[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9184-S9185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           FIREFIGHTING FUNDS

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to address this third vote 
on cloture on the Byrd amendment directing the replenishing of 
firefighting funds for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.
  This vote really hinges on our desire to get drought relief to the 
West.
  In my opinion, that is not what this debate is about. Drought relief 
has already been agreed to almost unanimously by this body. In other 
words, there were 69 votes for it. There is strong support in the 
Senate. I am a strong supporter for that relief.
  What is happening here is the majority is saying it is our way, or 
the highway. America's farmers and ranchers know that is not the way we 
do business, or get business done. Solving problems takes compromise. I 
worked with the majority to get the ball rolling. I worked with the 
administration to get the ball rolling. We worked with the 
administration and the other side--not only the other side--for release 
last

[[Page S9185]]

week of money for livestock producers in drought-stricken areas. But 
now we see no compromise for realistic solutions. Every American has 
watched our forests burning every night on television. Yet the other 
side is reluctant to do anything about it--they have no conscience.
  It does not change any law. It allows us to manage forest lands for 
the prevention of the disasters that we have had since 1998.
  Come to my State and talk to the farmers and ranchers who have had 
drought for 4 years. Then, turn around and talk with people who love 
those forests. They have seen the forests burn for the last 4 years. 
And then tell me we should not have a vote in order to clean them up.

  Have people lost their senses? They do not understand what happens in 
this biological world when we grow a renewable product--a renewable 
product. Have we had nothing in our schools that teach us?
  I am like the old preacher who walked by a ranch one day. It was a 
nice Sunday morning. He said: Nice looking ranch you have got here.
  The old rancher says: Yes, it is. You should have seen it while the 
Lord had it to himself.
  We have people in this ecosystem.
  These little groups, I might add, that have very little dirt under 
their fingernails--very little--are telling us to leave it alone, and 
Mother Nature will take care of it. The American people have seen that 
kind of management for the last 25 years. They have seen the results of 
it. It burned.
  What is being denied here is a vote. We are being denied a vote on an 
issue that, sort of tongue in cheek, burns in the hearts of Americans. 
They don't like this. They do not want to see their forests go up in 
flames and have a renewable resource wasted when it can be prevented. 
That is what it is about.
  We will reject cloture until the majority is willing to work on a 
compromise that will actually make a difference to Americans.
  I want to associate myself with the words of our assistant leader on 
our side. Cloture is a terrible arrow in the quiver during these times 
on appropriations bills. It seems as though when we struck the deal for 
South Dakota less than 3 or 4 months ago, it was the right thing to do. 
It exempted all the laws.
  Do we have a double standard here? Should those of us in other States 
who represent public lands which produce a renewable product not be 
afforded the same standard? We are not even asking for that much 
change. We are not exempting any law. We are not exempting anything.
  What we are saying is make your case. Invoke a double standard, and 
then premise the argument that this is a vote against drought aid for 
American agriculture? It is absolutely absurd.
  Any clear-thinking American who has watched the deterioration of our 
forests and who has seen the results can stand there, and who in this 
body can look them in the eye and say, well, that is the way it is?
  I will tell you how many votes they will get against their proposal. 
I have heard maybe three or four will come down and give the reasons 
they are opposed to it to justify their vote, and to answer some of the 
questions we have.
  It is not right. It is not only not right, but it is not fair.
  I have real people living in my State, too, just like everywhere 
else. But the unwillingness to give us a vote, which is our right and a 
constitutional need to get the House of Representatives and the 
President a vote to actually pass laws, has brought us to a standstill 
in this body.
  It is not right. It is not fair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BURNS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. You mentioned drought aid. Am I not correct that drought 
aid cannot pass unless the bill passes?
  Mr. BURNS. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. If one wanted to get drought aid to farmers, would it 
make sense, since that has been agreed to in the underlying bill, to 
have a vote on the Craig amendment, and it could be an up-or-down vote 
or a motion to table, dispose of the Craig amendment one way or 
another, and pass the bill?
  Mr. BURNS. And move on. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. And every Member on this side of the aisle is willing to 
do that. No one on this side of the aisle is filibustering this bill.
  Mr. BURNS. That is right. No preconditions. No either/or. If we are 
really serious about it, give us a vote. That is what we are fighting 
for, the privilege of voting. That is all. Defeat us if your conscience 
allows. But give us a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute on each side. Our side is up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I have listened to my friend from Montana and my dear 
friend from Oklahoma. You cannot change the Senate rules. They can say 
all they want that they are not filibustering this bill. This is the 
fourth week we are on the bill. If they want to get disaster aid to the 
farmers, they should allow us to go forward on this legislation. We can 
offer their amendment on other matters, if they really care about the 
farmers; 79 Senators said they did. Those people are waiting for relief 
as we speak. They should go ahead and allow us to pass this bill. In 
the meantime, the farmers get nothing.
  It is not as if we are not fighting fires. There is $800 million that 
Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens put in this bill for fighting fires. 
It is a question of their wanting to do away with judicial review, 
which we are unwilling to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. If people want to pass this bill, the way to pass the 
bill is to do it the way Senator Reid and I used to manage the bill, 
and that is to vote. We get paid to vote.
  For whatever reason, some people are afraid to vote on the Craig 
amendment. If we get on the bill, maybe someone will move to table the 
Craig amendment. We need to vote. The Senators from Montana, North 
Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and other States that have fires are 
entitled to have forest management improvements just like South Dakota. 
What the Craig amendment is asking for is not as much as South Dakota 
received.
  We are entitled to a vote. You can file cloture all you want, but we 
are going to have a vote. We are going to have a vote. To file cloture, 
so we do not even get a vote on the Craig amendment, will not happen. 
If cloture is invoked, we can still offer the amendment, so we are 
getting nowhere fast. We are not going to finish this bill until we get 
a vote.

                          ____________________