[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9572-S9577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are about to cast a vote at 5:30. I
think in many ways this is a very difficult situation. I come to the
floor this afternoon expressing my gratitude to the distinguished chair
of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and certainly to the ranking
member, the Senator from Nevada, our extraordinary assistant Democratic
leader, for the great work they have done in responding to many of the
issues and concerns that our colleagues have raised. I think in large
measure it is a very balanced bill.
Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve what is a very significant
matter relating to the Missouri River and the precedent that it sets
for all rivers. The Corps of Engineers must, from time to time, update
the master manual for the rivers that it manages. Unfortunately, some
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated that
they were unwilling to compromise with regard to finding a way they
could address their concerns without calling a complete halt to a
multiyear process that has been underway to revise and update a master
manual that is now over 40 years old. That is the issue: a manual that
affects thousands of miles of river, hundreds of thousands, if not
billions, of dollars of revenue generated from hydroelectric power,
navigation, irrigation, municipal water, and bank stabilization.
There is perhaps no more complicated management challenge than the
one affecting the Missouri and, for that matter, the Mississippi
Rivers.
So our challenge has been to address the concerns of the two Senators
from Missouri in a way that recognizes their legitimate questions
regarding the Corps' intent on management, and also to recognize that
there are stretches of the river both affecting the Mississippi in
downstream States as well as all of the upstream States that also must
be addressed, that also have to be worked out, that have to be
recognized and achieved in some way.
We have gone to our distinguished colleagues on the other side on a
number of occasions indicating a willingness to compromise, indicating
a willingness to sit down to try to find a way to resolve this matter.
I must say, we have been rebuffed at every one of those efforts. So we
are left today with no choice.
What I hope will happen is that we can vote in opposition to the bill
in numbers sufficient enough to indicate our ability to sustain a veto;
the President will then veto this legislation, as he has now noted
publicly and privately on several occasions; and that we come down
together to the White House, or anywhere else, work out a
[[Page S9573]]
compromise, work out some suitable solution that accommodates the
Senators from Missouri as well as all other Senators on the river. That
is all we are asking.
It is unfortunate that it has to come to this, to a veto. I warned
that it would if we were not able to resolve it. I am disappointed we
are now at a point where that appears to be the only option available
to us.
Before he came to the floor, I publicly commended the chair of the
Energy and Water Subcommittee for his work. And I will say so privately
to my colleagues that what he has done and what the ranking member has
done is laudable and ought to be supported. But the overriding concern
is a concern that has been addressed now on several occasions. It was
my hope that it was a concern that could have been addressed in a way
that would have avoided the need for a veto. Unfortunately, that is not
the case. So we are left with no choice, Madam President. I regret that
fact.
I hope that my colleagues will understand that this legislation is
important. I hope after the veto, after it is sustained--if that is
required--we can go back, get to work, and find the compromise that I
have been seeking now for weeks, and find a way with which to move this
legislation along.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could I make a parliamentary inquiry?
Are we scheduled by unanimous consent to vote at 5:30 on the
conference report?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, the senior Senator from Montana
would like a minute or two to talk on this subject. Perhaps it would be
better for him to do it now, and then you could close the debate, if
that would be appropriate.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was just going to ask. I saw him on the floor and he
mentioned he might want to speak. I need about 6 minutes, so could you
take the intervening time before the 6 minutes?
Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my colleague, I need only 5 or 6 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I only need about 6 minutes. I will yield the rest to
the Senator.
Mr. BAUCUS. I inquire of the minority leader and the Senator from New
Mexico if we could get perhaps an extra 5 minutes before the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it appears we have 10 minutes remaining
before the vote.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5:32 and the time be
equally divided.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote
against adoption of the Conference Report for the Energy and Water
Appropriations. Section 103 is an anti-environmental rider that
prevents the sound management of the Missouri River.
As my colleagues will recall, during Senate consideration of this
bill last month, Senator Daschle and I proposed to delete this
provision. Unfortunately we were not successful.
Now, rather than attempting to work out a compromise, the conferees
have included the very same language in the conference report before us
tonight.
