[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9095-S9096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I will make a couple of comments 
concerning the budget and the appropriations process. A couple of days 
ago we heard the majority leader being very critical of the President, 
talking about his lack of working with Congress and it is his fault we 
have a budget deficit. Earlier today, we heard the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee being critical of the President. It looks like 
a lot of people are throwing rocks at the White House. Maybe that is 
the easy thing to do, but we should be looking internally and saying: 
What have we done?
  We have not passed a budget, and because we have not passed a budget 
for the first time since the Budget Act was passed in 1974, we do not 
have a budget that has the same figures with the House. Every other 
year--and I have been in the Senate for 22 years--we have always had a 
budget.
  Basically, the House and the Senate agree on numbers and then we pass 
appropriations bills. Every year we have been able to do that, except 
for this year. We have less than a week to go. Next Monday the fiscal 
year expires, and we have passed 3 out of 13 appropriations bills. That 
is probably the worst record in Senate history--certainly since the 
Budget Act passed. Shame on us.
  And then to say it is the administration's fault or it is the House's 
fault--I heard somebody say it is the House's fault because the House 
has not passed very many. That is not our constitutional 
responsibility. Our responsibility is to pass our bills. We do not have 
to wait for the House. The tradition is, the Senate waits on the House, 
but we do not have to wait on the House. We certainly do not have to 
spend 4 weeks on the Interior appropriations bill.
  This is our fourth week on the Interior appropriations bill. The 
Interior bill can, could, and should be done in 1, 2 or, at most, 3 
days. It is ridiculous to think we have been on the bill for 4 weeks, 
and we still do not have an end in sight.
  Some have said the Republicans are filibustering the bill. No 
Republican is filibustering the Interior bill and no Republican is 
filibustering the homeland security bill; none, not one. We have 
offered an amendment. I noticed the Democrats offered an amendment. 
They are entitled to offer amendments. We are entitled to have votes on 
those amendments. For some reason, the majority has come to this 
conclusion to file cloture.
  Filing cloture on the Interior bill does nothing. Even if cloture was 
granted, it does not prohibit somebody from offering an amendment. They 
filed cloture on an amendment, not on the bill. So that process is 
going nowhere fast.
  Now we have another cloture vote scheduled on homeland security, as 
if that is going to deny us having a chance to vote on the President's 
homeland security bill. That is not going to happen. It should not 
happen.
  My compliments to Senator Gramm and Senator Miller. They have put 
together the President's package. They have made some modifications to 
try and accommodate Members. They are entitled to a vote. This idea of 
we are going to have cloture on the bill so they will not be able to 
offer their amendment is absurd, and it is not going to happen. So 
people can file all the cloture motions they want, but it does not move 
the process of the Senate.
  We can move it. We can pass these bills. On the Interior bill, all 
someone has to do is move to table the amendment. Let's find out where 
the votes are. That is what we used to do. If the managers of the 
amendment do not like it, they can move to table it. They do not need 
to file cloture. They do not need a supermajority; just move to table 
it. It may well have the votes.

  Certainly the President is entitled to have a vote on homeland 
security. It would be absurd to invoke cloture so that amendment would 
not be allowed. It brings home the fact the Senate is dysfunctioning; 
the Senate is not working. We had a very important energy bill. Did it 
go through committee? No. Did Senators who have experience and 
expertise in the energy issues get to mark up the bill? No. It came on 
the floor of the Senate. We spent 6 or 7 weeks working on marking up 
the bill on the Senate floor, and now it is in

