[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9678-S9679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SENATE INACTION

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think it is time that we take a look at 
where we are and determine what is happening in this body. We have not 
completed an energy bill, a Defense authorization bill, a terrorism 
reinsurance bill, a homeland security bill, or a bill to provide a 
prescription drug benefit.
  Even though we are beginning the new fiscal year today, this is not a 
happy occasion. We have not considered a budget on this floor. We have 
not completed and sent to the President a single 1 of the 13 
appropriations bills. I fear that the President's pen may dry up before 
we send him a bill to sign or veto.
  Our distinguished former colleague and leader, Senator Bob Dole, once 
said:

       I do believe we spend a lot of time doing very little, and 
     that may be an understatement.

  Meanwhile, there are great needs. Our economy struggles. We have not 
passed a terrorism risk reinsurance bill that would put our 
construction industry back to work. We haven't passed an energy bill 
that could put literally three-quarters of a million people to work in 
the construction area, in the development of the goods and the 
products, the pipelines we need to secure our energy future.
  The economy is a problem. This summer, the Governor of the State of 
Missouri announced that Missouri's relative job loss was the highest in 
the Nation over the past year. There are measures pending before us 
that have been recommended that we have not passed. Here we are, the 
first day of the new fiscal year, and we have not yet begun to debate a 
budget that would be the framework for our appropriations bills. It was 
to be completed on April 15. We worked on it in the Budget Committee. 
It was a contentious debate. But we said at the time that the bill that 
was reported out of the Budget Committee was not one that could pass. 
Unfortunately, we were correct. It has not even been brought up.
  The majority has not even brought up their own budget bill to be 
amended or to be debated on the floor. Even if the bill is not perfect, 
we should at least bring it up for debate so we can proceed to get a 
budget. Since 1976, when the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 first 
went into effect, this has never happened. This is the first time the 
Senate has not seen fit to consider a budget since the Ford 
administration.
  Historically, the budget resolution has been a difficult matter to 
resolve. On average, it has been adopted late some 40 days. It is never 
pleasant. I see the distinguished former chairman of the Budget 
Committee on the floor. He has fought many difficult battles, but he 
has accomplished the purpose. And we passed a budget so we could pass 
appropriations bills; so we have some discipline. This one is over 5 
months late and counting.
  One of the key congressional responsibilities provided for in the 
Constitution remains unscheduled. Furthermore, as of midnight last 
night, there are no budget enforcement provisions, no pay-as-you-go 
requirements, no points of order against overspending. They are all 
relaxed. As of today, all budget enforcement provisions have expired. I 
hope nobody will take this as an invitation to break the budget with 
more directed spending.
  On top of this, we have not completed a single appropriations bill, 
which was supposed to have been completed by midnight last night. We 
have begun the fiscal year of 2003 with a record of zero for 13--not a 
very good average. Only three bills have completed Senate consideration 
in appropriations.
  We all know resolving spending matters is always difficult. There is 
always someone else to blame. But clearly the Senate has not completed 
its most primary responsibility, which is expressing the will of the 
public in the form of a budget. I understand in the last 8 weeks we 
have not completed action and had a rollcall vote to pass a major piece 
of legislation. We have been on the Interior appropriations bill for 4 
weeks. This is week 5.
  In this case, we are making no progress because the majority will not 
permit the Senate to cast a vote on an amendment designed to prevent 
forest fires from destroying forests and homes and taking human life.

  I know members of the Appropriations Committee are ready to bring 
their bills before the Senate for consideration. The chairman, Senator 
Byrd, and ranking member, Senator Stevens, reported all 13 bills out of 
the Appropriations Committee by the end of July.
  The Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and I are ready to bring our 
bill to the floor to fund veterans and housing and the environment and 
space and science and emergency management. Well, it is not there. We 
go into the new year without any of these bills being passed.
  I don't want to be confrontational with those managing the Senate, 
but this is week 5 on a bill that should have taken 2 days. As someone 
who has spent a lot of time in my few years working with the majority 
and minority and with the House and the administration resolving 
difficult matters of disagreement, I know how difficult it is to 
complete spending bills. However, I fear this process is bogged down by 
design.
  Last week, we were told we may have to vote on Saturday. But instead 
of voting on Saturday, we canceled votes on Friday and Monday. On the 
Interior bill, western Senators have an amendment to protect their 
forests and their citizens from fire. But the majority, apparently on 
behalf of certain interest groups, will not permit the Senate to vote. 
We should vote. That is our job. We vote up or down. We should vote, 
win or lose. The whole purpose of this delay, regrettably, is to avoid 
voting.
  What is reprehensible is that the authors of the amendment to prevent 
devastating, deadly fires--deadly to humans, to forests, property, and 
wildlife--are not even given an opportunity to get a vote. If we would 
vote, we could get to the remaining amendment, pass this bill, and move 
on in the next day or two.
  Some are suggesting--this I believe is outrageous--that the sponsors 
of the amendment should have to pull their amendment so we would not 
have to vote. We have only cast 227 votes this year. I can't remember 
any year in my history where we passed so few. But this would be a good 
time to pass another one. We could cast another vote and pass this 
bill.
  The sponsors of this amendment have had people in their States die. 
They have had millions of acres of trees, including old-growth trees, 
habitat, and wildlife ruined, killed by fire, and houses burned. They 
have a solution on which the Senate should have the courtesy, if not 
the common sense, to vote. How poorly is the majority leadership 
willing to treat Senators from these States?
  The Senators and their constituents deserve a vote, period. If 
Senators want to vote against it, then do so. Senator Craig has not had 
the opportunity to slip this provision into a conference report, so he 
is doing what the Senator is paid to do, which is to offer an amendment 
up or down and have a vote. Why can't we? Should the sponsors be asked 
to ignore their burning States and set their amendments aside or should 
the people preventing a vote decide that the Senate should do what we 
are paid to do? To me, the answer is obvious.
  We have been in session for over 4 weeks. The last 4 weeks, we have 
cast a whopping 19 votes, many of them on noncontroversial judges. I 
compliment our colleagues from South Dakota for figuring out a way to 
protect their State from fire. But I want others to have the same 
opportunity. I have farmers who want farm aid. The Senator from South 
Dakota got his vote on farm aid. I voted for it. It was not germane to 
the bill, it was not relevant to the bill, but I voted for it because 
it is important to farmers all across the heartland of America.

