[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9183-S9184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have been listening to some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle saying the economic problems we have are 
somebody else's fault. They blame the President. Unfortunately, in this 
instance, the President cannot pass legislation. The President was 
successful in working with us to pass the beginning of tax relief which 
took effect in 2001, and most responsible economists I know suggest 
that helped lessen the impact of the downturn which began in 2000, 
beginning as early as the first quarter of 2000 and hitting its peak 
the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001.
  We could do some things in this body. We could pass some laws that 
would make a difference and help the economy get going. Frankly, one of 
the great frustrations I feel is we cannot get about the business that 
we are supposed to do on the Senate floor. If the majority leadership 
had allowed the Senate Energy Committee to work its will on an energy 
bill, the committee would have reported out a proposal to allow 
drilling on 2,000 acres in the barren northlands above the Arctic 
Circle in Alaska. That is called ANWR.
  ANWR not only has the potential to replace the oil we must now buy 
from the malevolent, deadly dictator Saddam Hussein, ANWR could put up 
to three-quarters of a million people to work throughout the country, 
not just in the drilling and work in ANWR, but providing the materials, 
making the steel and turning it into equipment, pipelines, providing 
the infrastructure through the private sector that we need to bring 
that oil down from ANWR.
  I am still hoping we can get ANWR in the energy bill, a tremendous 
boost for the economy. Where else do we need a boost for the economy? 
In large construction projects. There are construction projects shut 
down all around the country because they cannot get insurance against 
terrorism.

  Terrorism risk insurance was dealt with in the Banking Committee on a 
bipartisan basis. I understand they reported out a good bill to provide 
that the Federal Government would be a backstop, on a sharing basis, 
for the reinsurance of terrorism risk.
  The majority leadership took it away. We cannot get a terrorism risk 
insurance bill through this body because the majority leadership has 
changed it into something that provides great new opportunities to sue 
the victims of terrorist attacks for punitive damages. Punitive damages 
are not a way to build the economy. Those are two pieces of legislation 
we could have gotten finished to help the economy get going. Making the 
tax cut permanent would be a third way of doing it.
  I came to the floor to express what I believe is a great sense of 
frustration by all of us. The Senate is stuck in neutral.
  I have only been in the Senate 16 years, and by some standards that 
is a pretty short time. We honored our distinguished senior colleague 
from South Carolina yesterday, and we know of the record of great 
service of others in this body, but in the short time I have been here 
I have never seen this body so dysfunctional. It is time we talked 
about why we are dysfunctional. What is happening? What has gone wrong? 
Why are we here? Quite simply, it is because some do not want to let us 
vote. This is the basic motivation and it is cloaked with all the talk 
about cloture and filibuster, but we are still on an Interior bill 
amendment which was offered 3 weeks ago. We are stuck because the 
majority leadership does not want us to vote on that amendment.
  There is plenty of time to vote, but for some reason some are 
apparently afraid to vote. It is no more complicated than that. If we 
vote, we could get to the remaining amendments, pass the bill, and move 
on in the next day or two. If the majority does not like it, they could 
move to table it and we could have a vote; might win, might lose. We 
could at least have a vote.
  I have worked a long time on appropriations bills. I have worked very 
diligently with the Senator from Maryland, the excellent chairman of 
the VA/HUD Committee. We have a bill we would like to present to the 
Senate because it deals with some very important things for veterans, 
for housing, for the environment, for economic development in our 
communities, for science, for space, for emergency management. We are 
ready and willing, and there are nine other bills that are ready, but 
when we spend more than 3 weeks on one appropriations bill, we are not 
going anywhere. We cannot get there until the Senate does what it is 
paid to do, which is to vote up or down, win or lose, and let the will 
of the Senate prevail.
  Some are suggesting--and this, I believe, is truly outrageous--the 
sponsors of the amendment should pull the amendment so some do not have 
to cast a difficult vote. Yes, this is a political season and it is 
tough, but that is what we get paid to do. We have cast 223 votes this 
year, and I do not believe another one will make or break or overburden 
any of us.
  The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from West Virginia 
each have cast over 15,000 votes. They have shown they are not afraid 
to make hard decisions, and the hard decisions they have made have not 
taken them away. The sponsors of the Craig-Domenici amendment have had 
people die in their States. They have had millions of acres of trees, 
including old-growth trees, habitat, and wildlife, ruined by fire. 
Houses have burned. A sound and responsible solution has been put 
forward based on good science and sound forestry management. The Senate 
should have the courtesy, if not the common sense, to vote on it.

