Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator on our side, and then I will be glad to offer the remainder to Senator Byrd.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, I come today to the floor because there is a very important amendment that is attached to the Interior appropriations bill, and it is a second-degree amendment attached to the Byrd amendment. The only thing I would like to say today, since cloture has been called for on the Byrd amendment, is that if in fact cloture is invoked, our amendment will disappear. We believe our amendment is a good amendment and it deserves an up-or-down vote. We have not been delaying things. We have been waiting for an opportunity to have a vote. We would like an up-or-down vote on our amendment, which is an effort by a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle to permit the Forest Service and the BLM of the United States to go into our forest lands that desperately need cleanup and to look at just four types of properties that belong to our Federal Government: those that have blown over and are there, and where they are unable to do anything--the trees are, in fact, dormant--forests that have been bitten and eaten so that the bugs have infested them, so they are useless, but we leave them there instead of removing them, and removing all of the substance that is there with them. And there are two other kinds similar to that, and we address them. All we try to do is say: Can't we expedite the removal of that substance I have just described which causes fires? Because once any of that starts, you cannot stop it, and it goes like wildfire. And since our forests are not maintained properly, it burns thousands and, in some instances--like this year--millions of acres. As I see it, it is time we do something practical. Our amendment is commonsense cleanup for the forests that are being destroyed. I do not believe the amendment--that will be offered later on, if we lose--does that in a proper manner. I believe it makes it just as difficult, if not more difficult, to remove this kindling, this buildup that is permitting our forests to burn. We are not delaying any bill. We are asking for a chance to vote. Whenever it is possible in the Senate, we want a vote. That is all we ask. We will have more time then to explain it in detail. It is common sense. It is not anti-environment. It is a rational, reasonable way to clean four kinds of forests that none of us would like to leave in their current situation so that they will become the essence of the next firestorms of the West. If I have not used all my time, I yield the remainder of it to Senator Craig for his allocation or use. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder how we could be delaying the bill then.

Mr. DOMENICI. How could we be delaying it? If we have a chance to do it later, wouldn't we be delaying it then, too?

Mr. DOMENICI. Which bill is the Senator referring to, our amendment or the big bill?

Mr. DOMENICI. If you want to let Senator Crapo go first?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time are we going to have?

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, did I hear the majority leader say that if we lose and we are knocked down by cloture, we can offer this legislation later?

Mr. DOMENICI. It is an amendment properly to the Interior bill. Why would we knock it down? It is germane. It is relevant. And put it where? Where would we put it? The Senator said put it on another bill. Where? It is a very important subject matter. It is just as important as the burning amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, this is the most appropriate bill for it to be on.

Mr. DOMENICI. Why does the Senator want us to vote to take it off the bill? Those who have worked hard on this issue want it on the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI. The majority leader is even wrong in saying this amendment needs 60 votes. It does not need 60 votes, even with a budget resolution. It is just an authorization bill. It is implementing what you put in the bill, the $825 million. It is not subject to 60 votes, which means--why not have cloture; they both need 60 votes anyway. That is not so. Our bill does not need 60 votes, nor does Senator Bingaman's amendment need 60 votes. Pure and simple: 51 votes on a bill on which they belong. So why would we, who have struggled with it, vote to kill it? We want it alive. We want it to go to conference with the Senator when we all go to conference.

Mr. DOMENICI. We are going to help with the Interior bill--both bills.

Mr. DOMENICI. This is the only measure in which we are interested. We have gotten together for hours in the offices of five different Senators because it is important. And then somebody comes along and says: Let's have a cloture vote and kill the bill. cloture motion