  Why can't the Senators whose States are on fire or threatened to be 
on fire have a vote? I haven't heard one good

[[Page S9679]]

explanation as to why Members whose States are on fire should not be 
entitled to a vote. I would urge the leadership to explain to the 
people of the western States that are on fire why they are not 
deserving of a vote.
  The amendment is pending. Let us vote. South Dakota got the 
protection. Are California or New Mexico less important?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If you think through the Craig-Domenici amendment, 
which was going to permit us to have a vote in reference to the 
thinning of forest accumulations in certain parts of the West to avoid 
fire, here is the logic: We won't let you vote. But do you know why 
they won't let us vote?
  Mr. BOND. I am puzzled why we can't get a vote on this commonsense, 
sound forest management plan. I defer to my colleague and ask for his 
guidance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Two reasons: One, some of their Senators would have to 
vote for it because it is such a good amendment; they know some of them 
are yearning to vote for it so they get to vote. Secondly, if it got 
enough votes, they would have to filibuster it--``they'' being the 
other side of the aisle--because it would then be an amendment that the 
environmentalists who don't support it would insist that their Members 
on that side vote against.
  It is the strangest kind of filibuster you ever saw. It is a 
filibuster so as to never let an amendment pass so that the majority 
won't have to vote on it. And if it were to pass, they would have to 
filibuster it. So they are clean and blaming us for the filibuster.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for the 
informative discussion. Maybe they have the votes to defeat it. If they 
defeat it, then there is no problem. But I have to say, having studied 
this issue and having been added as a cosponsor of this amendment, as 
one whose hobby and avocation is forestry and having talked to Forest 
Service personnel in my State, to leading academic foresters from 
institutions in my State and across the West, this is just common 
sense. The foresters, the academic foresters, the professional Forest 
Service people, know you cannot leave the fuel that sets off 
catastrophic fires in the forests or you will have catastrophic fires.

  In my State, we have not only oak decline and beetle infestation; we 
have had tornadoes. They have knocked over trees. Guess what. It was a 
very dry summer. These trees have dried out. A spark from lightning or 
any kind of manmade spark could set these off. Ours is not the biggest 
problem. The biggest problems are faced by our colleagues in the West. 
I simply want to get an up-or-down vote. I know somebody might be put 
in a difficult spot. They have to either vote for their constituents 
and the safety of forests or for the environmental groups who don't 
seem to understand the problems that arise in the forests of the West. 
I daresay none of those groups live next to the forests, which could 
become a raging inferno if those fuels are not removed from the 
forests.
  I think we are going to have to make a choice. Do we want to serve 
our citizens and protect the environment, prevent catastrophic forest 
fires or do we want to take care of politically active and well-
financed interest groups? I can certainly understand the free speech 
and the desire for people in the environmental groups to have their 
views and express them, but I don't believe we are obliged to skip a 
vote on the amendment because they oppose it. They have a right to jump 
up and explain their arguments and try to urge people not to vote for 
it. Senator Craig, Senator Kyl, Senator Domenici, and I would be happy 
to try to discuss that with anybody. But we have discussed it. It is 
about time we vote. I think it should be resolved with a vote. They can 
move to table and vote up or down. The effort of Senator Craig to 
prevent forest fires is worth the Senate's time and I would like to 
hear from somebody why it should not be voted on. We have lost forests 
the size of New Jersey. Firefighters have died. South Dakota is 
protected, but Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Missouri, and other Western 
States deserve to be protected as well.
  I think we at least have a right to have a vote on it. I plead with 
those objecting to permit us to do what the people sent us to do--cast 
a vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield whatever time he has remaining?
  Mr. BOND. Yes. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to merely comment on the issue 
raised by my good friend from Missouri. I think the people in the West 
understand we are not being dealt with fairly. The Western States have 
this large accumulation of debris and forests are burning down. Our 
amendment would permit some help to those States where we see these 
enormous accumulations going up in flames. We could take that out.

                          ____________________