[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7523-S7526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might suggest--and I do this in the
presence of my good friend from Massachusetts; I wish the distinguished
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Harry Reid, were here. I have an observation.
Maybe I am 2 weeks ahead of time, but I believe the plan is that the
Democrats are not going to let us do anything of significance,
literally nothing, unless and until they get everything they want.
The truth is, for this little period in history--I have been here 28
years, and
[[Page S7524]]
it is a small piece of that--the Republicans have controlled the Senate
and the House. But the Democrats are bound and determined this year, in
an election year, that we are not going to pass the regular
appropriations bills, period. They call us ``do nothing,'' but they are
obstructionists of the highest order.
I will just talk about one bill, then I will talk about the
appropriations bill on education. I am just going to talk on one
appropriations bill. We have heard from the beginning platitudes about
working together to get all the appropriations bills done. The
distinguished occupant of the chair has heard they want to get the
Interior bill finished; they want to get the Treasury bill finished.
For the American people, these are the bills you have to pass every
year in order to keep certain big parts of our Government open. It
comes down to October 1st, and if they aren't passed, you get the
President of the United States talking about who is closing down the
Government.
I am going to refer to just the energy and water bill. I am going to
beg the Senator, the minority leader from the other side, in the same
way he pleads with us to get something done that is right. This energy
and water bill was not drafted by Senator Pete Domenici; it was drafted
by Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who spends a
great deal of time on the floor of the Senate and, I might say, for one
who worked with him for years before he got to spend all his time on
the Senate floor, he has been a very solid performer. I praise him for
his leadership on the floor. I believe he has been fair, and I believe
he has been nonpartisan. But I believe what he is seeing he can't even
speak about because right down deep in that Senator's mind and heart he
knows it is wrong to hold up appropriations bills for the reasons being
stated by his colleagues and his leader who compel him to do it.
This energy and water bill is being held up. We can't even bring it
up because the minority leader wants a provision that is within it
taken out. He wants assurance we won't vote on it in the Senate. Who
has ever heard of that? Take a provision out of a bill that is in a
bill that has been voted in by a committee. And if you want that bill
to see the light of day in the Senate, you take out a provision and you
don't vote on it in the Senate.
I am not familiar with the contents or substance of the amendment,
except it has to do with a dispute between the upper Missouri River and
the lower Missouri River. But it is most interesting, that the
provision that the minority leader speaks of has been in the
appropriations bills at least two times. The President has signed it,
and it has gone out of the Senate. Maybe something dramatically changed
in the meantime, but it has been in the bill. It has been signed. Some
who know more than I say it has been in more than two times. I can tell
the Senate, since I have been writing this bill, it has been in 2 years
in a row.
All of a sudden, it isn't enough to have an up-or-down vote in the
Senate. The only thing that will suffice is that we take it out and
agree not to vote on it. That means if you don't want to do that, you
don't get an energy and water bill for this fiscal year.
We are getting close because we still have to do this bill. It is
different from the House bill. We need to get some new resources
assigned to the committee on the House side. We might not be able to
make it by the October deadline.
This little innocuous title, ``energy and water,'' is a very
misperceived title. Energy doesn't mean energy. Energy means all of the
nuclear weapons programs in the nuclear laboratories in America. By a
strange coincidence, they are in the energy part of this bill. We have
been asked by the Department of Energy to put $100 million in new money
in that bill to take care of production facilities in three cities,
cities such as Kansas City, Missouri; Amarillo, Texas; Oak Ridge,
Tennessee; and Aiken, South Carolina; where we have production
facilities that are desperately in need of repair. We have cleanup in
the State of the occupant of the chair that is ongoing because of our
previous nuclear weapons reactor work. We have hundreds of millions of
dollars in for that kind of cleanup.
We have all the water projects and dredging projects and flood
protection programs in this country in this bill. We have all of the
national laboratories and their special effort and all their employees'
pay in this bill. I could go well beyond that.
