[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9224-S9225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          EXPLANATION OF VOTES

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my intent on four 
rollcall votes where I was necessarily absent due to my required 
presence in my home State of Montana. These votes are directly 
important to Montana and the Nation. I would like the opportunity to 
further the debate on these timely issues.
  The cloture vote on Senator Byrd's amendment to the fiscal year 2003 
Interior Appropriations legislation has a direct and fundamental impact 
on Montana for three reasons. First, the amendment reimburses the 
United States Forest Service for funding expended fighting fires this 
year. This funding is essential because of the high fire danger that 
still exists in the West due to the prolonged drought and funding 
already spent on fires cannot be used for existing USFS obligations and 
duties on our national forests.
  Second, my good friend from West Virginia's amendment has already 
been modified to include the most important funding that could be 
dispersed this year for Montana's economy. I'm speaking, of course, 
about natural disaster funding for our farmers and ranchers. Montana is 
suffering through its fourth year of drought and conditions could not 
be worse. If we do not move forward with a disaster package, there will 
simply be fewer family farms and ranches around next year. Period. This 
is a debate that has gone on far too long and the House and President 
Bush need to come to the table and accept the work of the Senate. A 
natural disaster proposal has now passed the Senate twice by a large 
bipartisan margin. Now is the time to get this funding out to the 
people who need it, who need certainty about their future.
  Finally, the reason that a cloture vote is required stems from the 
controversial nature of the pending amendment of Senator Craig 
regarding forest health. The issue of forest health is a huge problem 
in the West and has the most direct of conditions with not

[[Page S9225]]

only the increased fire risk, but the drought that this legislation 
addresses. While the proposals vary, forest health is an issue that 
needs to be dealt with immediately. Further delay in the Senate does 
not serve Montanans or anyone in the West that is trying to make a 
living and a life under these conditions.
  Because we need to deal with all three of these issues as soon as 
possible, I fully support cloture on Senator Byrd's amendment. I am 
disappointed that it did not pass.
  With regards to the amendment proposed by my colleagues from 
Connecticut, Senators Dodd and Lieberman, I am forced to disagree with 
the basis of their amendment. My colleagues from Connecticut have 
represented their amendment as only codifying existing procedures. But, 
from what I understand based on the hearing held in the Indian Affairs 
Committee on September 18, this amendment in fact requires the 
implementation of new procedures, including adversarial hearings at the 
request of any interested party, raises the burden of proof that a 
petitioning group must satisfy in meeting the seven mandatory criteria, 
and requires the Department to provide notice to officials of every 
State and local government and municipality where a tribal group may 
have ever been historically located or any geographic area a tribal 
group may have ever occupied.
  In my home State of Montana, the Little Shell Band of the Chippewa 
Indians have been battling for over a decade for their Federal 
recognition. They have had to jump through many hoops as it is and they 
have yet to receive their official recognition. My Colleague's 
amendment would not only prolong the Little Shell's recognition, but 
would only add to the burden they have already carried for over a 
decade. Based on the outcome of the Indian Affairs hearing and 
the impact on my tribe at home, I respectfully disagree with my 
colleagues on this matter and believe it is in the best interest of the 
recognition process that their amendment was rejected.

  Moving on to the Homeland Security votes, I would like to address the 
amendment introduced by my esteemed colleague from West Virginia once 
again. Senator Byrd has urged that the Senate take its time to 
thoroughly debate and analyze the proposed legislation to create the 
Department of Homeland Security. He has introduced an amendment to 
ensure that the Congress continues to play a role in the creation of a 
new Federal Department of Homeland Security. I agree with the good 
Senator that Congress should debate and analyze this proposal, but I 
disagree with his proposal on how that debate should proceed.
  The Byrd amendment would require that the department be established 
in three phases. Each phase would be initiated by a proposal sent to 
the Congress by the President. Each proposal sent to Congress would be 
referred to the appropriate congressional committees. The appropriate 
Congressional Committees should be involved in this process. But there 
are no deadlines or fast track procedures for legislative consideration 
and no guarantee the proposals would ever emerge from Congress and be 
signed into law.
  This amendment would force Congress to reopen every battle over which 
agencies should be transferred into the new Department and on what 
terms they would be transferred. Moreover, by dividing the development 
into five separate legislative proposals, this amendment makes it 
impossible for legislators to consider the Department as a whole.
  I regret to say that I cannot support my colleague's amendment and 
believe it was in the Nation's best interest that the amendment was not 
agreed to.
  Finally, ever since the devastating attacks of September 11, 
Americans have been asking how the attacks happened, why they weren't 
prevented, and what corrective measures could be taken to prevent 
similar tragedies from ever occurring again. The American people 
deserve answers to these very legitimate questions. It's important that 
we find out just what happened through a non-partisan commission.
  The amendment introduced by Senator Lieberman represents a bipartisan 
initiative to help answer the many remaining questions in a 
constructive, methodical, and nonpartisan way. I support the amendment 
and am pleased that it passed.

                          ____________________