[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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the conference report accompanying 
S. 21, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany S. 21, to designate certain 
     lands in the California desert as wilderness, to establish 
     Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour prior to the cloture vote 
will be equally divided and controlled by Senator Johnston and Senator 
Wallop, or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, this legislation on California desert protection 
passed the Senate by a vote of 69-29. Today, we test the fidelity of 
the Members of the Senate to that vote and to their conviction.
  Mr. President, every park in the National Park System is unique. They 
are called the stars in the crown. Each has its own special appeal. The 
glacier-carved granite of the high Sierras and Yosemite has its own 
special place, as do the hemlock and verdant, soft forests of the 
Shenandoah. And surely, Mr. President, the desert of California 
occupies a special and unique place, with its splendid isolation, its 
serene beauty with the desert flowers, the beauty of the sunsets, as 
shown in those pictures which my colleague, Senator Feinstein, has 
shown to the committee, the Senate, and the Nation. It surely occupies 
a special place.
  Mr. President, it is clear that the people of California certainly 
support this legislation. The question is: Is there a valid reason to 
be against it?
  Well, Mr. President, in the committee, as the occupant of the chair 
well knows, there were some very strong arguments made against making 
the desert a park. One was that it is being used for off-road vehicles, 
and that that is a special use that has a special appeal. In the 
original House bill, off-road vehicles were to be prohibited from using 
this park. But as the occupant of the chair argued, and as we on the 
committee accepted, and as Senator Feinstein herself agreed, off-road 
vehicles are to be allowed to under this legislation so that we can 
preserve the desert with its unique beauty and still allow off-road 
vehicles.
  One of the second great arguments we had was over hunting. I am from 
a hunting State, as I guess many of us in this Chamber are. So, as many 
said, hunting is a special use. Senator Feinstein agreed, and the 
conference committee agreed, that we would have hunting in the desert 
as we do now. So hunting is to be allowed under the legislation.
  And then, Mr. President, there was the question of private property. 
Two very strong amendments were adopted dealing with private property, 
and indeed there has been no resistance to full protection of private 
property.
  So the three great arguments which were the touchstones of opposition 
to this legislation have been removed completely. There is, I guess, 
only one remaining argument, and that is that we do not have the 
resources, we do not have the money to support this national park.
  Well, Mr. President, that argument is really a very hollow one. The 
whole National Park Service is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
Federal budget. As important as national parks are to the heart of this 
country, to the way people feel about this country, it is less than 
one-tenth of 1 percent, and we are told that we do not have the 
resources to open up what is the greatest desert area in the whole 
country. Why, Mr. President, we know that is not so.
  You cannot have it both ways, Mr. President, because many of those 
who are saying we cannot support the National Park Service, that we do 
not have enough money for that, are those same Senators who, out of the 
same pot of money--that is the Interior appropriations bill--passed 
just last night, a bill increasing payments in lieu of taxes. The 
payments-in-lieu-of-taxes bill has a price tag of $180 million a year, 
which is many, many times more than the cost of this legislation. I 
happen to think payments in lieu of taxes is a good idea, but we had no 
trouble and they had no hesitancy in saying: Raid the Park Service, 
raid that same pot of money for $180 million a year.
  So, Mr. President, how hollow that argument is on the lack of 
resources. If, in fact, the California desert is worth protecting --and 
I submit that the people of California believe it is--I submit that if 
the people of this country believe it is worth doing, and I submit that 
if the Senators in this Chamber have already said, by a vote of 69-29, 
that it is worth doing, then resources are not a problem.
  We spill more money on the way to the Pentagon than we waste in the 
National Park Service every year. We all know that.
  Mr. President, really, ultimately, what this battle is today is a 
battle of messages. What message are we trying to send? Ultimately, it 
is a political message. On the one hand, those of us who support this 
legislation have looked at the desert after rigorous hearings, after 
hearings in California, hearings here, where we examined the desert and 
the resources and examined the beauty of it, to determine whether or 
not it passed muster as a national park. And the overwhelming 
resounding answer was that, yes, it does.
  The opposition to this, Mr. President, is ultimately not about that. 
