Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I apologized to him earlier today. We tried to get him in the lineup so we could move on this important measure, and we did not get it done. I rise today in very strong support of the request he is going to make because I share with him and my other colleagues on the floor the fact that S. 724, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act of 2001, is vitally important for the health care of children and pregnant women in America. As one who spent a good deal of time concerned about the care of children, particularly health care in the very earliest years, I believe this is one of the most important steps we can take. I was one of the original sponsors of S. 724. The legislation's simple goal is to make sure more pregnant women and more children are covered by health insurance so they get a good start for the child and have access to health care services they need to make sure they are healthy. This simply gives the States the option and flexibility to cover low- income pregnant women in the States Children Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, as I call it, for the full range of prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care. This bill would complement the administration's final rule that allows States to expand S-CHIP coverage to fetuses by covering additional vital health care services for the pregnant mother the rule would not cover. Under current law, S-CHIP currently permits States to cover eligible babies once they are born, but coverage is not available to women when they are pregnant. This creates the perverse situation in which a State can provide health care for a child the day she is born, but cannot provide the critical prenatal care, both to the child and the mother's health, during the prior 9-month period. It just absolutely makes no sense. Prenatal care is essential for both the mother's health and the baby's health. No health care program that ignores this fact can fully address the issue of children's health care. This bill will eliminate the illogical disconnect that currently exists between pregnant women and babies in the S-CHIP program. This bill, as I believe has already been indicated by my colleague, has strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. It has the endorsement of the National Governors' Association and 25 other national organizations, including the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Association of Children's Hospitals, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Health Association. One normally speaks of the usual suspects backing a bill. In this case, the usual strong proponents are backing the bill. I can think of no stronger group to have behind this measure. I also note, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Thompson, strongly supports passage of the legislation. The need is great. On any given day, almost 9 million children and 400,000 pregnant women do not have health insurance coverage. For many of these women and children, they or their families simply cannot afford insurance. Many others are actually eligible for a public program like Medicaid or S-CHIP, but they do not know they are eligible and are not signed up. Lack of health insurance can lead to numerous health problems, both for children and for pregnant women. A pregnant mother without health coverage is much less likely to receive the health care services she needs to ensure the child is healthy, happy, and fully able to learn and grow. All women need prenatal care. Young and old, first baby or fifth, all mothers benefit from regular care during pregnancy. Studies have shown that an uninsured pregnant woman is much less likely to get critical prenatal care that reduces the risk of health problems for both the woman and the child. Babies whose mothers receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are at risk for many of the health problems, including birth defects, premature births, and low birth rate, a tragedy that we ought to devote every effort to eliminate. We know prenatal care improves both birth outcomes and can save money. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, infants born to mothers who receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to be low birth weight, and low birth weight in pre-term births is one of the most expensive reasons for a hospital stay in the United States, with hospital charges averaging $50,000, an especially serious issue for families without health insurance. A report by the IOM entitled ``Health Is A Family Matter'' notes: Infants of uninsured women are more likely to die than are those of insured women. In one region of West Virginia, the fetal death rate dropped 35.4 to 7 for 1,000 live births after the introduction of the prenatal care for the uninsured. Let me reemphasize that--35 fetal deaths for 1,000 live births. When they gave insurance and prenatal care, it dropped to 7, a reduction of 80 percent. In addition to ensuring better health outcomes, research and State experience suggest that covering pregnant women is a highly successful outreach mechanism for enrolling children. I thank Senator Bingaman from New Mexico for his leadership in the Finance Committee on this vital health care issue. This bill passed the Finance Committee in the beginning of August by unanimous consent, with additional language to provide children continuous coverage through the first and most critical year of life. I commend him for that provision. It makes a strong bill even stronger. The studies have shown time and again that babies born to mothers receiving late or no prenatal care are more likely to face complications which result in hospitalization, expensive medical treatment, and ultimately increased costs to public programs. We must close the gap in coverage between pregnant mothers and their children to improve the health of both and to address more fully the issue of children's health care. It can be said this is a sound matter of economics, to reduce the costs, but none of us would deny that the far greater benefits are the benefits of healthy children. Numbers cannot be put on them. In this instance, this is a saving: Less money to care for needy children. But the most important benefit is less needy children, less harm to the children, less serious conditions for the children, and better families, better citizens in the future. This is crucial legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support so we can pass this bill. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership, and I hope we will be able to get this bill done before we leave. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I didn't hear the request.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, to respond to my colleague from Nevada, I was preparing to speak. The Senator from New Mexico wants to bring up the health insurance bill. I just walked in to debate another matter.

