Minority rule - poor environmental record of 103rd Congress - Column

Sierra, Jan-Feb, 1995 by Carl Pope

Dateline Washington, D.C.: "The 103rd Congress has adjourned, leaving behind a solid environmental record. Highlights of the extraordinarily productive session included fundamental changes to grazing rules on federal lands, overhaul of the Mining Law of 1872, reform of Superfund, enactment of a carbon tax, reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act, reform of the National Parks concession system, and passage of landmark legislation to protect Colorado wilderness and the California Desert."

News from an alternate universe? Yes and no. In reality, only the Colorado Wilderness and California Desert Protection acts made it to President Clinton's desk. And yet, solid majorities of both the House and the Senate were prepared to vote for every piece of environmental legislation listed in the imaginary press account above. In spite of this, the 103rd Congress ended its term with the worst environmental record of any Congress in recent memory.

What happened? The problem can be summed up in four words: minority rule run amok. Procedural rules suffered unprecedented abuse in both houses, frustrating legislation that would have passed easily in any previous session. For example, the threat of a filibuster over appointments to a conference committee--something that has never happened in the 200-year history of the Congress--held up mining reform long enough to kill it. Bills that enjoyed solid majority support--most of the environmental bills mentioned above, plus Campaign Finance Reform, Lobby Disclosure, and dozens of others--were brought down, sometimes by a bipartisan coalition of conservative Republicans and western Democrats, sometimes by a solid wall of Republicans alone. The result was more of the gridlock Bill Clinton had sworn to end.

Last November an angry public took out its frustration at this collapse of the legislative process by turning Congress over to the very same Republican leadership that had orchestrated minority rule. The result is a scorched-earth mood on Capitol Hill, a dramatic exacerbation of the gap between Washington and the rest of the country, and a seeming victory for those who, in Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's parting words, "are prepared to destroy this institution to get control of it."

The Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership in the Congress must bear much of the responsibility. The Democrats were warned by their friends in the environmental movement that the filibuster, unreformed, would bring down the new administration's program. The Senate leadership made no determined effort to change the rules, and as a result failed to educate the country about the perils of minority rule. The President, confronted early on by recalcitrant western Democrats opposed to mining and grazing reform, failed to use the ample powers of the White House to hold them accountable for their tactics. In the House, Speaker Tom Foley allowed individual committee barons to play local-interest politics with crucial bills.

Governing requires the disciplined use of power by the majority to execute the implicit contract with the voters that victory brings: elect us, and we will deliver. It also requires the public to hold the minority accountable if it abuses the procedural guarantees of democracy.

Neither side is keeping its part of the bargain. The media, which should be demanding accountability, expresses as much admiration for those who defy the public will as it does indignation when they succeed. Machismo, not democracy, is favored by the front page and the evening news. Governing has become a sporting event, where only winning counts. "Democracy kayoed--film at 11."

It is vital to remember a simple truth about our form of government: 51 out of 100 is a majority, 49 is a minority. When 65 senators support a piece of legislation, it is an overwhelming mandate. There has always been a minority in the Congress determined to thwart environmental programs; the difference in the last Congress was that the majority allowed the minority to have its way.

And while Bill Clinton begged his enemies not to abuse their powers, he steadfastly declined to exercise his own. James Madison put the veto in the Constitution for a reason, but, as one White House aide told me, "This president does not use the V-word with this Congress."

He will need to use it with the next Congress--and firmly. It is time to expose the procedural smoke and mirrors that Capitol Hill's Wise Use wizards have employed to create the illusion of a public "backlash" against environmental programs. Every poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor strong environmental protection: in a democracy, we should expect nothing less.