[[Page S9096]]

the conference. Hopefully, something will come out of that.
  Did the Senate pass a prescription drug bill? No. Was it marked up in 
the Finance Committee? No. Did we have a markup? Did Members on the 
Finance Committee, some of whom have experience and expertise on 
prescription drugs and Medicare--every major Medicare expansion has 
passed through the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote. We did not 
have a markup this year. We did not even have a chance to offer 
amendments. Yet we spent 2, 3, 4 weeks on the floor trying to mark up 
something on the floor with no result, with no prescription drug 
benefit being offered. The House was able to pass it. We were not.
  The same thing is true for the Medicare give-back bill. The House was 
able to do that, in conjunction with the prescription drugs. Some are 
saying let's put together a give-back bill and run that through.
  We are going to give providers, hospitals, and doctors more money, 
but we are not going to give prescription drugs to seniors who really 
need them, who do not have them, or who are maybe low-income? I am not 
sure that is very fair.
  The Senate is flat not working.
  In the Finance Committee last week, we are going to have a small 
business bill. Two or three Senators put together a bill, $16 billion. 
There are some tax increases. There was no consensus whatsoever in 
doing it, except maybe to help somebody politically, but it was not a 
question of, is this really going to stimulate small business?
  Most people realize it is a stalking horse for a person to offer a 
minimum wage increase which really would hurt small business.
  I look at the number of judges, and we have confirmed 78 judges. Some 
say that is great. In President Bush's first 2 years, 78 judges have 
been confirmed, which is 61 percent of the judges that he has 
nominated. Maybe that sounds pretty good, but in looking at President 
Clinton, he got 129 judges in his first 2 years. He got 90 percent of 
his judges; President Bush has 61 percent. President Bush 1 got 71 
judges. That was 93 percent of the judges he nominated. President 
Reagan got 89 judges, which was 98 percent of the judges he nominated 
in his first 2 years, but President Bush only has 61 percent.
  When it comes to circuit court judges, the President only has 14 of 
32. He has 43 percent of his circuit court judges confirmed. For 
whatever reason, it seems as if the majority, the Democrats on the 
Judiciary Committee, do not want circuit court judges to be appointed 
by President Bush, so they are holding up several outstanding, well-
qualified nominees, for ages.
  Miguel Estrada is finally going to get a hearing on Thursday. He was 
nominated a year ago May. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme 
Court. He has outstanding qualifications, graduated the top of his 
class from Columbia and Harvard, was an assistant U.S. attorney, and an 
assistant solicitor. He finally gets to have a hearing.
  Then there is John Roberts who was nominated a year ago May. He has 
argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, and he is yet to get a 
hearing, probably will not get a hearing this year. What is fair about 
that?
  When people are patting themselves on the back because we have 
confirmed 78 judges and they are saying that is a lot, well, not when 
Bill Clinton got 90 percent and President Bush gets 61 percent; not 
when the current President Bush gets 43 percent of his circuit court 
judges and President Clinton got 86 percent. President Bush 1 and 
President Reagan both got 95 percent of their circuit court judges.
  All of a sudden, when it comes to circuit court judges, we are just 
going to go slow on those; they are going to have to wait a year and a 
half to get a hearing, if they get a hearing. I do not think that is 
fair.
  If we add together the fact that we have not done a budget, we have 
not done appropriations bills, we have not been confirming the number 
of judges that we traditionally have for the previous three Presidents, 
when we have not done a prescription drug bill, when we have not marked 
up an energy bill through the committee so it is stuck in conference, 
this Congress, this Senate, has not been working.
  For people to say it is the President's fault or it is the House's 
fault, I disagree. The House has been pretty productive in their 
legislative efforts. They passed a prescription drug bill. They passed 
a budget. They have passed more appropriations bills than we have, and 
they would have passed more had we passed a budget. If this Senate 
would have passed a budget--which, incidentally, 60 votes are not 
needed to pass a budget. Fifty-one votes are needed to pass a budget. 
If this Senate would have passed a budget, these appropriations bills 
could have gone forward.
  To cast aspersions blaming the House or the President for not getting 
the work done, the blame belongs right here. The Senate has not done 
its work. We have not passed a budget. We have not passed 
appropriations bills. Next Monday is the end of the fiscal year. Shame 
on us. This is the first year I have been in the Senate that we have 
not gotten our work even close to being done. It is not as though the 
bills are stuck in conference and we have not resolved the differences. 
We have not gotten the bills out of the Senate, and that is really not 
very acceptable.
  The Senate needs to work. We need to do our work. We have not done 
our work, certainly this past year.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________