Mr. BOND. That works for me.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, for the youngster who is retiring from the greater Carolina delegation, I bid a fond farewell. I am delighted for him and his wife Dot, who after three decades in the Senate will get to spend some time for themselves and with their seven grandchildren. The bad news is that there are a great number of others who will be delighted with Senator Helms' departure. Foreign Communist officials, Fidel Castro, and others will be delighted that he will not be on the Senate floor standing tall on behalf of U.S. values, U.S. security, and human rights. Over his many years of service, his strict observation to U.S. security interests never wavered. On matters of foreign policy and national security, he never rested. He never allowed officials at the Department of State or the United Nations to rest either. When it came to the security of free people, his philosophy has always been, keep your powder dry and keep lots of powder. Despite his rigid reluctance to compromise, his legislative record has been extraordinary. Understanding the rules of the Senate, being willing to use the rules of the Senate, and being willing to wait as long as it takes proved to be a formula for much legislative success. To reorganize the State Department, Senator Helms had to hold up 18 nominations for ambassadors, halted almost all committee business for six months as well as approval of two international treaties, and overcome a Presidential veto. A big supporter of President Reagan and his conservative agenda, Senator Helms was one of two Senators to vote against the nomination of Secretary Weinberg to be Secretary of Defense. Again, a protector of the conservative agenda, he felt the nominee was not adequately committed to the President's agenda; always brave, seldom subtle. Over his long career, Senator Helms has won praise and scorn for doing what he came to Washington to do, which is speak his mind and vote his convictions. He didn't mind being the only one to vote against a spending bill. He paid his constituents the courtesy of being candid. He did not need to do a poll to have an opinion. It is not his habit to ``flip-flop'' on political issues because with Jesse, he means what he says and says what he means. One political commentator described the senior Senator as follows: ``Helms follows a simple formula; Implacability equals strength, It works. He can't be buffaloed--or ignored. . . . The point here is Helms has gained strange, new respect not as many conservatives have--by moving left. Helms has earned it the hard way--by not moving at all.'' To ``official Washington,'' Senator Helms was referred to as ``Senator No.'' But to his beloved constituents asking for help, he was: ``Senator Yes.'' His first floor statement on January 11, 1973, was on behalf of ``more than 182,000 families in my State [who] earn their living from the production of tobacco.'' In the Senate, we will miss this true gentleman with his gentle smile, his great sense of humor, and his tireless commitment to our Nation. We wish you, your wife Dot and your family well and thank you and the good citizens of North Carolina for your service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is another matter that is extremely important for small businesses in this country; that is, the high cost of health insurance. I have, along with my colleague, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, introduced a measure to authorize association of health plans so small businesses can come together in trade associations or other multistate bodies with similar interests to purchase their health insurance with a large pool. If you purchase as an individual or as a very small business, it is like going into the store and buying soda one can at a time. You can't get a very good price. It also costs you a lot more in administrative costs to administer that plan if you are the sole administrator. From the health insurance standpoint, you don't share the risks over a broad group of people so that you can make an actuarially sound determination of how much health insurance costs. We have seen health insurance costs rising all across the Nation. Early last month, I hosted my second National Conference for Women and Small Business Owners in St. Louis. And not surprisingly, some 72 percent of them said providing health insurance, which is extremely costly, was one of the most important challenges they face. We also found another statistic that I found very amazing. We have 39 or 40 million people without health insurance in the country today. That is far too many. But did you know that 60 percent--roughly 24 million of those people--are either employees, employers, or members of the families of people employed in small business? Some 24 million people are without health insurance today because their chief breadwinner belongs to a small business that cannot afford health insurance. I think that is just too many. The high costs of health insurance have made it difficult for small businesses to get the health insurance coverage they need. They do not have the bargaining power. They cannot spread the administrative cost. They cannot spread the risk. Basically, they cannot get as good a deal as a large corporation or a union or the Government can get. We are very fortunate, as Federal employees, to have access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is because we have a great big pool and we can bargain to get the best