  How poorly are we willing to treat the Senators from these Western 
States? I believe these Senators and their constituencies deserve a 
vote. If Senators want to vote against them, vote against them. They 
will have to explain it if they vote for them or if they vote against 
them.
  Senator Craig does not have an opportunity to slip this provision 
into a conference report, so he is doing what the Senate should allow 
him to do and what we are paid to do, which is to offer amendments and 
have an up-or-down vote. Maybe they want a commitment to drop the 
amendment in a conference report. Why can't we vote?
  There are a lot of reasons why appropriations bills are difficult to 
resolve,

[[Page S9184]]

but this should not be one of them. This is not a question of how much 
money we have available. We should have voted 3 weeks ago. We could 
have completed four or more bills in this time, but we are at a 
stalemate.
  Given the choices, this should be an easy call. Should the sponsors 
be asked to ignore their burning States, the danger of horrific, 
catastrophic forest fires, and set their amendments aside, or should 
the people who are preventing a vote decide they should let the Senate 
do what we are here to do, what our constitutional responsibility is to 
do, which is to make decisions on hard choices and then vote?
  We have been in session for over 3 weeks, since Labor Day, and we 
have cast a whooping 16 votes. Six of these votes were unanimous. So we 
have cast 10 votes on contentious issues, which is less than 1 vote per 
day. That is not exactly heavy lifting. This time of year, we could 
probably do two, three, or even four votes a day and not work up a 
sweat, but we are not able to do that. We cast 5 unanimous votes, and 
we cast a unanimous vote on procedure in 16 days, which leaves 10 
votes.
  Some are saying maybe we ought to come in on Saturdays. Unless we are 
permitted to vote, what good is that going to do? If we cannot vote on 
Wednesday, what makes my colleagues think we could vote on Saturday, 
unless the objection to voting was lifted?
  I do not want to shut off any debate, but when the debate is over, we 
should vote. If anyone has anything to add after 3\1/2\ weeks of 
debate, then I think they may have missed their opportunity.
  I have spoken a couple of times. Obviously I have not moved many 
souls or they would all be stampeding to say, let's restore sound 
forestry management. Maybe they were not listening, maybe I was not 
persuasive, but I have had my shot. I think it is time we get on with 
it.
  I compliment the Senator from South Dakota for figuring out a way to 
protect his State. What he did was sound forestry management. I simply 
want to see other people who live around the forests have the same 
opportunity as the people in South Dakota, which is to be free from the 
danger of catastrophic forest fires.
  I have farmers who want farm aid. South Dakota has an interest, I am 
sure. I voted on farm aid. It was not germane or relevant to the bill, 
but I voted for it. Why can't the Senators whose States are on fire 
have a vote on something that is directly relevant to the Interior bill 
before us? I have not heard one substantive, rational explanation as to 
why Senators whose States are on fire should not be entitled to vote, 
even a negative vote.

