[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    AMENDMENT NO. 2600 TO H.R. 1137

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Yellowstone National Park is a unique and 
fascinating place. Back in the 1850's, Americans first heard about 
Yellowstone's geothermal features from an old mountain man by the name 
of Jim Bridger.
  He told about a place where water ran so quickly it heated the stream 
bed through friction--this explained why steam rose up from the edges.
  He told folks about how you could cook a trout without taking it off 
the line--just catch the fish in the Firehole River and swing it into 
one of the steam cauldrons on the river's bank.
  Well, folks in the 1850's were a little hard pressed to believe Jim 
Bridger. Today, however, millions of Americans have visited Yellowstone 
to see the geysers and mudpots and hot springs that make this such a 
singularly special place.
  On behalf of myself and Senator Burns, I submit an amendment to H.R. 
1137, as reported by the Senate Energy Committee, that guarantees that 
Yellowstone will remain the marvel that it was, is, and should always 
be.
  Last week, the Senate Energy Committee reported out H.R. 1137, the 
Old Faithful Protection Act of 1994. Unfortunately, this legislation, 
as reported, doesn't live up to its name.
  During the committee's debate on this legislation, an amendment was 
accepted which substantially weakens the protection that Yellowstone 
National Park, this Nation's first national park, clearly deserves.
  As amended, H.R. 1137 protects Yellowstone against damaging 
geothermal development in Montana but allows such development to occur 
in Wyoming and Idaho.
  This approach makes about as much sense as leaving your wallet in the 
backseat of your car but only locking one door. Yellowstone deserves 
more than that.
  My amendment restores complete protection to Yellowstone's world 
famous geysers, paint pots, mud volcanoes, and hot springs. It is 
identical to the original substitute amendment that was offered by 
Senator Bumpers and accepted during the Energy Committee markup.
  My amendment forbids geothermal development on Federal lands within 
approximately 15 miles of Yellowstone's boundaries.
  It permits Montana, Idaho and Wyoming themselves to regulate 
geothermal development on State and private lands within this 15-mile 
buffer zone provided that each State develops a regulatory program that 
adequately protects Yellowstone.
  My amendment is drafted so that Yellowstone Park is protected, 
private property rights are respected, and the appropriate role of the 
States in managing the water resources is recognized. It has the 
uniform, bipartisan support of the Governors of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming.
  While I recognize that time is short, I believe that there's very 
little more important than maintaining the integrity of Yellowstone 
National Park.
  We owe it to future generations to preserve Yellowstone so that they 
can see the same wondrous sights that Jim Bridger saw 140 years ago. 
This amendment goes a long way to achieving as much, and I urge my 
colleagues to give it their strong support.
  The amendment (No. 2600 to H.R. 1137) appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment 2599 to 
amendment 2594.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If I ask for the 
regular order, would that bring the Gramm crime amendment to the D.C. 
bill back before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellsone). The Senator is correct.


                           amendment No. 2585

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity this 
afternoon to talk about several issues. Like many Members of the 
Senate, as we face the end of this session, I have been busy doing many 
things related to the interest of my State on various bills that are 
working their way through the body. I have been involved in trying to 
absorb the President's GATT proposal, which is very difficult since--I 
do not know about other Members of the Senate, but I have not received 
the detailed explanations that I had hoped to receive, which has made 
it more difficult.
  So we have had discussion now for several days on the floor of the 
Senate of issues to which I am at least tangentially related. And so, 
as a result, I wanted to come talk about them, even though they are not 
directly related to each other.
  First of all, I want to go back to the amendment that is currently 
pending to the D.C. appropriations bill, an amendment that I offered on 
Friday. I was ready on Friday to have a vote.
  Mr. President, I am not calling for the regular order. I am simply 
expositing.