rates and we have choices from health insurance providers. Those choices are not available to small business. So we have developed a plan, with the full support and leadership of the President, to authorize establishing association health plans. The time has come for those health plans to be set up by legislation. On Monday of this week, we found that there has been a jump in the number of those Americans without health insurance. It is extremely timely. Yesterday, I understand, the Secretary of Labor wrote to the majority leader and asked that we bring up and try to pass association health plans. It has already been passed by the House. It is just sitting here. We need to pass it. I hope before we get out of here--I hope that is October 11; I am not sure from what the majority leader said whether we will make it by October 11--but before we go, I hope we have a vote on association health plans. The Secretary of Labor has said this is the highest priority. And the Secretary of Labor would be the one who would regulate these plans to make sure they do not cherry-pick, that they are financially sound, and that they meet the requirements of the law. The law is carefully structured to prevent picking out only healthy insured groups. You could not set up a group of fitness instructors, for example, in a health plan because that would take the lowest risk people and give them an unfair advantage over others, when health insurance is supposed to spread the risk over a broad population. Association health plans are just one, but a very important, step we need to take in assuring that a significant number of those 24 or more million Americans who do not have health insurance get it. This is something I have heard from small business groups, as I have listened to them in my State and across the country, in forums of all sizes. We get e-mails. We do not get letters very often; they still get held up in the radiation process, but when we do get letters, they are still talking about the high cost of health care. Association health plans are one way we could give small business the power to deal with the high cost of health insurance. I have spoken to my colleagues about this before. This has been an item of great interest in our Small Business Committee. I hope more colleagues will look into this question of getting adequate and affordable health insurance coverage through association health plans. The President has made a very strong and clear statement in favor of association health plans. I would hope this body could follow the leadership of the House of Representatives, which has already passed the association health plan legislation. This would be something very important we could do for small businesses and their employees and their employees' families. Madam President, I am happy to respond to questions from my colleagues to provide them further information. I invite their attention and I hope we can get action on that measure. Madam President, I yield the floor. Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I was interested to read in today's Washington Post an editorial urging us to move forward on the election reform bill. This bill has been championed by Senator Dodd, the chairman of the committee, and Senator McConnell, the ranking member. I have had a role in some antifraud provisions. The Florida elections of this year seem to have brought more attention to the need for election law reform. The conclusion of the Washington Post is that: At a time when voter turnout is at an all-time low, bolstering public confidence in the machinery of democracy is especially urgent. I agree with that. That is why I worked so hard to see if we could get a bill passed that would do that. We need to make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. Unfortunately, what we saw in Florida this year was the old truth: No matter how much appropriations in or what kind of legislation you have, if you have incompetence in local election officials, incompetence trumps everything. We know there were tremendous problems this year in an area where there were problems in 2000, even though they had new machines. Nevertheless, we have worked on a bill that has many compromises and has a good structure for getting the kind of equipment we need to improve elections, providing additional safeguards, voting machines for those with disabilities and, in my view, the very important role of preventing dead people, nonexistent people, and dogs from voting. Many of my colleagues don't want to hear me talk anymore about Ritzy Mekler, the dog that was registered in Missouri. Unfortunately, Ritzy joins a very distinguished group of dogs registered to vote around the country because motor voter does not have protection against phony registration. We spent more than 7 months last year negotiating a bill. We brought it to the floor. There was some backsliding. We got it passed late this winter. It has been stalled in trying to work out the final details. I have been discouraged because I have worked with the leaders from the other side on the bill to offer some compromises. We want to get the bill passed. I believe, along with Senator McConnell, that we have proposed reasonable means of dealing with the problems they have. Unfortunately, the negotiations at the staff level have been stymied. Every time we get the wheelbarrow full of frogs, we find, as we try to wrap up the final details and get the final frogs in, some of the frogs have jumped out of the wheelbarrow. Election reform is another bill that is long overdue for passage. I see my colleague from Kentucky in the Chamber who has been a champion in this area. I appreciate working with him and Senator Dodd. I hope we can work with our colleagues on the House side, if we will just move forward and deal with some very important protections against more fraud in voting. Since I see the manager of the bill is ready to go, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I object on behalf of Members on this side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the majority floor leader. My first item should be a noncontroversial one.