Now I come to the conclusion: Why can't we take this bill up?
Frankly, if ever there was an issue where there was something besides
this bill that somebody has in mind, I have not heard of it. This has
to be as bad as it is. What is it?
Is there some political issue we don't understand that has nothing to
do with the fundamental needs this bill addresses in water, water
safety, in dams, in diversions, in the dredging of harbors and, over on
the nuclear side, all the safety programs for our nuclear weapons
designs, for stockpile stewardship, which is an entire program aimed at
making sure our nuclear bombs are safe and sound without us doing any
underground testing? We can't turn that on and off and say, wait an
extra month, close down the buildings, close down the people for a
month or so because we have a little problem about the Missouri River
that somebody doesn't even want to let you vote on. It is not a
question of whether that provision is right or wrong, it is simply a
question of whether you will vote on it.
I wonder, if we would have left it out and we would have brought it
to the floor and this bill was rocking right along here on the floor
and somebody offered an amendment to do just what the committee did
because it had done it 2 years before, what would the response have
been? Would it have been, you can't do the amendment and you can't move
on with the bill? I assume that would be the case. I think we would
have a chance of convincing Senators that is not right.
I understand there are some other appropriations bills that are being
held up. I am not aware of the specific reasons why, so I won't make
the same kind of argument or evidence the same kind of concern as I
have about the energy and water bill.
The Senator from Massachusetts talked about getting our education
programs funded. We are talking about two things. We are talking about
an elementary and secondary education authorization bill which has
gotten tied up in all kinds of problems from both sides of the aisle on
amendments. When can we pass it? Can we get agreement?
But over there in those new offices beneath the Senate, that are
called ``SC''--those offices out there that are really nice to work
in--there is a whole batch of House Members. I was in there. I made up
a very large group of Senators working on the Labor-Health and Human
Services appropriations bill. I just have a hunch, from the little bit
I have participated, that the White House does not intend to sign that
bill no matter what we do. We have already put in that bill resources
amounting to $106 billion, the largest appropriations for those
functions in the history of the Republic.
In fact, there is now in that bill, to be spent on education and
other things, $12 billion more than the Budget Committee contemplated.
While our numbers aren't binding, the Senator who occupies the Chair
knows we reported out a budget resolution, and we assumed all these
pieces would fit together. We assumed about $96 billion--$94 billion or
$96 billion--for Labor, Health and Human Services. We have now gotten
to the point where we have taken from others and we put $106 billion
in.
From what I gather in that committee, there is little we can do to
convince the Democrats to be for that bill. My guess is if it rocks
along as it is, it is going to be a partisan bill, and then no matter
what we try to do, the President is going to say, ``I want more,'' and
the President is going to say, ``It is not a good enough bill''; and he
will find some reasons to say it doesn't fund this enough or that
enough. We are moving toward a real shipwreck. The issue is going to
be, at some point, why are we where we are when we come to that
shipwreck point?
I am going to start today, and I will watch everything I can, and I
will come to the floor. But I am starting today taking just one bill
and saying it would appear to me that on the energy and water bill, for
some political reason, we can't take it up, and as time passes and
moves on, whether or not we can get a bill and do all the things I have
alluded
[[Page S7525]]
to or not will be in the hands of the Democrats and the President, and
then we will see who is to blame.
I want to suggest that to the extent we are called ``a Senate that
doesn't do anything,'' I believe we have to put another mantra on
somebody else and we have to talk about the marvelous obstructionism
that is going on by the other side of the aisle. It is being done with
such dignity, such ease, with such platitudes about ``we are all
working together,'' and ``we are trying to get there,'' and ``we are
not trying to delay things.'' It really is that, unless they get their
way on everything, there will be nothing moving in the Senate.
