Sen. Kit Bond praised the passage of a new water development bill, while Sen. Claire McCaskill voted against the final version because of earmarks added during the House-Senate conference.
“For my constituents, this means jobs, trade competitiveness, reliable and affordable energy, drinking water, and protection from floods which ruin property and kill people,” said Bond.
McCaskill said her "no" vote wasn't about the merits of the bill, but rather the way in which projects were added to the final version.
"This isn't about the projects or merits of the projects. Painfully for me, one is in Missouri. This isn't about the projects. This is about the process. This isn't about Democrats. And this isn't about is about a bad habit. This is about getting into the habit of directing authorization or spending in a conference report instead of under the bright lights of the Senate floor, the House floor or committee work," McCaskill said.
She was just one of 12 Senators to oppose the legislation.
Bond boasted that the bill includes billions for his "lock and dam provision" on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
"Modernization of the aging locks on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers – the Midwest’s arteries to world markets – will help farmers and shippers bring their products to market more efficiently," Bond said.
He added that updated locks would prepare the country for growth in freight shipping, as increased highway traffic will push more shipping to waterways.
McCaskill said she wants to see the Army Corps of Engineers direct funding based on a cost-benefit analysis.
"The law requires that Congress direct this spending. I am uncomfortable with that. This is the only place this year that my name is listed on a specific funding request for Missouri, and I'm not comfortable with that," McCaskill said in her floor speech.
Bond noted the bill's broad bi-partisan support, and didn't seem concerned about a threatened veto from President Bush.
“If there is a veto, I look forward to overriding it swiftly on a bi-partisan basis,” said Bond.
McCaskill said Congress must stop inserting projects into the conference report that were not included in the original bill.
"Some will say: it doesn't matter we have this backlog of all these progresses. Well, if it didn't matter, why do we need to do it? And if it does matter, it ought to be important enough to be this one bill or the other," McCaskill said.
No comments:
Post a Comment