I will not repeat all of the arguments made in the earlier debate
about why this amendment is bad for the river and the people of my
state. The important point is, nothing has changed from that debate and
the need to remove this rider remains as true today as it did then.
First, the Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River on
the basis of a master manual that was written in 1960 and hasn't
changed much since then.
Today, conditions are much different. Priorities are different.
Under the current master manual--40 years old--water levels in Ft.
Peck lake are often drawn down in the summer months, largely to support
barge traffic downstream, which is an industry that is dying and,
according to the Corps' own analysis, has much less economic value than
the recreation value upstream.
These drawdowns have occurred time and time again. Their effect is
devastating: Moving ramps to put boats in the lake a mile away,
severely curtail boating and fishing that are enjoyed by thousands of
Montanans and tourists alike. They also reduce the numbers of walleye,
sturgeon, and other fish.
The drawdowns are the big reason why eastern Montana has been getting
an economic raw deal for years. More balanced management of the
Missouri River, which takes better account of upstream economic
benefits, is absolutely critical to reviving the economy in that part
of our State.
Now there has been some talk that the proposed split season will
affect hydropower production. While detailed studies are not yet
complete, in fact, the Corps estimates that the split season will have
``essentially no impact to the total hydropower benefits.'' So there
really should be no doubt. The split season is a better deal for
Montana. It is a better deal for the whole river.
Of course, this rider is about more than just Ft. Peck.
It also prevents the Corps of Engineers from obeying the law of the
land. Specifically, the Endangered Species Act.
If we create a loophole here, there will be pressure to create
another loophole somewhere else. And then another. Before you know it,
the law will be shredded into tatters.
We all know the Endangered Species Act is not perfect. I believe we
need to reform it so it will work better for landowners and for
species.
We are working hard to pass returns, but those reforms haven't
passed. So the Endangered Species Act remains the law of the land, and
we have to respect it. And so should the Corps.
Forget about the species for a minute. Think about basic fairness. We
require private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
Why should the Federal Government get a free pass?
The answer is, they should not. The Army Corps of Engineers should be
held to the same standard as everybody else, and the Corps agrees.
We have a public process in place, to carefully revise the master
manual. It's been underway for 10 years.
Now, at the last minute, when the end is in sight, a rider in an
appropriations bill would derail the process by taking one of the
alternatives right off the table.
That's not fair. It's not right. It's not the way we ought to make
this decision.
Instead, we should give the open process that we began ten years ago
a chance to work.
We should give people an opportunity to comment on the biological
opinion and the environmental impact statement.
So the final decision will not be made in a vacuum.
But this rider makes a mockery of that process. The rider allows for
an extensive period for public comment. But then it prohibits the
public agencies from acting on those comments.
A better way is to allow the agencies and the affected parties to
continue to work together to strike a balance to manage this mighty and
beautiful river: for upstream states, for downstream states, and for
the protection of endangered species; that is, for all of us.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, along with many of my colleagues, I
voted in support of an amendment to the energy and water appropriations
bill when it moved through the Senate to strike an anti-environment
rider from that bill. Unfortunately, that amendment failed and the
rider remains in the conference report we consider today.
For that reason, I must vote against this legislation. I understand
that the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation
because of this antienvironment provision.
The antienvironment rider included in this bill stops changes in the
management of the Missouri River called for by existing law. Those
changes would ensure that the river is managed not only for navigation,
but also for
[[Page S9574]]
the benefit of the fish and wildlife that depend on the river for
survival.
It is critical that those changes go into effect promptly because
without them several endangered species may become extinct.
The Missouri River management changes that this antienvironment rider
blocks are called for by a 600-page Fish and Wildlife Service study.
The study is itself based upon hundreds of published peer-reviewed
studies, and would modify the 40-year-old Corps of Engineers policy of
managing the flows of the Missouri River primarily to benefit a $7
million downstream barge industry.
That old Corps policy is largely responsible for the endangerment of
three species--the piping plover, the least interior tern, and the
pallid sturgeon--that depend upon the river for survival. Two other
fish species are also headed toward extinction.
It is very unfortunate that this provision was included in a bill
that otherwise has much to commend it.
