Clinton Should Reject Sabotage of Desert Act : He needs California, and California needs protective law

President Clinton is in California today to raise money for his reelection. If he sees this state, the most populous, as crucial to his reelection--which it inarguably is--then he should veto the congressional mischief known as the interior appropriations bill.

The bill, approved Tuesday by a Senate-House conference, has joined a herd of legislative Trojan horses stalking Washington. It is swollen with hidden attacks on the public lands, national parks and the environment.

Not least, it would thwart the will of Congress and of California’s people that key parts of the Mojave Desert be protected before they are hopelessly ruined. The Desert Protection Act, passed in 1994, created the East Mojave National Preserve, 1.4 million acres of sand dunes, craggy mountains and creosote and ocotillo in a remote pocket between the urban sprawl of Los Angeles and the gaudy lights of the Las Vegas strip.

This land is just a fraction of the vast desert, most of it still open to off-road vehicles, mining, hunting and other diverse uses. But congressional opponents managed to designate it as a preserve--not a full park--to allow hunting. Not satisfied with that, they crafted an appropriations bill that would cut the National Park Service budget for the preserve to just $1 a year. It also would shift authority over the land back to the Bureau of Land Management, whose rules are more lenient toward mining, grazing, dirt biking and other activities generally proscribed by its Interior Department sibling rival, the Park Service.

The chief culprit in this legislative legerdemain is Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands, an otherwise moderate and pragmatic Republican who has pursued this matter with a baffling zeal. He persuaded a couple of dubious senators in conference to go along with the House’s back-door sabotage of the Desert Protection Act.

The appropriations bill comes with many noxious provisions unrelated to the Mojave preserve that involve grazing rules, mining, endangered-species protection, timber salvage and even reduced funding for the national endowments for the arts and the humanities. Administration opposition to cutting funds for the Bureau of Indian Affairs was partly met by the House-Senate conference, but few of its other objections were heeded.

The bill is an example of cowardly actions by a Congress more comfortable with operating in the obscurity of appropriations and budget bills than by confronting issues head-on with full and public hearings, which would have made clear that Lewis’ view reflects only a narrow group of constituents in his San Bernardino County district.

Our concern is that Clinton will swallow hard and sign the interior bill because he fears a shutdown of government services when the new federal fiscal year starts Oct. 1 if he vetoes too many appropriations bills. Signing the interior bill may seem less objectionable to him than rejecting legislation that funds health care, housing and other social programs. He may be tempted by a desire to look “reasonable” to a hostile Congress. During his California visit, it should be emphasized to him that signing the bill would not earn him much credit in a state that has 54 electoral votes.