On the recordApril 12, 1994
I would like to quote from that USA Today editorial because I think it really, in a very succinct way, sums up this whole argument, and I would agree with my friend and leader on this issue, Senator Feinstein, that this is a killer amendment that we are facing here from the Senator from Wyoming. I hope that he perhaps can listen to the words of this editorial. It is entitled ``Preserve More Public Land--Don't Be Shortsighted. Sensitive Land Should Be Protected for Future Generations.'' Even in the blast and heat of high summer, the deserts of southern California percolate with beauty and life. Amid the scarps and dunes and cinder cones and lava flows, there are forests of Joshua tree and cacti. Lizards bask and snakes creep. Bighorn sheep and desert tortoise prowl beneath ancient creosote rings and petroglyphs. And then they ask the question: So what gives in Congress? And they talk about a possible filibuster of this bill. This fight has been going on for eight years now--mostly because some lawmakers oppose restricting use of public land that isn't already in the park system. It's an old debate. How much land should be set aside for preservation? How much for economic development. The argument reaches far beyond the California outback. Scores of pending bills would create or expand wilderness areas and wildlife refuges across the country.
Source
govinfo.gov