I appreciate the conferees' hard work in crafting a bill that funds
several important California priorities. The Hamilton Wetlands Project
funded in this bill would restore approximately 1,000 acres to wetlands
and wildlife habitat at Hamilton Army Airfield. The American River
Common Elements funded in this bill would result in 24 miles of levee
improvements along the American River and 12 miles of improvements
along the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam,
and improvements to the flood warning system along the lower American
River. Finally, the Solana Beach-Encinitas Shoreline Feasibility Study
funded in this bill would assist both cities in their efforts to battle
beach erosion, and would provide needed data for the restoration of
these beaches. Projects such as these are extremely important to
California.
Because of these and the other benefits of this bill for California,
I find it unfortunate that I must vote against this legislation. I do
so, however, because a vote for this bill is a vote to support an
antienvironment rider that may well lead to the irreversible damage of
causing the extinction of several endangered species.
I expect that this legislation will be taken up by the Senate without
this rider in the next few weeks, and that we will move forward with
important energy and water projects without doing irreversible damage
to our environment.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, during a statement I made on the Senate
floor today regarding various pork-barrel spending in the final
conference report for the FY 2001 energy and water appropriations, I
incorrectly referred to a $20 million earmark for the CALFED Bay-Delta
restoration project. I was informed by the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee that the conference agreement does not include any
funding for this specific California project. I wanted to state for the
Record that I will correct my statement that will be included on my
Senate web page and remove this reference to the CALFED project.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I intend to vote against the energy and
water appropriations conference report this afternoon. I support the
vast majority of the bill, in fact, there are a number of projects I
have worked for years to have included. But, once again, in addition to
those projects, an anti-environmental rider was also attached to this
legislation.
The President has announced his intention to veto this bill because
of that anti-environmental rider. So we will be back here in the next
few days considering this legislation again. And I have been assured
that when we take up this legislation again, our Virginia projects will
be included, since they are not the subject of the dispute. I hope that
in the intervening period, we can remove the rider which would prevent
the Corps of Engineers from reviewing its procedures to protect the
Missouri river and its environment.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today in continuing concern over
the National Ignition Facility, a massive stockpile stewardship
facility being built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore
Labs in California. This program has been beset by cost overruns,
delays, and poor management. The House in its Energy & Water bill
included $74.1 million for construction of NIF. The Senate adopted an
amendment I offered that capped spending at the same level, and also
requested an independent review of the project from the National
Academy of Sciences.
I know the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee each have
their own concerns about NIF, and I greatly appreciate their efforts to
bring this program under control. But frankly I am disappointed in what
has come out of conference. The funding for NIF construction has risen
from $74 million to $199 million. $74 million in the House, $74 million
in the Senate, and $199 million out of conference.
That is a lot of money to spend on a program that is out of control.
Projected costs of constructing this facility have almost doubled in
the last year. We don't know if the optics will work. We don't know how
to design the target. Even if the technical problems are solved, we
don't know if the National Ignition Facility will achieve ignition. We
don't even know if this facility is needed. DOE's recent
``rebaselining'' specified massive budget increases for NIF for several
years, but, despite Congressional requests, did not say where this
money would come from or what impact it would have on the stockpile
stewardship program.
This is the time to slow down, conduct some independent studies,
reconsider how we can best maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile and
whether this risky program really is critical to that effort. Instead
we are saying full steam ahead.
It is true that part of the money, $69 million, is held back until
DOE arranges for studies of some of these issues and certifies that the
program is on schedule and on budget. These issues are critical to
future Congressional action on NIF. Unfortunately, the bill does not
clearly specify who will conduct those studies.
I wish we could entrust DOE with these reviews, but history suggests
they have not earned our trust. A recent article in the journal Nature
describes ten years of failed peer review on this project: so-called
``independent'' reports that were not independent, that were written by
stacked panels with conflicts of interest, that even were edited by
project officials. A recent GAO report notes that reviews ``did not
discover and report on NIF's fundamental project and engineering
problems, bringing into question their comprehensiveness and
independence.'' DOE is currently under threat of a second lawsuit
regarding violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in NIF
studies.