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have a number of issues to speak about. I wish to speak in relation to a welcoming resolution, and then I have further remarks upon which I wish to expound. I am happy to accommodate the floor leader's desire. I ask what his intentions are.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have one matter that will take 2 minutes and another matter that will take 10 to 15 minutes. And if nothing else is happening, I could go for another 20.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, of course. I am always happy to accommodate my colleague.

Mr. BOND. Pardon?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are going to be having a visit from a very important leader of a great ally, the Queen of Thailand. Her Majesty Queen Sirikit arrives here in Washington on Friday of this week. We know that Thailand and the United States have a shared commitment to peace, liberty, democracy, and free enterprise. We are very dependent upon that country for economic trade as well as security. Queen Sirikit has done a remarkable job in leading the way in humanitarian efforts, including in rural Thailand. Mr. President, we are experiencing a period of national tension as the United States girds itself to confront those nations and those faceless individuals who would threaten our prosperity, our security and, indeed, our very lives. However, in such times of anxiety, it is important that we recall that the globe is populated much more heavily with our friends than with our enemies and that, while we must face those enemies, we should also pause to honor our faithful allies. With this thought in mind, I take a moment to draw the attention of the Senate to the Government and people of Thailand whose Queen, Her Majesty Queen Sirikit, arrives here in Washington, D.C. on Friday, October 4, 2002. The United States enjoys a long and constructive relationship with the people of Thailand, dating back to 1833 when the administration of President Andrew Jackson negotiated and signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in which the two signatories pledged to establish ``a perpetual peace'' between them. That treaty, the first such that the United States signed with any Asian nation, commenced a 169-year period of amicable, mutually beneficial relations. Thailand and the United States enjoyed a shared commitment to peace, liberty, democracy and free enterprise, enabling us to cooperate both in the broadening and the protection of those values. Thailand is one of the only five countries in Asia with whom the United States has a bilateral security agreement. Furthermore, this country has a military assistance agreement with Thailand that was negotiated and signed following the end of the conflict in the Korean peninsula. Each year, our armed forces join with the Thai defense establishment in military maneuvers dubbed ``Cobra Gold''. These are the largest military exercises involving U.S. forces in the whole of the Asian continent. We are all aware of, and deeply regret, the pain that many of the Thai people have had to absorb following the recent retreat of many Asian economies. However, after implementing painful but necessary reforms, the Thai economy is clearly bouncing back, with a recovered currency and annual economic growth that could prove to be as high as 5 percent his year. The U.S. remains Thailand's largest export market while Thailand ranks 22nd as a destiny of U.S. exports. This nation has an aggregate investment of almost $20 billion, while 600 U.S. companies, large and small, are currently doing business there. But I do not wish to talk solely of general U.S.-Thai relations. I also wish to acquaint the Senate with the splendid humanitarian work of Queen Sirikit, who has worked tirelessly to promote the well being of both Thais and non Thais alike. For the past 46 years she has served as President of the Thai Red Cross Society. In this capacity, she had to address the massive humanitarian problems posed by the influx of 40,000 Cambodian refugees as they flooded across the Thai border to flee the turmoil in their country. Many of those people lived for years in the Khao Larn Center that she set up to shelter, feed and care for families with small children and unaccompanied orphans. Her own people have similarly benefited from Her Majesty's close attention. To increase the income of the country's rural families, Her Majesty has initiated many projects, such as the Foundation for the Promotion of Supplementary Occupations and Techniques, better known as the SUPPORT Foundation. This is certainly a model for other developing countries as many are discovering to their cost that the early stages of economic development can often prompt a rush from the land to the city that the nascent urban economy is often unable to bear. If developing nations are to achieve sustainable growth, they will have to emulate Queen Sirikit's attention to the needs of the rural population. I am by no means the first person to recognize Her Majesty's accomplishments. She has been awarded the prestigious CERES medal by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tufts University has honored her with an Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters in recognition of her work for the rural poor of Thailand. Her care for the health of those same people has won her an Honorary Fellowship from Great Britain's Royal College of Physicians. