[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5942-S5944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
END THE BLOCK AND BLAME GAME
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to make an appeal to our
Democratic colleagues to end this obstruction of legislation vital to
our Nation. I am appealing to my Democratic colleagues to abandon this
harmful, politically motivated, election year strategy of gridlock, and
if I may be so bold, to suggest a different election year political
strategy that will not hurt Americans.
The Democrats' obstruction strategy is no secret in Washington,
although it may not be so obvious to those outside the beltway.
We have all heard of the old ``blame game.'' Well now, Congressional
Democrats have taken it to a new level and created a new game. I call
it the ``Block and Blame Game.''
According to a lobbyist, a few weeks ago one of the Senate's
Democratic leaders gave a briefing to campaign contributors. First, all
were assured, naturally, that the Democrats would take over the Senate.
Second, they were told that to help secure this Democratic victory,
they were implementing a strategy to block all major legislation,
except for some appropriations measurers.
So how does blocking legislation elect Democrats? The answer came
within days as a Senate Democrat blasted away, charging that while
Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the GOP is getting nothing done. The block and blame
game.
Democrats must think that as long as no one outside Washington can
figure out the nuances of the legislative procedures of obstruction,
then as they say, ``the proof is in the pudding,'' nothing is getting
done, the Republicans are in control, and therefore the Republicans are
to blame.
Who is really hurt by this strategy? Republicans? Maybe, if they are
unable to explain the complicated procedures that are being used by
Democrats to block the business of the Senate.
Clearly, it is the American people who are harmed. And for what
reason? Simply, the interests of Americans are being sacrificed upon
the altar of the selfish, political power struggle.
Please understand that I refuse to insult my Democratic colleagues by
suggesting that they should not vigorously compete for control of
Congress and the White House.
But they can do it in a way that helps Americans, not hurt them.
I do strongly urge them to abandon the block and blame game strategy
and instead to join Republicans in making this closely divided
Government work.
Let's all acknowledge that there are precious few legislative days
left in the 108th Congress, that we have a large number of bills very
important to our country, and that we do not have the luxury of
debating and voting on each and every amendment we desire.
Let's recognize that no legislation will be perfect in everyone's
mind, but let's not block it simply because we don't get everything we
want.
Instead, let's work hard together to get these important bills to the
President's desk to be signed into law.
And that is the basis of a better campaign strategy for Democrats,
and one that will not undermine the vital interests of Americans.
Simply, Democrats could share credit for all the legislation enacted
this year, but then they are free to argue with voters that had they
been in control of the Congress and the White House, they would have
done much, much better.
Or, Democrats might try to persuade voters that if they are elected,
provisions that Democrats view as ill-conceived, will be repealed or
modified.
Republicans are happy to engage Democrats in the debate this fall
over the issues, our goals and our vision for our nation's future. And
Democrats should be just as enthusiastic.
In short, there is no need to obstruct legislation. It makes no
sense, it is totally irrational, for Democrats to be blocking
critically needed legislation, crucial for their own constituents,
simply because they fear that Republicans might get credit for passing
and enacting legislation.
The ongoing fight over the Energy bill is a perfect case study that
underscores my point of how the vital interests of Americans are being
sacrificed on the alter of political ambition.
Last year, lobbyist working hard for either the medicare prescription
bill or the Energy bill, were telling me that the Senate Democratic
caucus was struggling with the following question: ``Which, if either
bill, should we allow to pass? We definitely cannot let the President
have two victories.''
Let me repeat, Congressional Democrats concluded that they could not
let the President have two victories. So as it happened, Medicare was
passed first, but then Democrats mounted a successful filibuster
against the Energy bill.
They wanted to deny the President a victory.
Where did they get that crazy notion? What genius political
consultants and pollsters are advising them?
Enacting the Energy bill would be a victory for all Americans, not
just the President! It would be a victory for people of all political
stripes.
There are provisions in the Energy bill that would help increase oil
production, which would reduce gasoline prices.
Do you thing Americans, who drive up to the pump today, having to
spend well over two dollars a gallon for gasoline, give a hoot whether
or not enacting the energy bill could be considered
[[Page S5943]]
a victory for the President? Do you think for one moment that even the
most dyed-in-the-wool Democrats living outside of Washington, DC say to
themselves, ``Well, we may be paying $2.50 for gasoline, but thank
goodness Congressional Democrats denied the President a legislative
victory''?
