[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15788-15790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4733

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4733, the energy and water 
appropriations bill. I further ask that the committee substitute be 
agreed to and the substitute be considered original text for the 
purpose of further amendment, with no points of order waived.
  I further ask consent that if a motion to strike section 103 is 
offered, the motion to strike be limited to 3 hours to be equally 
divided in the usual form,

[[Page 15789]]

and a vote occur on the motion to strike following the use or yielding 
back of time, without any intervening action, motion, or debate.
  I further ask consent that any votes ordered with respect to this 
bill, either on amendments or final passage, be stacked to occur at 6 
p.m. on Monday, July 24.
  I observe that both managers of the appropriations bill for energy 
and water are present and ready to proceed, and therefore I submit that 
unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, as has been stated here--and 
there has been a conversation between Senator Bond from Missouri and 
the Senator from Nevada--we are willing to move forward on this 
legislation. There is one provision in it that is offensive to a 
significant number of Senators. If that were taken out, and there were 
no amendment offered on the floor, we would be ready to move forward 
with that. I have spoken to Senator Domenici on many occasions. I think 
we could finish this bill quite rapidly.
  Based on that, Mr. President, unless my friend from New Mexico has a 
statement, I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I make a statement?
  Mr. REID. I extend my reservation for the Senator from New Mexico to 
speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, first, I thank the 
distinguished majority leader for the effort he has just made. This is 
a very good bill and very important to America. It contains all of the 
nuclear weapons funding, some very important money for the enhanced 
security apparatus for the National Laboratories that we have all been 
concerned about. It contains about $100 million to build some of our 
old, decrepit nuclear manufacturing facilities which are still being 
used for parts in other things and are held in abeyance in case they 
are needed.
  We have a report saying they are in desperate shape. We have a report 
that some of the facilities we are trying to maintain in the State of 
Nevada--that are still there from the underground testing--need to be 
fixed up because they will not be in a position of readiness.
  We have hundreds of water projects in this bill for Senators. And we 
wait to go to conference to even fill in some more.
  Oh, let me talk about the Missouri conflict. I am not aware of the 
substance of it, but when the distinguished Senator from Nevada says 
there are quite a few Senators who are concerned on your side, let me 
suggest that there are more than quite a few Senators who are worried 
on the other side--and they are here, and they are there--as to who is 
being impacted.
  I hope at some point they would let us fight that issue out. We would 
be willing to have a full debate on it, if the minority leader will let 
us. He is a wonderful and hard-working minority leader who tries to put 
things together. We all agree with that. But in this instance, these 
provisions have been in three previous bills that I have brought to the 
floor with my good friend, Senator Reid. They have been in there and 
signed by the President of the United States.
  To take a bill we worked on diligently, that contains all of these 
important issues I have just discussed, and say we can't get it done--I 
see the minority leader. I just said I have great respect for 
everything he does in the Senate. I just want to make sure that 
everybody understands, this is a very important bill. We ought to get 
it done and go to conference. We need some additional resources to get 
the job done on the water side and other aspects, but we will get a 
good bill completed. I hope we are not in a position where we will 
never get this bill.
  If the Senator insists that it go his way, I think we won't get a 
bill. I hope at some point he will let us vote, I say to the minority 
leader. I have told him before and I confirm, I put the language in 
three times that is in this bill. The President signed it. I would very 
much like to move ahead. I am not trying to put any untoward pressure 
on anyone, just to state the problem that I see in not moving ahead.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the distinguished assistant minority 
leader will yield to me under his reservation, I will be brief. Then 
under his reservation or on his own, Senator Daschle may want to 
comment.
  What I have asked is consent that we go to the energy and water bill, 
and I asked consent that if a motion to strike section 103 is offered, 
the motion to strike be limited to 3 hours to be equally divided in the 
usual form, and we would go to a vote.
  Under Senator Reid's reservation, if I could respond to two points: 
One, in addition to the very important energy aspects of this 
legislation that have been mentioned, I will focus on the water side. 
So much of America benefits from our water and our water projects, 
whether it is navigation or recreation, flood control. These are not 
just projects that individual Members want to get for their particular 
district for political benefit. They have a lot to do with the economy 
of this country, the creation of jobs and the lifestyle in America.
  This is an important bill both on the energy and water side. I know 
both sides want to get it done. I have absolutely no doubt about that. 
I know the managers of this legislation, Senator Domenici and Senator 
Reid, are probably two of the best we have in the Senate. It would 
probably look as though magic had been performed, how quickly this bill 
could be completed.
  The issue we are talking about is a very difficult one with which to 
cope. It has been in the mill a long time. I know there are very strong 
beliefs on both sides of the issue, probably on both sides of the 
aisle. I hope we will continue to work to see if we can't find a way to 
deal with this issue in a way that is fair. My thinking is under an 
agreement to try to take it out with a time limit; that is fine, or an 
agreement to try to take it out and then put it back in with a time 
agreement; that is fine. We are looking for any possible solution. I 
hope we will find a solution in the next few minutes or next couple 
hours today.
  If we can't, then I am already looking, I say to Senator Daschle, to 
see if we can get managers available and try to proceed to the 
Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill Monday afternoon, see if we 
can make progress on that. I don't know of any big controversy on that 
one. Of course, it funds the Treasury. It also funds the Postal 
Service, and it funds White House operations. Hopefully, we could look 
to that as an alternative. I would rather do energy and water. I would 
like to do them both so we can get them into conference and so progress 
can be made next week and they will be hopefully ready to go to the 
President soon after that.
  I thank Senator Reid for allowing me to speak under his reservation. 
I will withhold if Senator Daschle wants to respond or comment under 
reservation, too.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor. There has 
not been an objection filed yet.
  Mr. LOTT. I have the floor and I propounded a unanimous consent 
request, if the Senator would like to respond under a reservation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
respond to the distinguished majority leader. I thank my colleague, as 
I always must, the assistant Democratic leader, for being on the floor. 
I was not aware that a unanimous consent request was going to be 
propounded. I was downstairs. I am disappointed I was not able to be 
here at the time.
  Let me very succinctly explain the circumstances. In the past, there 
has not been any real concern about revising the master manual. The 
master manual was written by the Corps of Engineers in 1960. It has 
been the law of the land with regard to the operation of the river 
since that time, now 40 years. There has been an effort underway in 
earnest over the course of this last year to look for ways that more 
accurately reflect how the Missouri River ought to be managed, taking 
into account, now, the extraordinary relevance of fish and wildlife 
issues.