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in welcoming Queen Sirikit to the United States. I understand that Her Majesty will preside over an event at the Library of Congress next Wednesday, October 9 during which the work and activities of the SUPPORT Foundation will also be exhibited and I look forward to seeing many of you there. I have a resolution that I hope to be able to bring up which will join with the House in extending the welcome of Congress to Her Majesty, the Queen. We look forward to discussing that with the leaders on both sides. And I hope to be able to address that later on.

Mr. BOND

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 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. BOND. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BOND. Yes. How much time do I have remaining?

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. 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. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is important for us to understand where we are on the homeland security bill. This is, obviously, a very important bill for the President. The President has outlined extensively his plan of organizing this agency. The one thing he has asked is that he be given an agency that is workable. The distinguished majority leader has pointed out there have been a number of cloture votes and we have not gotten cloture, so by that he suggests that somehow this side of the aisle is the problem. I believe it was June of this year that the majority leader promised he would not fill up the tree. For those who may be listening at home, that is a means of adding a number of amendments so that the other side cannot offer any amendments for a vote. Well, they filled up the tree to keep the President from getting an up-or-down vote on his proposal. As a result, we have opposed cloture because it would have prevented us from getting to the President's proposal. If we get to the President's proposal--and I hope we will--the majority leader may have the votes to defeat it. But I think, since we are dealing with this subject in wartime, where we need to reorganize Government to make it flexible, to make it responsive, to make it effective in defending the homeland, we ought to give the Commander in Chief at least a vote on his proposal. I believe my colleagues who have been working on the bipartisan bill that reflects the President's proposals have taken some 25 different amendments to accommodate the interests of Congress and various bodies. The distinguished junior Senator from Georgia and the senior Senator from Texas have worked with the Senator from Tennessee on this measure. They have gotten to the point where they have made compromises. It comes down to the point where the President believes, and most of us on this side agree, that he could not manage the Department effectively if his hands were tied. Whether my colleagues want to vote on it or not, I think it makes sense, out of common courtesy, if nothing else, to give the Commander in Chief an up-or-down vote on his proposal. As has been pointed out, the Senate bill does not include the managerial flexibilities the President needs to run the Department. His representative, Dr. Falkenrath, stated we think the bill, as reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would create an extremely rigid bureaucracy. There would be a huge gap between the responsibilities of the Secretary to integrate the units as to what it says in article 102 and actually do that in practice. What it means is we set up a new Homeland Security Department that is supposed to be fast and responsive, assimilate the information that comes in from all the varying intelligence sources, and then develop an appropriate response. Unfortunately, too many elements of the Governmental Affairs bill tie the President's hands and keep him or his Secretary of the Department from taking a responsive action to make sure the Department is responsive and effective in searching out and trying to stop direct threats to the health, safety, and, frankly, the lives of people in America. It was surprising to me that the bill even moved backward from where this President, the previous President, the previous President, the previous President, and so forth down the line, had the ability, in national security interests, to make some of the changes in terms of promoting and rewarding exceptional employees, assigning them to the right duties and getting rid of employees who do not want to or are not able to do the service expected of them. When we are talking about national security, it has been the long accepted practice that commanders have to be able to command their troops. They are still protected by some 65 to 68 different provisions assuring there is no discrimination and a whole other range of protections, but to give the managers the flexibility to manage the Department of Homeland Security is simply consistent with what