Why don't Democrats do to the Energy bill, what they did to the
prescription drug bill? Let it be enacted into law, and then go out and
tell everyone what a terrible bill it is. Tell voters that the Energy
bill is just terrible, but that Republicans are in control, and if
that's their idea of good energy policy, so be it. But if you elect us,
we will do this and that differently, and you will be far better off.
That type of political strategy does not undermine Americans. That
strategy sets the stage for vigorous campaigns that will we won or lost
based upon who have the best ideas and vision.
Perhaps, therein lies the problem for Democrats. Perhaps the block
and blame game is easier to play for those who are not confident that
they have better ideas and winning arguments about their goals and
vision.
We came within two votes of shutting off the Democrat-led filibuster
against the Energy bill. There are provisions in that bill of vital
interest to virtually every part of our country, let alone establishing
critically needed energy policy for our Nation as a whole.
For the upper Midwest's farm country, it contains renewable fuel
provisions that will expand farm markets for corn and soybeans which in
turn will increase income for farmers and rural Americans while
expanding job opportunities. It contains provisions that increase our
sources of oil and gas which will reduce the production costs of
farmers as well as save money for all consumers throughout our country.
Each and every one of us can point to things we did not like in the
bill, but instead of passing it for the greater good, it has fallen
prey to the Democrat's block and blame game.
Just 3 weeks ago, Democrats sacrificed the renewable fuels section of
the Energy bill to the block and blame game.
It is inconceivable that the renewable fuels amendment offered by the
Democratic leader on April 27 could have been designed any better to
assure its failure. It was guaranteed to fail. If you understand Senate
procedures, and the importance of passing a regionally attractive,
comprehensive Energy bill, it is obvious to you that this amendment was
designed to fail.
Let me offer the proof.
First, everyone knows that any energy bill that has any hope of
passing this Congress must be a comprehensive package that addresses a
wide variety of energy issues and that draws bipartisan support from
all regions of the country.
This fact has long been recognized by ethanol and farm organizations
who have been working hard for approval of the renewable fuels
standard. Moreover, these groups recognize that the comprehensive
energy bill has provisions beyond ethanol and biodiesel that are very
important to their members.
So why did the Democratic leader fail to offer instead the
comprehensive energy bill, which included the renewable fuels standard,
as an amendment?
He has been around here long enough to know Senators from other parts
of the country, who want to pass pro-energy provisions more important
to their states than ethanol, are not likely to vote to strip ethanol
out. After all, such an effort would unravel the energy coalition, and
thus reduce the likelihood of passing their preferred energy
provisions.
So the Democratic leader offered an amendment that he knew was less
likely to pass.
The second bit of evidence that this effort was part of the block and
blame game, is that no pro-ethanol Republican ally was contacted in
advance to help develop a strategy to assure that we secure enough
votes.
We have always counted on bipartisan cooperation to support ethanol
legislation, and for the first time that I can remember, neither I nor
any other pro-ethanol Republican was contacted.
Third, and even more telling, the Democrat leader failed to contact
the ethanol and corn grower lobbyists in advance. That, I know, has
never happened. If you really want to pass renewable fuels legislation,
every one of us in this body knows you better have the National Corn
Growers and the Renewable Fuels Association ready and able to help you
line up the votes.
Why weren't they contacted? Perhaps it is because Democrats knew they
would refuse to be part of an effort to splinter the broad energy
coalition, sinking all hope of passing any energy legislation this
year, including that for renewable fuels.
They would not willingly let themselves become victims of the
Democratic block and blame game!
The fourth bit of evidence that this amendment was designed to fail
involves Senate procedure. As soon as the amendment was offered, a
signed cloture petition was immediately offered by the Democratic
leader to his own amendment. This cloture petition, by the way, was
signed exclusively by Democrats.
The most obvious reason to invoke cloture is to cut off a filibuster.
But who in the world was going to filibuster this amendment? We were
trying to pass a long-overdue solution to differences that has stalled
the internet tax bill. Moreover, if the Democratic leader's renewable
fuels amendment was so popular, why worry about a filibuster? Let's
just vote up or down on the amendment.
Although cutting off debate is the obvious, normal purpose of filing
a cloture petition, there is another purpose which is not so widely
understood. If cloture is invoked, all amendments to that underlying
provision must be germane. If a second degree amendment is not germane,
then you have constructed a hurdle requiring 60 votes to overcome.
