' utilized by the 
proponents of the bill, and urged me to ``oppose the motion to invoke 
cloture.''
  I intend to. I not only agree with the Congressmen on the merits, but 
I am painfully aware of the process which they have described. It is 
yet another exhibit in pleading the case I was making yesterday.

         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1994.
     Hon. Alan Simpson,
     Senate Minority Whip, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Simpson: 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 capital 
     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 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.
     Al McCandless.
     Duncan Hunter.
     Bill Thomas.
     Howard ``Buck'' McKeon.

                          ____________________