We need a truly independent review. I am pleased that the Chairman
and Ranking Member agreed to join me in a colloquy on this concern, and
hope the studies mandated in this bill will be fully independent and
credible. Otherwise, I fear that the $199 million we are appropriating
will be poured down a bottomless pit with the $800 million already
spent. We've seen this happen too many times, with the Superconducting
Supercollider, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the Space Station, and
on and on. I will continue to strive to protect our taxpayers, keep our
nuclear stockpile safe, and end wasteful spending on NIF before more
billions are spent.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
conference report on the energy and water appropriations bill. This is
a very important bill, for it contains a provision that will protect
the citizens of Missouri from a risky Administration scheme to flood
the Missouri River Basin. Section 103 of this bill is a provision that
is necessary for the millions of Americans who live and work along the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This is the section of the bill that
was subject to an amendment to strike when the Senate considered this
legislation on September 7, 2000. The Senate defeated the attempt to
strike at that time, and I want to thank the subcommittee chairman,
Senator Domenici, for maintaining Section 103 in the conference report
now before us.
Madam President, as you know, the use of the Missouri River is
governed by what is known as the Missouri River Master Manual. Right
now, there is an effort underway to update that manual. The specific
issue that is at the crux of the debate over Section 103 is what is
called a spring rise. A spring rise, in this case, is a release of huge
[[Page S9575]]
amounts of water from above Gavins Point Dam on the Nebraska-South
Dakota border during the flood-prone spring months.
In an effort to protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, the least
tern, and the piping plover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
an ultimatum to the Army Corps of Engineers insisting that the Corps
immediately agree to its demand for a spring rise. The Corps was given
one week to respond to the request of Fish and Wildlife for immediate
implementation of a spring rise. The Corps' response was a rejection of
the spring rise proposal, and they called for further study of the
effect of the spring rise.
The language in section 103 will allow for the studies the Corps
recommends. Section 103, inserted in the bill during the subcommittee
markup, is a commonsense provision that states in its entirety:
None of the funds made available in this act may be used to
revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual if such
provisions provide for an increase in the springtime water
release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
This policy--this exact language--has been included in the last four
energy and water appropriations bills, all of which the President
signed without opposition. Let's look at the support that the Energy
and Water appropriations bills, with the exact same language, have
enjoyed in the past.
In October, 1995, the Senate agreed to the energy and water
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 89-6.
In September, 1996, the Senate agreed to the energy and water
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 92-8.
In September, 1998, the Senate agreed to the energy and water
appropriations conference report by unanimous consent.
In September, 1999, the Senate agreed to the energy and water
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 96-3.
In addition, this year, the Senate voted 93-1 in favor of final
passage of the energy and water appropriations bill on September 7,
2000, following the defeat of the amendment to strike Section 103.
This lengthy record of support is part of the reason I am shocked and
astounded to report that last week, the President's Chief of Staff,
John Podesta, sent a letter to the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee chairman stating that the President would veto this bill
if section 103 is included. In other words, the Clinton-Gore
administration is threatening to veto the entire energy and water
appropriations bill if it contains language to protect the lives and
property of all citizens living and working along the lower Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers.
If the President follows through with a veto of the bill, after
having signed this provision four times previously, he will be sending
a very clear message to the citizens of the Midwest. It is very easy to
understand. Unfortunately, it would be very hard to digest and
accommodate. But the message would be this: The Clinton-Gore
administration is willing to flood downstream communities as part of an
unscientific, risky scheme that will hurt, not help, the endangered
species it seeks to protect. If that is the message, I wouldn't want to
be the messenger.
The President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Podesta, made a number of
interesting, yet untrue, claims in his veto threat letter. We have
corrected and clarified these points before, but allow me to do so
again, in the hope that the administration will reconsider its position
when confronted with the real facts on this issue.
First, the administration claims in its veto letter that section 103
would, ``prevent the Corps from carrying out a necessary element of any
reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the endangered least tern, pallid sturgeon, and the piping
plover.'' This statement is false.
Under section 103, alternatives can be studied and all alternatives
can be implemented--with the exception of a spring rise.