  At the end of last week, I offered an amendment to an amendment in 
disagreement on the D.C. appropriations bill that would have brought 
before the Senate for debate at that moment--in fact, did bring before 
the Senate--the Republican revisions to the crime bill. It is a very 
simple provision. Every Member of the Senate understands it.
  When the Senate passed the crime bill--I am sure the presiding 
officer will remember--we voted for a crime bill that cost $22 billion. 
It went to conference with the Democrats. It came back as a $33 billion 
bill. The Senate adopted mandatory minimum sentencing for selling drugs 
to children of 10 years in prison without parole. The bill, as it 
initially came out of conference, overturned mandatory minimum 
sentencing for drug felons selling drugs at a junior high school and, 
in fact, did it retroactively in such a way that it could have let out 
of prison an estimated 10,000 convicted drug felons.
  Needless to say, we had a very contentious debate on the crime issue. 
There were those who argued, as I did, that if social programs solve 
crime problems, that our Nation would be the safest spot on the planet. 
But demonstrably, this is not the safest spot on the planet. So 
Republicans wanted to offer a crime bill that went back and took $5 
billion of pork-barrel spending on social programs out of the crime 
bill as adopted in the Congress and put back into the bill our 
mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.
  Let me briefly go over those. First, in addition to taking the $5 
billion of pork-barrel spending out of the bill, we wanted to guarantee 
that the $7.9 billion that we provided for prisons was actually spent 
on prison construction. As all Senators know, there is language in the 
final bill that is very general as to how this money may be spent. It 
makes it possible for some of the money to go to alternative 
correctional facilities. But it was the intention of the Senate that 
this money go to build new prisons.
  It was our hope that we would stop building prisons as though they 
were Holiday Inns and that we would put prisoners to work. We then 
wanted minimum mandatory sentencing, 10 years in prison without parole 
for possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or 
drug felony, 20 years for discharging the firearm, life imprisonment 
for killing somebody, and the death penalty in aggravated cases.
  We wanted 10 years in prison without parole for selling drugs to a 
minor or using a minor for drug trafficking. As our presiding officer 
is aware, I am sure, one of our problems in drug enforcement is that 
minors are often used to deliver the drugs and pick up the money and, 
as a result, the drug kingpin ends up not being at the critical point 
where arrests are often made and where evidence collected from that 
point is in turn used for prosecution. We wanted to try to get at these 
people to say if you use a minor in a drug conspiracy and you were 
convicted of it, it was an automatic 10 years in prison without parole, 
and if you got out and were stupid enough to do it again, you went to 
prison for life.
  We wanted to be certain that we deported criminal aliens. We have the 
absurd situation today where someone comes into the country illegally, 
robs a liquor store, is sentenced to prison for 10 years, serves about 
18 months of their sentence in a State prison, they are let out of 
prison, they walk away and then a month later or 6 months later, the 
Border Patrol or the INS has to try to find him to deport him.
  We had a provision in the bill that passed the Senate that said when 
they let them out of prison, the INS agent was there to pick them up 
and at that point they were deported. That provision, like our 
mandatory minimum sentencing for gun offenses and selling drugs to 
minors, was dropped from the final crime bill.
  Finally, we wanted to overturn the provision of law which the 
President and the Attorney General spent 16 months to try to get 
adopted, and that is a provision that will overturn mandatory minimum 
sentencing and circumvent the will of the people of this country, as 
expressed through the Congress, that is, if somebody traffics in 
illegal drugs, they go to prison and they serve their full sentence.
  Last week, I offered these crime provisions as an amendment to an 
amendment in disagreement on the D.C. appropriations bill. It was my 
hope at that point that we would have a debate on the amendment and 
that we might actually vote at the end of last week.
  The distinguished majority leader, who was waiting to get recognition 
to basically end the debate at that point, asked me to agree in 
advance, which I was happy to do, that the manager of the bill would be 
recognized to suggest the absence of a quorum after I offered the 
amendment to give the majority leader an opportunity to decide how he 
wanted to proceed with my amendment.