Now I never saw it run quite like that, and I have never seen anyone
ever win an argument on a claim that the other group wasn't doing
anything. We will see how it comes out. In the meantime, we ought to
try to work together one more time, and I beg the minority leader on
this bill--it is $23 billion, not one of the biggest. I literally beg
that he reconsider and let us vote and let us have our 2 days of
debate. There are about five very serious problems in this bill that
will be debated. But they will be debated and done with, just as the
Missouri River issue will be debated and finished if they will let us
do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my mind has been reflecting on the fact that
now would be the time Senator Coverdell would come in. When we would
have a real problem, he would wander in and help bring everything
together. As we know, that will not be the case. We attended Paul's
funeral on Saturday, and he is not here to help with the problems we
are having here.
Let me just say to my friend, Senator Domenici, for whom I have the
greatest respect, he is someone in this body who has great power. He is
chairman of the Budget Committee, one of the senior members of the
Appropriations Committee. He is chairman of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, and he is someone with whom I have had the pleasure of
working for my entire time here in the Senate--on a very close basis in
recent years on Energy and Water. He has been chairman and I am the
ranking member. It has been our bill. He is right. The chairman always
has, as we know, a little more latitude, as he should have. But I have
had input on the bill, and I feel very comfortable with the bill we
have.
I say to my friend from New Mexico, for whom I have the greatest
respect, we have a problem with this bill that could be resolved just
like that. The fact of the matter is that no one is compelling me. We
are all free agents in the Senate, and we have that right. We are
elected in our home States, and while Senators are very persuasive in
helping us and trying to get us to go along with what they want, no one
compels us to do things, and they should not. In spite of the fact that
this is a good bill, I think it could be made better. I will not go
into detail, but I will explain the problems we have.
We have two leaders in the Senate, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.
They both do tremendously good work under very difficult circumstances.
An overused saying is that they both have a job of herding cats, trying
to put jello in a bowl that doesn't have sides. They have a lot of
problems, and we understand that. Very rarely in legislative matters do
we have one of the leaders step forward.
The measure we have before us, the energy and water bill, is very
important to this leader. There is a provision in it that is extremely
bad for the upper Missouri basin States. One of those States, of
course, is South Dakota. My friend from New Mexico stated--and
rightfully so--that the provision is causing problems in the upper
basin States not only to the minority leader, but it has been in the
bill two times, on two different bills. Of course it has. But the fact
is that it was meaningless in the bills initially because what this is
all about is the Fish and Wildlife Service rewriting a manual,
reissuing and having a new manual. It was first issued before World War
II ended, in the early 1940s. They did a little revision in the 1970s--
minor revisions. So for almost 60 years they have had the same manual.
They have decided to rewrite it, and they are ready to publish this new
manual. What this legislation does is prevent them from doing so.
Well, the fact of the matter is that is wrong; it is bad. The
legislature should allow the administrative body to go forward and do
their thing to control the Missouri River. The administrative agency is
prevented from doing that. What Senator Daschle and others have said
is: Take that provision out of the bill, and when that is taken out of
the bill, we will move forward on the legislation. This is a bill
involving $23 billion, a very important bill. But this provision is
something that should not prevent this bill from going forward. It
should be removed from the bill, and there are all kinds of different
steps. We are going to have conferences on this bill. We are going to
revisit it at that time.
Let me also say that the history of the Senate is such that the
interest of the minority is always protected. We talk about this great
country of ours and we brag about our country, and we should do so. It
is an imperfect country, but the best set of rules ever devised to rule
the affairs of men and women comes from the U.S. Constitution.
What is the Constitution all about? The Constitution is not about
protecting the rights of the majority; it is about protecting the
rights of the minority. Where are those rights protected in our
constitutional framework more than any other place? It is in the
Senate. That is why the small State of Nevada has as much right to do
things in this Senate--Senators Reid and Bryan--as do Senators Moynihan
and Schumer from New York, or Boxer and Feinstein from California, even
though they have millions and millions more people than we have in the
State of Nevada. That is what the Senate is all about. What Senator
Daschle and others are trying to do with this bill is nothing that
hasn't been done in centuries past, decades past.