What is ironic is that spring flooding could hurt the wildlife more
than it will protect them. And it will do so in a way that will
increase the risks of downstream flooding and interferes with the
shipment of cargo on our nation's highways.
Dr. Joe Engeln, assistant director of the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, stated in a June 24 letter that there are several
major problems with the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed plan that
may have the perverse effect of harming the targeted species rather
than helping them.
In his letter, he writes that, ``the higher reservoir levels [that
would result from a spring rise] would also reduce the habitat for the
terns and plovers that nest along the shorelines of the reservoirs.''
Dr. Engeln also points out that because the plan calls for a
significant drop in flow during the summer, predators will be able to
reach the islands upon which the terns and plovers nest, giving them
access to the young still in the nests.
Second, the administration claims that the Missouri Master Manual is
outdated and, ``does not provide and appropriate balance among the
competing interests, both commercial and recreational, of the many
people who seek to use this great American river.'' This, also, is
untrue.
This administration's plan for ``controlled flood'' or spring rise
places every citizen who lives or works downstream from the point of
release in jeopardy by disturbing the balance at a time when downstream
citizens are most vulnerable to flooding.
Section 103 protects citizens of Missouri and other states from
dangerous flooding while allowing for cost efficient transportation of
grain and cargo.
Section 103 is supported by bipartisan group representing farmers,
manufacturers, labor unions, shippers, citizens and port authorities
from 15 Midwest states.
Also supporting Section 103 are major national organizations
including the American Farm Bureau, American Waterways associations,
National Grange, and the National Soybean Association.
The strong support for Section 103 and against the spring rise
undermines the administration's claim that the Master Manual must be
immediately changed.
In addition to the illusory argument that the spring rise is
necessary to protect endangered species, some advocates of the spring
rise claim that this plan is a return to more ``natural flow
conditions'' and that the river should be returned to its condition at
the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Not only is this unrealistic because the Midwest was barely habitable
because of the erratic flooding conditions at that time, according to
Dr. Engeln of the Missouri DNR, the proposal would benefit artificial
reservoirs at the expense of the river and create flow conditions that
have never existed along the river in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and
Missouri.
Over 90 organizations representing farmers, shippers, cities, labor
unions, and port authorities recently sent a letter to Congress saying:
``The spring rise demanded by the Fish and Wildlife Service is based on
the premise that we should `replicate the natural hydrograph' that was
responsible for devastating and deadly floods as well as summertime
droughts and even dustbowls.''
I think it is pretty clear that there is not sound science to support
some protection of these species. There is a clear disagreement among
scientists, and a strong argument that the implementation of this plan
would, in fact, damage the capacity of some of these species to
continue.
I urge the Senate to support this conference report. I ask the
President to rethink his threatened veto and side with the bipartisan
consensus to protect the citizens living and working in the lower
Missouri River Basin from the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan to flood
the region.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to tell the Senate this is a
good bill. I hope we will pass it.
The Senate passed this bill 97-1. It went to conference. Obviously,
there were some changes made in conference but clearly not significant
enough to have somebody vote against this bill.
When the call of the roll occurs, we are going to hear that a number
of Senators on the other side of the aisle are
[[Page S9576]]
going to vote against the bill. I hope everybody understands that most
of them have asked for things in this bill, and they have been granted
things in this bill their States desperately need. I don't know how all
that will work out, but they are being asked to vote against this
because the President of the United States, after signing similar
language regarding the Missouri River four different times, has
suggested that this year, if it is in this bill, he will veto it.
This bill has taken much work on the defense side; that is, for the
nuclear deterrent, nuclear weapons activities of America, and those
activities related to it that have to do with nonproliferation. We have
done an excellent job in increasing some of the very important work of
these National Laboratories and our nuclear defense deterrent, people,
equipment, and facilities. Sooner or later many more Senators are going
to have to recognize the significance of that part of this bill.
The second part of it has to do with nondefense discretionary
appropriations; that is, mostly water and water projects across this
great land. Many of them are in here for Senators on the Democrat side
of the aisle. We were pleased to work with them on that.
