[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10506-10508]
[From the U.S. 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 think 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 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.

[[Page 10507]]

  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.
  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:


[[Page 10508]]

       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.

                          ____________________