So I say to my friend from New Mexico, take that out and we will move
forward with this legislation and then deal with a few controversial
issues. We don't have many controversial issues. This is a very good
bill, and I think we can finish it in a day.
Let me also say this. We believe there should be certain rights
protected. Also under this Constitution, we have a situation that was
developed by our Founding Fathers in which Senators would give the
executive branch--the President--recommendations for people to serve in
the judiciary. Once these recommendations were given, the President
would send the names back to the Senate and we would confirm or approve
those names.
One of the problems we are having here is it is very difficult to get
people approved, confirmed. We have one Senator from the State of
Michigan, Mr. Levin, who for 1,300 days has been waiting to have a
hearing for a very qualified, competent woman who wants to be confirmed
and whose name has been sent to the White House by Senator Levin.
He wants a simple hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Senator
Harkin from Iowa is also waiting for a nominee to be reported out of
the committee. We think that should be done. This has nothing to do
with the energy and water bill. It does, however, have something to do
with the other bills. We could have moved forward on the energy and
water bill on Friday until this glitch came up.
There is lots and lots of work to do around here. We believe it would
be extremely and vitally important to move the provision that allows
the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish its manual, and not have a
legislative roadblock for the management of the rivers in an
appropriate fashion. The Fish and Wildlife Service is not for the upper
basin States or against the lower basin States. They try to be an
impartial ruler. That is what they are trying to do.
I say to my friend: Let the Fish and Wildlife Service go ahead and do
what they need to do and get the energy and water bill brought before
this body.
Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, tomorrow the cloture motion on the motion to
proceed to the Treasury-Postal bill will ripen 1 hour after we convene.
Is that correct?
[[Page S7526]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the 1 hour prior to the cloture vote,
a motion to proceed to the China PNTR legislation is in order tomorrow
morning. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we look forward to the majority leader
making that motion, and filing cloture, as he indicated he would. We
will have to wait and see when that cloture vote occurs--either this
week or when we get back after the break.
I apologize for taking so much time. The Senator from Nevada wishes
to speak, but the Senator from New Mexico would like to be heard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to respond. The Senator from
Nevada does so well that I was almost going to come over and sit beside
him and say he is right. The fact is, he is not right.
At this late stage--when he knows there is hardly a risk of our being
able to get appropriations bills finished in a timely manner to keep
the Government open--to tie appropriations bills up because a judge has
not been appointed is not right. It might be that there is an argument
about the judicial appointment, but is it right in the waning days of
Congress, when we have about 25 working days left, for somebody to come
along and say: Now it is my turn. I will not let any appropriations
bills be approved by the Senate unless certain people are appointed to
the judicial and judge positions in this country? I think it is not.
Second, this is not a partisan issue. I don't know if it is a
minority versus majority party issue, because I think in the final
analysis there are some people on that side of the aisle who would like
to vote on their issue and who may not agree with the distinguished
minority leader as to their interests for their respective States.
My last point is that we protect minority rights. But I wonder in
this case, when it is obvious that Missouri River upper and lower
groups are going to argue about this, if it is a question of protecting
minority rights. It stands in the way of getting a vote on the issue.
If it is important enough to the upper Missouri that they think it is
very important but it is also similarly important to those on the lower
Missouri, it would seem that the way to settle it is to let our
colleagues understand the issue--that is what this Senate is all
about--and let us vote. I don't quite understand why we can't vote. I
wonder what is worrying people. The Senate expresses its views on many
things. It resolves disputes such as this regularly.
But, in this case until some future date, who knows when we will not
be permitted to express the collective Senate will by voting on this
issue--which in 30 minutes could be known by all sides and all parties,
and a good decision could be made by the Senate.
I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the distinguished occupant of the chair. Mr.
President, I wish to change the focus of the discussion on the floor
from the previous colloquy between the senior Senator from Nevada and
the senior Senator from New Mexico.
____________________