I hope the bill will get sent to the President and we will be able to
work something out with reference to the Missouri River. The President
indicates now that he doesn't want that paragraph, that provision, so-
called section 103, in this bill. I am not going to argue as eloquently
as Kit Bond, the Senator from Missouri, did with reference to why that
provision should be in the bill. But I can say that a compelling
majority of Senators agreed with him when we had a vote on it, and then
agreed to vote on final passage which included that.
To make sure everybody understands a little bit about where we have
been and where we are going, I will not talk much about this chart,
except I will ask that we take a quick look at the orange part of this
chart. You see how big that keeps growing while people worry about this
bill, and legitimately so. Senator McCain argues that perhaps there are
some things in this bill that should not be in it. He may be right.
Let me tell my colleagues, when you have to put something together
for a whole House and a whole Senate, sometimes you have to do some
things that maybe one Senator wouldn't want done.
This orange shows what is happening to the American budget of late.
This is the 2000 estimate, the orange part of the entitlements and
interest we pay in our budget for the people. See how it continues to
grow. The yellow is the Defense Department. If you will focus for a
moment on this purple piece, that number, $319 billion out of a budget
of $1.8 trillion, is the 11 appropriations bills that have not yet been
passed.
May I point it out again. This is the entitlements plus the interest.
This is defense, which has been passed. And this, which you can see
from this year to this year to this year, not very big changes compared
to the other parts of the budget, this is what the 11 appropriations
bills will amount to more or less, including this one.
It means that one-sixth of the Federal budget is at issue when we
discuss the 11 appropriations bills that remain. Two of them were
defense, and they belong in this portion of the budget. But if you look
out, as we try to project 2005 and beyond, to see what keeps growing
even though we are paying down the national debt, the entitlement
programs keep growing. And the difference in this part, the purple
part, is rather insignificant in terms of growth.
This bill is slightly over the President's budget in the nuclear
deterrent, nuclear laboratory, nuclear weapons activities, and is
slightly over the President on all of the water projects. I failed to
mention the science projects that are in this bill, which are
nondefense projects. They go on at all of the laboratories, and they
are the cutting edge of real science across America--in this bill we
are talking about. All of these, this and 11 others, belong in this
small amount. Even for those who think it is growing too much, our
projections beyond the year 2005 are that it still will be a very small
portion of our Federal budget with a very large amount going to
entitlements.
I wish I had one more I could predict, the surpluses along here,
because I don't believe you need to worry about having adequate
surpluses to take care of priorities in the future, to take care of
Medicare, prescription drugs, and Medicare reform. Nor do I think there
will be a shortage of money, some of which we should give back to the
American people before we spend it.
My closing remarks have to do with what should we do with the great
surplus the American people are giving us by way of taxes, which they
have never paid so much of in the past. I look to the person who had
most to do with our great thriving economy, Dr. Alan Greenspan. He
mentions three things to us: First, you should put as much of it as you
can on the national debt. The second thing is, you should give the
people back some of it by way of taxes. That is the second best thing.
He comments, ``If you are going to look at the big picture, the worst
thing you can do with the surplus for the future of our children and
grandchildren is to spend it on new programs.''
So I suggest we all ought to be worried about the future. But today
we ought to get an appropriation bill passed. I hope our people will
understand that in spite of the plea from the minority leader that you
vote against it because of the Missouri language, we can pass it today
and see if in the next few days we can work something out with the
President if he remains dedicated to vetoing this bill over the one
issue of which the Senator from Montana spoke.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much admire the work and the
effort the Senator from New Mexico has put into this bill, and I hope
after the President vetoes this bill, and it is sustained, we can work
out this one problem so we can get the bill passed.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah, (Mr. Hatch) and
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Edwards
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--37
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--6
Feinstein
Grams
Hatch
Kennedy
Lieberman
Wyden
The conference report was agreed to.
[[Page S9577]]
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been working on a number of issues.
I want to enter one, and then we will have another quorum call while we
conclude some other agreements. The first has to do with the
intelligence authorization bill. Obviously, this is very important
legislation. It has been agreed to on both sides.
____________________