The real problem with the failure to pass the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is how it happened. Others can argue over the merits of the legislation, but let’s take a look at how the sausage was made. Or, in this case, not made.
Both Montana Sen. John Walsh and Rep. Steve Daines, who is challenging Walsh in the forthcoming U.S. Senate election, appeared eager to pass this bill and lay claim to protecting an area that conservation groups and energy companies alike agree should be off limits to new mineral development. To be clear, this is a rather noncontroversial bill. In a letter, ConocoPhillips’ vice president expressed support for the added protections.
Anymore, that matters very little, because Congress eagerly uses convoluted and preposterous rules in the name of politics. And this is just the latest perfect example of why many of us sit back dumbfounded by the ease at which this country’s governing bodies tie themselves into knots so they don’t have to do any real governing.
On March 5, Daines, a Republican, announced that a version of the Act had passed the GOP-controlled House with “strong bipartisan support.” He added that the legislation’s passage “will send a strong message to the Senate to get this done.”
That message, apparently, was not received. On April 3, when Democrats Walsh and Sen. Jon Tester called for a voice vote on the Act in the Democrat-controlled Senate, three Republicans objected, so the bill was blocked. No vote – at least for now. It could still be reconsidered at a later date.
For a little background, this bill would basically reciprocate protections that Canada has already implemented as a part of a transboundary agreement to protect the Flathead River drainage that has been in the works for years. Again, this is hardly divisive.
So why the objections? Democrats can certainly speculate that the bill was blocked to make Walsh, who was appointed to his seat after Sen. Max Baucus became ambassador to China, look ineffective in his new role as senator. It allows Daines to question why the bill couldn’t receive a floor vote and criticize the Senate, in which the Democratic majority is in jeopardy this fall.
In reality, overcoming the hold on the bill requires a 60-vote majority and Democrats don’t have that. Thus, it appears this legislation (like so many others) will languish in no-man’s land. I sent an email to the three senators who objected to the bill (Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.), asking why they objected to the legislation. I haven’t heard back.
Coburn did tell Lee Newspapers’ Mike Dennison that he would consider an amended version of the bill, one that would transfer the land to Montana and reduce the state’s share of federal “payments in lieu of taxes” that go to local governments. He also provided a letter that suggested inserting a 20-year sunset on any federal protections. Cruz and Toomey ignored Dennison’s inquiries.
Tester challenged those opposing the legislation to “find the North Fork on the map.” And for his part, Walsh said, “If Congressman Daines truly believes this is the right thing to do, he can join us in calling on his friends to stop blocking this vote.” That’s unlikely to happen.
This is how the sausage is made. Until this legislation can no longer be used to someone’s political advantage, it will be left in limbo. Then, someday, Congress will grind out a vote and it will likely be signed into law. Democrats can decry the politics of it all, but they are just as guilty of using these systematic rules to their advantage. And whether you support this bill, the chronic difficulty of our lawmakers actually holding votes on proposed laws is stupid.