previous Presidents have exercised for decades. The Presidents can use the power of Commander in Chief to make sure the military works. If somebody slacks off in the Army, does not show up for a job as a sentry, they do not get 30 days of pay and a year and a half of appeals. They have real problems right now, and that is because they are dealing with national security. I believe it is time we move on with homeland security. I was delighted to know that the majority leader is committed to moving this bill prior to our adjournment. I want to go home as much as anybody else, but the very simple way to do that would be to give us an up-or- down vote on the Gramm-Miller, or Miller-Gramm, substitute, as amended, which reflects the President's views to accommodate the interests of the reasonable requests made by Members of Congress and others who wanted to see changes in it. We can pass this bill. All we ask for is an up-or-down vote. If we have an up-or-down vote, those who favor the system that has been reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee may win or we may win, but we certainly ought not hold up the bill simply to prevent a vote on what the President said is a critically important issue for national security. I believe the time has come to stop filling up the trees, trying to invoke cloture to prevent a vote, trying to lock in an amendment that would undercut the President's power before he has an opportunity to have a vote on his proposal. That does not make any sense. This body ought to show not only concern for the Commander in Chief's request but ought to respect the needs of the American people who must be assured we are doing everything in our power to move forward on homeland security with the Department that is effectively constituted and set up to carry out the responsibilities. Use of Force Against Iraq We also have another important issue before the Senate. Before we get out of here, I hope very shortly, we will be moving toward a resolution authorizing the use of force against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Let's be clear about the intent. The resolution, that I trust the House will adopt and we will adopt, should send a clear message to the world community and the Iraqi regime that the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Previous administrations, both President Clinton and Vice President Gore, have outlined the dangers that Saddam Hussein has posed. President Clinton made a very forceful statement in 1998 and then on May 23 of 2000. The Vice President, Al Gore, said we must get rid of Saddam Hussein. Regrettably, the situation has gotten worse. Without inspectors, there has been no check on the development of weapons of mass destruction. We know from defectors and other intelligence sources he is moving forward on these issues. We know the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities to make more. According to the report we received from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he could launch a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has longstanding and continuous ties to terrorist groups. We know there are terrorists operating inside of Iraq. Members of al-Qaida and the Iraq Government have been in contact for many years. This regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and the delivery capability to go with it. Unfortunately, he has readily available other weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi dictator has answered a decade of resolutions from the United Nations with a decade of defiance. In the southern and northern fly zones over Iraq, coalition aircraft continue to be fired upon and coalition pilots continue to put their lives on the line just to enforce these resolutions. Unfortunately, some elected officials went to Iraq this past weekend and said: We trust Saddam Hussein; we do not trust our President. They should have watched what we have seen on television, the firing on the coalition aircraft by Iraqi forces. In the last 2 weeks alone, coalition aircraft have been fired on 67 times. Saddam Hussein claims to be willing to accept inspections. He wants to work with us. However, 67 times he has tried to kill our pilots who are flying to enforce the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. As President Bush stated this past weekend, the Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he is actively seeking the destructive technologies to match his hatred. We know he must be stopped. The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. When they fully materialize, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to materialize and dominate the region and each passing day could be the one in which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. The mantle of leadership requires this body to act. We have seen the United Nations speak loudly and carry a soft stick too long. I am pleased to be able to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I believe we made reasonable accommodations in the resolution the President has recommended. I hope we can have hearings on that resolution. We see the final words, get it passed by the House, and pass it out of this body by a very significant majority vote of both parties. That is the clearest message we can send to the United Nations, to our allies, to those on the fence, and to the malefactors of great evil who lurk in our world today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I object on behalf of Members on this side.