Desert Protection Act Imperiled : Politics: A GOP senator’s amendment stalls resolution of differences between House and Senate versions. Feinstein, a chief sponsor, is counting on passage to trumpet in reelection drive.

The California Desert Protection Act, once thought to be a sure thing after passage in both houses of Congress, is in peril, a victim of political infighting and an end-of-session legislative traffic jam.

One of many bills awaiting final action before Congress adjourns in October, the desert legislation is hung up in the Senate, where its chief sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), has been forced to scramble for votes to overcome delaying tactics orchestrated by Republican foes of the massive land-use legislation.

While the bill’s opponents strenuously object to the legislation on philosophical grounds, political considerations also play a major role. Feinstein has been counting on a desert bill victory to trumpet in her difficult reelection contest with Mike Huffington, a freshman House member from Santa Barbara whose massive campaign spending has turned the race into a nail-biter.

Republicans would love to deny her that legislative success.

“If this bill is defeated, it would be due to sheer, rank, ribald politics,” Feinstein said Monday. “But they wouldn’t be denying me, they would be denying California. I already got it through the Senate, and nobody has ever done that before.”

But in order to break the latest deadlock, Feinstein probably will have to make a significant compromise over the status of the East Mojave Scenic Area, making it a preserve and not a national park as called for in the Senate version of the bill.

The Senate approved the bill in April and the House passed a different version in late July. Supporters hoped it would soon go to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out differences.

But Wyoming Republican Sen. Malcolm Wallop blocked the route to conference and tacked on a costly amendment. Wallop wants to increase federal payments that cities and counties receive in lieu of taxes on federal property within their borders. Since Wallop’s initial action, the bill has been “on a revolving Republican hold,” Feinstein said.

“I was somewhat surprised by the stalling tactics, but perhaps nothing should surprise me around here,” she said.

This week Feinstein is calling senators to line up the 60 votes needed to overcome opponents’ procedural hurdles. In April, the bill passed the Senate, 69 to 29, with 16 Republicans voting in favor.

“I am hopeful we can gather those votes,” said Feinstein.

While clinging to the hope that last-minute bargaining will salvage the bill, environmentalists fear that eight years’ work on Capitol Hill might go for naught.

“There’s definitely a dark cloud hanging over the bill, but the silver lining is that (supporters and opponents) are still talking,” said Norbert Riedy, California representative for the Wilderness Society. “If nothing were going on, that would be much worse. Often bills Ping-Pong between the two Houses near the end of the session.”

The key environmental difference between the two versions is the status of the East Mojave National Scenic Area--the onetime centerpiece of the bill. The Senate upgraded the land to national park status, which would forbid hunting. The House, bowing to intense pressure from the National Rifle Assn., made the land a preserve where hunting could continue.

Beyond political machinations, desert-bill supporters are simply running out of time.

Congress is scheduled to adjourn in three to four weeks and must complete work on nearly a dozen spending bills. If the Senate does not complete work on the desert legislation, time will expire on the bill.

Nearly 8 million acres of land would be preserved under the legislation. In the House and Senate versions, the Death Valley and Joshua Tree national monuments would become national parks and their lands would be expanded. Millions of acres of desert territory would be off-limits to mining and motorized recreation.

The desert bill would become the largest land conservation law since the 1980 Alaska Lands Act.

Opponents say the desert bill would add more lands to the National Park System, which is already cutting back on visitor center hours, unable to provide adequate housing for rangers and scheduled to lose 3,700 positions over the next five years.

They also criticize the bill’s environmentalist supporters as zealots who do not live in the desert but want to protect it, ignoring the needs of desert inhabitants.