[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15782-15783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted the acting minority leader 
has brought up the energy and water measure because I have just 
received some very disturbing news, that the minority leader has 
indicated we can't bring up the energy and water bill unless a 
provision that was in the bill signed last year, that was in the bill 
signed the year before, that was in the bill signed the year before 
that and the

[[Page 15783]]

year before that--he now finds it objectionable, and he will not let 
this bill be brought up unless we strike it out.
  This provision deals with the spring rise on the Missouri River that 
Fish and Wildlife thinks is a good idea. But all of the people 
downstream know it would cause flooding, hardship, damage, property 
loss, and loss of lives from floods.
  This is a serious matter. It also threatens commerce and 
transportation, not just on the Missouri River but on the Mississippi 
River, because in dry years, 65 percent of the flow of the Mississippi 
at St. Louis comes from the Missouri River. If they have a spring rise, 
there isn't water to maintain river transportation during the summer 
and the fall.
  I had understood, from the minority leader's staff, that he wanted a 
time agreement so he could move to strike it. I think this matter needs 
to be aired. We are willing to enter into a time agreement, so on 
Monday or Tuesday--whenever he wants--we can talk about the reason that 
this was included in the bill last year, the year before, the year 
before, and the year before that, because it is of vital importance to 
our State and to other States on both the Missouri and the Mississippi 
Rivers.
  We have a way of doing business around here and that is, the 
committee acts and they report out a bill; the bill comes to the floor. 
If somebody does not like a provision in the bill, they have a right to 
move to strike it. That right is totally protected. We are trying to 
get appropriations bills passed.
  Frankly, I do not want to be held hostage by an idea that the 
minority leader has, that all of a sudden we can't put a provision in 
this year's bill that was in last year's bill and the bill the year 
before that.
  I call on the minority leader to follow through with the commitment 
to have a time agreement. If he wants to move to strike it, fine. We 
have a lot of good reasons, and we want to let our colleagues know why 
that provision needs to be kept.
  I do not want to be held hostage by the minority leader saying, we 
are going to stop the appropriations process unless you take it out of 
the bill--a measure that is vitally important to the State of Missouri, 
to the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I am ready to talk about and 
argue against the minority leader's motion to strike. But to say that 
we can't even bring up the bill with that provision in it is, I think, 
inappropriate, unwise, and unprecedented.
  So I am here. I will be back here on Monday or Tuesday to do 
business. I just ask that the minority leader let us bring up the bill. 
This is an unbelievable effort to hold a bill hostage because of a 
particular interest he may have in that bill. He can deal with it by an 
amendment to strike, a motion to strike--whatever he wants. But let us 
bring the bill up because there is too much that is important in it to 
have it be held hostage by an effort to say what can be in the bill, 
approved by the committee, where somebody does not like something in 
the bill.
  There is a remedy: A motion to strike or a motion to amend. We will 
be here to do business Monday, Tuesday--whenever the minority leader 
wants.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Kansas, if I could 
just have 2 minutes to respond to my friend, because I have a dual role 
as not only whip but also I am ranking member on the subcommittee, I 
say to my friend, I think the proposal the minority leader has made is 
eminently fair: This provision should be taken out, that there will not 
be an amendment offered on the floor, and whatever took place in 
conference he would be willing to live with.
  I am not going to go through the merits of the case. I think there is 
significant merit on the side of the minority leader. Basically, sure, 
this provision has been in the appropriations bill before, but it has 
had no impact on the upper basin States. Now it does, because the Corps 
of Engineers is at a point where they want to change the manual to 
determine how the river is going to operate.
  What this bill says is there can be no funds spent to change the 
manual. That is how the flow of the river is going to be impacted. We 
should leave this to bureaucrats. It should not be done, preventing 
money from going to change how the river is operated.
  This is something that, as indicated by my friend from Missouri, we 
can debate at a subsequent time. But the bill will not be brought up 
until this provision is out of the bill.
  We can, during the process of the bill, and before it gets to 
conference, decide what to do with it. This provision is unfair to the 
upper basin States. There should not be a provision preventing 
administrative agencies of this Government from spending money as to 
how that river system should be operated.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Nevada, if we pass a 
bill out of committee, what is the precedent for saying, oh, we have to 
change it before you even bring the bill to the floor, the measure that 
is reported out of the committee?
  We have a process around here. There are many things that come out of 
committees that we disagree with. We have the option to change it on 
the floor. We need to move forward. Energy and water is vitally 
important.
  I appreciate the excellent work my colleague from Nevada does on this 
and other measures. But why, for Heaven's sake, are we supposed to hold 
an entire bill hostage because a single Senator wants to strike 
something out of a measure that has been adopted at the subcommittee 
and full committee level? I just do not understand why we can't do this 
in the normal course of business.
  Mr. REID. I made my remarks very short because my friend from Kansas 
yielded to me. So I will make this response very short.
  We are following what takes place in the Senate every week. A person 
has the right to stop a bill from going forward. The rules of this 
Senate have been in effect for many years. I will insert in the Record 
today why the provision in the bill is so unfair to the upper basin 
States.
  I won't take the time of my friend from Kansas. There are many 
reasons this provision is unfair that will be inserted in the Record 
today.
  I say to my friend from Missouri that the procedure that is being 
exercised by the minority in this instance--the minority leader and 
others who are affected; the minority leader is not the only one who is 
exercising his rights--are rights that are exercised every day in the 
Senate. The procedures of the Senate may seem burdensome and 
cumbersome, but they have always been here to make sure the minority's 
interests are protected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order of business.

                          ____________________