  I say to our distinguished leadership, explain to the people of the 
Western States that are on fire why they do not deserve a vote. The 
amendment is pending. Let's vote up or down; table it or not. South 
Dakota got special protection. Are Colorado, California, Montana, or 
Utah any less important than South Dakota? I think not.
  Have the national interest groups gotten so powerful--and let me say, 
when we are talking national interest groups, I will let everyone in on 
a secret. It is the Sierra Club. Have the national interest groups and 
the Sierra Club gotten so powerful they can prevent Senators from 
standing up for the safety of people in their own States?
  I note that the groups that oppose this amendment are very important 
and powerful, but until now I did not think they were powerful enough 
to shut down the Senate. I understand why the authors of the amendment 
would not want to pull their amendment because their States are on fire 
and in danger of being on fire. Given all the important matters funded 
in Interior, given that $5.9 billion in drought assistance for fire 
suppression money, I do not understand why we cannot vote. 
Substantively or politically, what is more important than assistance to 
prevent fires and assistance for drought-stricken ranchers? It is clear 
to those who follow the Senate, there is bad politics for some who may 
not want to vote.
  I appreciate some activists do not want this passed--that is their 
right--but we are not obliged to skip votes because an outside group 
does not want to see a vote on it. They have their right to voice their 
opposition on the amendment, but they should not have the power to stop 
the Senate from voting. That is a shame. This matter should be resolved 
in the way it should be resolved, with a vote; move to table and vote 
up or down. I think Senator Craig's effort to prevent forest fires is 
worth the Senate's time.
  We have lots of forests the size of New Jersey. Firefighters and 
innocent citizens in South Dakota are protected. But Idaho, New Mexico, 
Montana, and Missouri should be, too.
  I plead with those objecting to voting to permit us to do what the 
people have sent us here to do.
  Before I conclude, I call to the attention of my colleagues in the 
Senate an editorial from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It says the 
Democratic leadership is:

       . . . now blaming Republicans for stalling the 
     appropriations bill. In fact, the bill would clear quickly if 
     he'd just hold a vote on the Craig amendment. But the 
     Majority Leader knows a vote would force his party either to 
     side with Mr. Craig (thereby alienating greens), or repudiate 
     forest cleanup (thereby alienating voters this fall). We 
     think it was a famous Democrat, JFK, who once said that to 
     govern is to choose.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Wall Street 
Journal be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Daschle's Burning Senators

       If you want to know why Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle 
     can't get a spending bill for the Interior Department passed 
     this year, look no further than his home state's Black Hills.
       Those South Dakota mountains are at the center of a growing 
     political debate over forest fires. All summer Senator Tim 
     Johnson, also a South Dakota Democrat, had been taking heat 
     from the state's rural communities for allowing green groups 
     to stymie forest cleanup, a recipe for fires. So in July, to 
     give Mr. Johnson a boost in his tight re-election fight 
     against Republican John Thune, Mr. Daschle slipped a rider 
     into a bill exempting his state from the very environmental 
     regulations he'd long championed.
       It took about a nanosecond for Western Senators, their own 
     states in flames, to seize on this flip-flop and demand equal 
     treatment. Idaho Republican Larry Craig offered an amendment 
     to the Interior bill that would enact much of President 
     Bush's new fire plan, as well as a South Dakota-style legal 
     exemption for 10 million at-risk acres of forestland. Mr. 
     Daschle--now trying to get back in green good graces--has 
     tried twice to close Senate debate without considering Mr. 
     Craig's amendment, and has lost both times.
       And no wonder. This year's fires, and Mr. Daschle's rider, 
     have become an enormous political liability for Western 
     Democrats. They've had to explain to angry constituents why 
     Chainsaw Tom was allowed to save his state's forests, while 
     theirs were left to burn. And, with 6.5 million acres in 
     ashes and more than 25 people dead this year, none of them 
     want to oppose Mr. Craig's much-needed forest cleanup plan. 
     California's Dianne Feinstein and Oregon's Ron Wyden, both 
     Democrats, had even been trying to work out a compromise with 
     Mr. Craig.
       Mr. Daschle is now blaming Republicans for stalling the 
     appropriations bill. In fact, the bill would clear quickly if 
     he'd just hold a vote on the Craig amendment. But the 
     Majority Leader knows a vote would force his party either to 
     side with Mr. Craig (thereby alienating greens), or repudiate 
     forest cleanup (alienating voters this fall). We think it was 
     a famous Democrat, JFK, who once said that to govern is to 
     choose.

  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________