  Today is Thursday. This represents 1 week that this amendment has 
been pending before the Senate. The point I want to make is a fairly 
obvious point; and that is, I offered the amendment because I wanted to 
vote on it. I want to pass a crime bill that cuts the pork-barrel 
spending out of our initial crime effort that was adopted about 4 weeks 
ago. I want to pass a crime bill that grabs violent criminals by the 
throat and does not let them go to get a better grip. I offered the 
amendment last week because I am for the amendment. I believe if we 
have an up-or-down vote on it, the amendment will probably be adopted. 
If we divide the amendment into 10 parts, which we can do under the 
rules, I am certain that at least 5 or 6 parts will, in fact, be 
adopted.
  The House will then be forced to vote on those amendments. If they 
accept them, then they would become the law of the land--well, they 
would go to the President as part of the D.C. appropriations bill. If 
he signed the bill, they would become the law of the land.
  Now, since that time, there has been a great deal of suggestion that 
I am holding up the D.C. appropriations bill. Let me simply repeat that 
I offered my amendment last week. I was ready last week to debate the 
amendment, to vote on the amendment. I am ready today to debate the 
amendment, to vote on the amendment. I am willing to offer the majority 
leader a time limit on the amendment. I would be happy to have an hour 
equally divided, have an up-or-down vote on the amendment. I would be 
willing to have an agreement that if the amendment goes over to the 
House and they defeat it, that we would drop it for the rest of the 
session. I would like an agreement obviously, if they accept it, that 
we follow the regular procedure and, of course, the bill goes to the 
President and he can sign it or veto it.
  So the point I want to make is, that while so many are unhappy that 
the D.C. appropriations bill has been imperiled by this and other 
amendments, my point is that I offered my amendment last week. I have 
no desire whatsoever to hold up the D.C. appropriations bill. I would 
like a vote on my amendment. I am ready at any moment to have a short 
debate on the amendment. I would like to have a vote on the amendment.
  I would simply like to say that we have been held up because the 
majority has not been ready to bring up the amendment.
  Now, I am not complaining about it. I think the majority leader is 
perfectly within his rights to ask that the amendment be set aside to 
go to other business. I have tried, as I always do, to be reasonable 
and allow the majority leader to conduct the business of the Senate. 
But the point I want people to understand is that I want a vote on my 
amendment. I have no interest in holding up the D.C. appropriations 
bill. We are getting toward the end of the fiscal year. It will put 
hardship on the District of Columbia if we do not act. I think it is a 
terrible indictment of the District of Columbia that we are here still 
a day or so from the end of the fiscal year and yet they are already 
gasping for air in that they need this Federal money to spend at the 
first part of the fiscal year.
  But that is another problem on another debate on another day. My 
point is this: Last week, I offered a crime bill because I am for that 
crime bill. I believe the American people are for it. I believe the 
American people do not believe that social spending will solve the 
crime problem. I believe the American people are for mandatory minimum 
sentencing. They want to grab by the throat people who use guns in 
violent crimes and drug felonies. They want to deal harshly with people 
who sell drugs to minors.
  I want a vote on my amendment, and I urge those who express great 
concern about holding up the D.C. appropriations bill to engage in the 
debate. Let us set a time limit. Let us vote on my amendment. Let us 
move on with the D.C. appropriations bill.
  On the other hand, I would have to say, Mr. President, that if the 
majority is unwilling to bring the amendment up to vote on it, when I 
am willing to do that, when I offered the amendment last week, then I 
hope they will do me the favor of not saying I am the person who is 
delaying this whole process.
  All I want is a vote on my crime bill. If I am given that vote, I am 
willing to set a very short time limit on the debate. Let us have the 
vote. We either win or lose and then we go on about our business. The 
District of Columbia can go on about its business, and hopefully people 
will be happy. So I hope everybody understands where I am coming from 
on that issue.

                          ____________________