The opposition is: Can we profit by gridlock? That really is what this 
whole question is about; that somehow, by ensnaring this process, by 
frustrating the progress, by denying this legislation, by depriving the 
people of this Nation, and California in particular, of this great 
resource, that somehow that is going to send an attractive message to 
the American people.
  That is what this fight is ultimately about. It is not about whether 
this park is worthwhile. It is somehow trying to plumb into the mood of 
the American people and cynically saying the American people are so mad 
at the Congress, so mad at everything, that maybe if we just frustrate 
the process and deny this national park, they will elect us and put us 
in control.
  I wonder if that is what the American public really believes. Do they 
really believe that, frustrated though they are, disappointed though 
they are at the Congress, mad, as all the polls indicate, at Bill 
Clinton, disappointed in Government at every level, wanting term 
limits, wanting constitutional amendments to budget the balance, line-
item vetoes, and various other things indicating frustration with the 
Congress, does that sentiment mean that they also want gridlock? Do 
they also want to so frustrate the purposes of this Congress to deprive 
the American people of any progress in their legislative body, that 
they would prevent a national park of truly wonderful proportions and 
dimensions and beauty, deny that in order that somehow that would help 
this election? Is that their mood? I do not believe so, Mr. President.
  I think that those who would want to sign on to gridlock, sign on to 
depriving us of this legislation, will find that they are resonating to 
the wrong message from the American people. I do not believe that for 1 
minute.
  I think there is a feeling in the hearts of Americans for their 
natural resources, particularly their park resources, that is a feeling 
almost akin to the love of family. The people love this land. They want 
to preserve this land. They want to set aside those places of special 
beauty, especially at a time when urban areas are exploding, when 
development is overtaking our great resources, when we are losing more 
and more of our rivers, deserts, mountains and beautiful places to 
development. People I believe in this country fervently say: Let us 
preserve it. Let us preserve those beautiful places because they are 
not going to last forever.
  Mr. President, in my home State of Louisiana we used to have millions 
of acres of hardwood timber with bears. In fact, in my wife's hometown, 
we checked the old records from over a century ago, and one of the 
biggest exports back in the pre-Civil War days was bear grease. It 
actually was bear grease. And now all of those forests, which supported 
the bears, along with the bears, are gone, and there is no way to bring 
them back.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not know how immediate and how strong the 
urge is to develop these areas of the desert that would be protected. I 
know those pressures are there.
  We tried to reconcile those pressures with the private property 
protection amendments in this bill. It is a difficult balance. Many 
newspapers in California criticized Senator Feinstein for going too far 
toward protecting that private property.
  But the bill, nevertheless, will preserve the desert and will resist 
those development pressures. But I wonder what the verdict of history 
would be if 50 years from now people looked back on this debate, while 
these great beautiful desert areas in California are lost and look back 
and say: ``You know, back in 1994, we could have preserved this at a 
very modest cost and kept it all and would not have these roads and 
hamburger palaces, and all the rest of it, if they had not gotten mixed 
up with politics and if the Republicans had not misread this political 
message. They thought the American people wanted to gridlock the whole 
process, deprive the American public of new parks, stop the passage of 
any legislation, indiscriminately, good or bad. They wanted to gridlock 
the whole thing, and here is the result: Hamburger palaces where we 
could have had this beautiful desert.''
  That is ultimately what this is about, that somehow they can rub that 
raw nerve of the American people and maybe win the California Senate 
seat on that account.
  Now, how the reasoning goes I do not know. Here the people of 
California have said over and over again in every public opinion poll I 
have seen that they want the California desert protected. So somehow 
the Republicans are saying, ``If we deny the people of California what 
they want, then they will elect our Senator instead of their Senator.''
  That is somehow the logic. That is what this is about. That is 
ultimately what it is about, because if it were about the California 
desert and whether it qualifies as one of the jewels in the crown, 
there is no question that we would approve this as we did the first 
time.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. President, to give the same verdict that 
they did when this matter was up before the Senate before and by a vote 
of 69 to 29 said this desert deserves protection. This should be a 
jewel in the crown. Let us vote on this measure today based on its 
value and not on the political advantage that some may think gridlock 
adds.
  I think gridlock does not add an advantage. I think this desert 
protection legislation helps the American people.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] 
is recognized.

                          ____________________