Could it be, therefore, since no one was filibustering this
amendment, that an attempt to invoke cloture was aimed at blocking the
more popular, comprehensive energy legislation as a second degree
amendment?
Indeed, Senator Domenici, recognizing hopes for energy legislation
was being jeopardized by this block and blame game, offered the
comprehensive energy bill as a second degree.
What most constituents do not know, is that had the democratic leader
succeeded in gaining the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on his
amendment, the Domenici amendment would have been ruled out of order as
non germane because it was far more expansive than the underlying
amendment. It would have taken another 60-vote majority to overcome
this ruling. That may not be impossible, but we know that some Senators
vote will vote differently on a procedural question than they might on
the underlying amendment. So this was another hurdle, another attempt
at blocking the more popular provision that, remember, included the
renewable fuels standard and had a much higher likelihood of passing.
The fifth piece of evidence that the Democratic leader's amendment
was designed to fail is that he offered it to S. 150, instead of the
compromise substitute amendment developed and offered by Senator
McCain, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Given the long stalemate over the internet tax bill, we all knew that
Senator McCain's substitute had broken the impasse and that if anything
was going to pass, it was his compromise.
But his amendment, No. 3048 was an entire substitute to the language
of S. 150. We all know, therefore, that any amendment to S. 150,
including amendment No. 3050 offered later by the Democratic leader,
would fall when the McCain substitute was approved.
So you should offer an amendment to the substitute that will prevail.
If you did not think you knew which would prevail, then you could offer
two amendments--one to the underlying bill, and one to the substitute
amendment.
Here is a good way to explain this. Suppose our objective is to get
supplies to the space station. Do you load your supplies on the booster
rocket, or do you load it into the space shuttle? The booster rocket in
this case was S. 150, and the McCain substitute was the space shuttle.
And we all knew that.
The next bit of evidence that the Democratic leader's ethanol
amendment was designed to fail, is the very fact that he picked a bill,
again, the internet tax bill, that is controlled and managed by the
Senate's most out-spoken, anti-ethanol Senator.
[[Page S5944]]
If everything else failed to fail, adding an amendment to a bill to
be taken to conference by Chairman McCain was the iron-clad guarantee
it would be rejected. And in fact, that is exactly what Senator McCain
stated on the floor of the Senate. He stated emphatically, and quite
predictably, that if the ethanol or energy amendment passed, he would
drop it in conference.
So the Democrat leader's amendment was designed in so may ways to
fail, and thus, to block his own amendment. And guess who gets the
blame? Republicans.
Farmers lose. All energy consumers lose. But if the block and blame
game works and Republicans lose, too, then it is all worth it, because
Congressional Democrats win.
The block and blame game.
An interesting exchange occurred between Chairman McCain and Senator
Dorgan during the debate of this amendment. Senator McCain said, ``I am
sure there may be a headline in South Dakota that says: Senator Daschle
fights for ethanol.''
Senator Dorgan responded, ``Senator Daschle has not offered an
amendment for the purpose of a headline in South Dakota.''
Guess what. As soon as his amendment failed, Senator Daschle did
issue a press release. And not only that, the press release attacked
Republicans.
The release, according to the Congressional Quarterly, was headlined,
and ``Washington Republicans abandon ethanol.''
The block and blame game: hurts the farmers, hurts Americans, but
helps the Democrats.
I would like to share a statement issued by the National Corn Growers
following the vote:
Yesterday, during consideration of legislation dealing with
internet sales taxes, Senator Daschle offered an amendment to
create a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). Senator Domenici
offered S. 2095 as a second degree amendment to the Daschle
amendment. S. 2095 contains the RFS as well as other energy
provisions. NCGA will support all efforts to pass an energy
bill that contains an RFS and addresses the serious problem
our nation faces regarding energy. We again call upon
Congress to set aside partisan bickering and to pass an
energy bill.
I agree wholeheartedly with the National Corn Growers Association. We
have serious problems facing our nation, and we have several very
important bills aimed at addressing these problems that are falling
victim to the block and blame game.
I wish that what I was told by a Democratic lobbyist, about the
strategy to block everything this year . . . I wish that it were not
true. I hope that the Democratic leaders will have a change of heart
and a change of campaign strategy that allows vital pieces of
legislation to be signed by the President this year, and then let the
election be fought over who has the best ideas or who will do better if
they take control of Congress or the White House.
____________________