[[Page 15790]]

  Economically, the fish, wildlife and recreational benefits of the 
river now constitute over $80 million. Navigation constitutes $7 
million. In economic wherewithal, that is what the reality is today: $7 
million for navigation, over $80 million for fish, wildlife and 
recreation. Yet the master manual is written in a way that only 
recognizes the navigational issues because that is all there was in 
1960 when this was written.
  The Corps is now looking for a way to provide better balance. I think 
there is a compromise that more and more States are becoming more 
comfortable with. But what this provision in this bill says is they 
can't even consider it. Now that all this work and effort has gone into 
considering ways in which to accommodate all the States, the provision 
says we won't even consider it.
  I have to use my prerogatives as a Senator to say that we must find a 
compromise on that language. We are not going to be able to do it with 
one vote on a Friday or a Monday afternoon, so I would like to work 
with the leader. I told him I would like to find a way to resolve this 
matter. He said, we are looking at, we will take any option. I 
suggested one to the leader: Let's go to conference on this provision. 
I am willing to live with whatever the conference decides. Of course, 
the administration is going to weigh in. They said it will be vetoed if 
this provision is in there. So if we are going to get this bill done, 
let's be realistic.
  I want to get this bill done. I have as many things in this bill as I 
have in any appropriations bill. I want to get it done. I would like to 
get it done this afternoon, and I am willing to let the conference make 
its decision. But to say that the bill must have that provision or 
there is no bill, is just not fair to this side, to this Senator.
  That is my reservation. If the Senator from Nevada has not objected, 
I will. I think it is important to resolve this matter. I am prepared 
to offer a compromise. Let's resolve this in conference. I say that in 
full recognition that I have no idea what would happen in conference. 
But if they want to finish this bill and move it to the next phase, I 
am ready to do it. I will do it this morning. I will do it this 
afternoon. I will do it on Monday. But we have to deal with that 
provision.
  Having objected, I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished minority 
leader and to Senator Domenici and Senator Reid, we will continue to 
work. I have learned from experience working on both sides of the 
aisle, if everybody just hunkers down and says no, this way or no way, 
you don't ever get anything. I will continue to probe and work with 
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and Senator Domenici, to see if we can 
find a way to resolve this problem. I think perhaps we can. We will be 
talking further. I want to make sure we have on record that we are 
trying to get it done, and we will hopefully come back here in another 
hour or two and try again.

                          ____________________