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask for 5 minutes at this point.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I have heard most of the statement on the floor by my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Craig, with whom I am a cosponsor of a very important amendment. We have a number of Democrats and Republicans who have joined us on this amendment. All I want to do is suggest that if we are going to have cloture this afternoon, I hope that, with reference to a cloture that will take this amendment down, Senators will not do that. We have not had very much time. It is a very important and easy-to- understand issue. It will be confronted with an opposition amendment, which we have not seen yet, that will be forthcoming by the majority leader and, perhaps, Senator Bingaman. Both of them are moving in a direction of modifying the existing environmental laws that don't let us remove certain kinds of trees from our forests that are, by most people, determined to be the kind of trees you should remove. They either result in a burndown, or have the result of what is called a blowdown where whole portions of a forest are blown over, or they have just accumulated and are not growing because there is so much rubbish left over that you cannot get the Sun to do any good. When the fires come, they go from one place to another, right over the top of trees. We want to set the timeframe within which objection can be made to going in and cleaning up that kind of forest, that it be moved in a very short period of time and not be subject to lengthy court hearings but, rather, that it move expeditiously. We got our idea from an amendment the distinguished majority leader attached to a previous appropriation bill. The majority leader did this modification of the environmental laws that restrained removal of certain kinds of forests that were no longer needed and that could be used if you took them out of there rather quickly. The majority leader did that in an amendment and made it apply to a certain forest in his State and, thus, in the State of the occupant of the chair. I don't have any objection to that amendment today. If the majority leader and his fellow Senator who occupies the chair want to do that, that is their business. It is about their State. I didn't come down to talk about changing environmental laws. I waited a couple weeks and suggested that maybe we ought to do the same thing--that we ought to get some movement in our forests rather than leave these kinds of trees there. There are many other things wrong with the forests that we are going to have to fix. Essentially, over 6 million acres of our forests have burned--more than twice the 10-year average--in the current fire season. Twenty-one people have been killed and 3,000 structures have burned. It will be more like an experiment. We will take a piece of these forests, and we will go in and clear them out within a reasonable timeframe, rather than the unreasonable timeframe that has become the procedure heretofore which, by using the courts and various actions of the courts, imposing NEPA and all of its requirements, whenever groups do not want any of this clearance, they win, just by delay. I thought there would be a unification of purpose and we might get all the Senators to understand this was not an effort to defeat the environmentalists. We did not think they ought to necessarily take sides in opposition to this issue. It is a very realistic, commonsense approach. We will have more time to discuss it in more detail, and we will get to discuss it at our respective policy luncheons. I thank the Senator for yielding me the 5 minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't know whether we had any time left on our side.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I was en route here and was watching and saw the Senator from Pennsylvania speaking. I got here as fast as I could because I was wondering when somebody would say what he has said. Frankly, I am sorry the distinguished President pro tempore is not here, or I would ask him the same question: When do we intend? When would he let us vote on this very important, new Cabinet position and the Cabinet organization that goes with it? I heard much of what he wants to say. I know he wants to win. But I believe it is important that when we are at war, we proceed with some dispatch to give the President what he wants. If the distinguished Senator is going to lose, we all lose sometimes. If he is going to win, maybe he will win sooner than he thinks. But it is taking a long time and getting nowhere. And I think we know the issues on that new piece, that new Department of our Federal Government. I think he ought to let us proceed with it. My further observation has to do with appropriations. You know, we are all tied in knots because we didn't get a budget resolution, and every time we say it, somebody should be here on our side of the aisle because it is not our fault. It is not me as ranking member. It is not my fault. And it is not my fault in any other capacity. I have been on that committee for 25 years, and never did I not get a budget resolution when I was chairman. One way or another, we got a budget resolution. Now we don't know which appropriations numbers to follow, the bigger number in the House or the Senate or vice versa. At least that much would be resolved with a budget resolution. I hope we learn from it and we get on to our business today.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I would like to comment on the discussion that just took place between the majority leader and Senator Craig and indicate to him I have been a daily participant in those negotiations. I have tried to act in good faith; many have. But somehow or another, we make one step forward, and literally the next time we meet, it looks as if we have gone one and a half back. It is getting more difficult. We don't intend to delay this bill once we know the good faith efforts of the Senators--which is about 10 of them--cannot reach an agreement. We will come forward. But we will have to take a little time, as best we can, without delaying things too much, to let everybody know what has happened. It will not take too long for that to occur. There are other Senators who may feel differently. The amendment is a Craig-Domenici amendment. We put it together, gathered the Senators, but I wanted the record to reveal we are not interested in delaying the good faith effort on this bill, but we have a powerful issue, as you well known, that burns at many of our hearts. I am sorry I had to use that terrible word. We are having burns elsewhere in our States. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to know what it is.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask if it has to do with the budget or is in any way trying to perfect the budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection. I have looked at it.