ANALYSIS : Desert Bill Debate Reveals Gulch Dividing California’s Delegation

During floor debate on a controversial desert bill Friday night, the bickering and infighting among California’s representatives grew so intense that Rep. Nicholas Mavroules (D-Mass.), echoing the sentiment of some House colleagues, said: “I have a little feeling that I am walking into a buzz saw here among the California delegation.”

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), the respected, third-ranking Republican in the House, had led a four-hour barrage of verbal attacks seeking to embarrass the bill’s chief architect, Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), and accusing leading state Democrats of “fixing” the process of producing desert protection legislation.

Amid the hoopla of finally passing a landmark bill, California lawmakers returned home Wednesday for the year-end recess without making any progress in their quest to forge a coalition between Democrats and Republicans. The state’s 45-member delegation, by far the largest in Congress, remains so badly split along party and ideological lines that many members appear incapable of sitting at the same table, even when issues critical to California are at stake.

“Clearly, members of both parties would like to see us unite on some issues,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-La Verne). “If we had compromised on the desert bill, it would have been precedent-setting.”

Levine said Wednesday it was unrealistic to expect that a delegation as large and diverse as California’s could reach consensus on an issue as contentious as desert protection.

“The question is whether the delegation can enact legislation that reflects the wishes of a majority of Californians,” Levine said. “Tuesday’s victory, which was substantial, veto-proof and resounding, is testimony to the effectiveness of the California delegation.”

The bill passed on a final vote of 297 to 136, with 45 Republicans voting in favor of desert protection. Among California legislators, Rep. Glenn M. Anderson (D-San Pedro) was the only Democrat who opposed the measure and Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford) was the only Republican who supported it. The measure still requires Senate approval.

Levine’s bill would put 4.1 million acres of wilderness territory off limits to mining, off-road vehicles and other damaging uses. Republicans favor a proposal that would protect 2 million acres.

In other large states, congressional delegations sometimes succeed in maintaining open lines of communication between the two parties. Pennsylvania Democrats and Republicans meet regularly during votes on the House floor in a section to the right of the Speaker’s chair called “the Pennsylvania corner.” The Texas delegation is known for its ability to pull together Democrats and Republicans on an issue or project that would benefit the state.

No such unanimity was possible on the desert bill, said Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose).

“I think this particular issue was just too much for that kind of understanding, I’m sorry to say. . . . The four Republicans whose districts were involved are very conservative and anti-environment,” Edwards said.

The debate over the desert bill was so bitter that Interior Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Martinez) publicly noted that any congressman who feared a unified California front when the state’s delegation increases to 52 in 1993 should rest easy.

Lewis, a six-term congressman who has a track record of working closely with Democrats on issues such as clean air legislation, said he has given up exploring formal ways to bring together California Democrats and Republicans.

“We have failed as a delegation over the many years I have been here,” he said.

Republicans repeatedly said Levine and the desert bill’s other leading sponsor, Rep. Richard Lehman (D-Sanger), refused to allow them to participate in the crafting of the legislation, which took more than five years.

“In this case, the authors of this bill have chosen, with malice aforethought, to roll right over the four of us who represent the California desert,” Lewis said.

In response, Lehman, Levine and Miller each took turns on the House floor explaining how Republicans repeatedly had been offered--and refused--opportunities to participate in framing the bill.

Levine’s staff produced letters addressed to Lewis, one in 1989 and the other in 1990, that extended an invitation to discuss the emerging desert legislation.

“One of the things the Republicans always say when they don’t get their way is, ‘(Democrats) don’t let us in the room,’ ” said one top California Democratic official. “When they come to the table, they’re not there to negotiate. They are there to be spoilers.”

The four desert legislators who complained loudly about being shut out were Lewis, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-San Diego), Rep. Alfred A. McCandless (R-La Quinta) and Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield).

During floor debate and in interviews, these members zeroed in on Levine, who was hailed by environmentalists as a “champion” and “Solomon-like” for his ability to push through the legislation.

Calling him a “born-again environmentalist,” Lewis recalled that Levine told him he introduced the House desert bill in 1986 only because U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) could not find anyone else to do so. Thomas sought to challenge Levine’s familiarity with the desert lands by repeatedly asking the congressman where the Cottonwood Mountains are located.

Replied Levine: “They are within the confines of this legislation.”

Levine, who is expected to run for the U.S. Senate next year, said the personal attacks were neither productive nor useful for Republicans. “Obviously, this became a tactic that Republicans who did not like the bill decided they would use. It is unusual. It was disappointing to me. But more than anything else, it was a smoke screen to divert attention from a huge environmental victory,” he said.