Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 102 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 102 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8069-S8090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Under the previous
order, the hour of 6 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume
consideration of H.R. 4733, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.

(On Tuesday, September 6, 2000, at page S7985, the committee
amendment was agreed to, as follows:)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the part
printed in italic.
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, for energy and water development,
and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors,
flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.

General Investigations

For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood
control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of
authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when
authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans
and specifications of projects prior to construction,
$139,219,000, to remain available until expended.

Construction, General

For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws;
and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
projects (including those for development with participation
or under consideration for participation by States, local
governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible
for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction),
$1,361,449,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary for the Federal share of
construction costs for facilities under the Dredged Material
Disposal Facilities program shall be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, as authorized by Public Law 104-303;
and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public
Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and
rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including
rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi
River, Illinois and Missouri; Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi
River, Minnesota; London Locks and Dam; Kanawha River, West
Virginia; and Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi River, Iowa
projects; and of which funds are provided for the following
projects in the amounts specified:
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $4,000,000;
Jackson County, Mississippi, $2,000,000; and
Upper Mingo County (including Mingo County Tributaries),
Lower Mingo County (Kermit), Wayne County, and McDowell
County, elements of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
River and Upper Cumberland River project in West Virginia,
$4,100,000:

Provided, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be expended or obligated to begin Phase II on the
John Day Drawdown study or to initiate a study of the
drawdown of McNary Dam unless authorized by law: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed hereafter to use available
Construction, General funds in addition to funding provided
to Public Law 104-206 to complete design and construction of
the Red River Regional Visitors Center in the vicinity of
Shreveport, Louisiana at an estimated cost of $6,000,000:
Provided further, That section 101(b)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, is amended by striking
``total cost of $8,600,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof,
``total cost of $15,000,000'': Provided further, That the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to use $3,000,000 of the funds appropriated
herein for additional emergency bank stabilization measures
at Galena, Alaska under the same terms and conditions as
previous emergency bank stabilization work undertaken at
Galena, Alaska pursuant to Section 116 of Public Law 99-190:
Provided further, That with $4,200,000 of the funds
appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to continue
construction of the Brunswick County Beaches, North Carolina-
Ocean Isle Beach portion in accordance with the General
Reevaluation Report approved by the Chief of Engineers on May
15, 1998: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to use not
to exceed $300,000 of funds appropriated herein to reimburse
the City of Renton, Washington, at full Federal expense, for
mitigation expenses incurred for the flood control project
constructed pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 701s at Cedar River, City
of Renton, Washington, as a result of over-dredging by the
Army Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may use
Construction, General funding as directed in Public Law 105-
62 and Public Law 105-245 to initiate construction of an
emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the
Sheyenne River, except that the funds shall not become
available unless the Secretary of the Army determines that an
emergency (as defined in section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122)) exists with respect to the emergency need for
the outlet and reports to Congress that the construction is
technically sound, economically justified, and
environmentally acceptable, and in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.): Provided further, That the economic justification for
the emergency outlet shall be prepared in accordance with the
principles and guidelines for economic evaluation as required
by regulations and procedures of the Army Corps of Engineers
for all flood control projects, and that the economic
justification be fully described, including the analysis of
the benefits and costs, in the project plan documents:
Provided further, That the plans for the emergency outlet
shall be reviewed and, to be effective, shall contain
assurances provided by the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the International Joint Commission, that
the project will not violate the requirements or intent of
the Treaty Between the United States and Great Britain
Relating to Boundary Waters Between the United States and
Canada, signed at Washington January 11, 1909 (36 Stat. 2448;
TS 548) (commonly known as the ``Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909''): Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army
shall submit the final plans and other documents for the
emergency outlet to Congress: Provided further, That no funds
made available under this Act or any other Act for any fiscal
year may be used by the Secretary of the Army to carry out
the portion of the feasibility study of the Devils Lake
Basin, North Dakota, authorized under the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-377),
that addresses the needs of the area for stabilized lake
levels through inlet controls, or to otherwise study any
facility or carry out any activity that would permit the
transfer of water from the Missouri River Basin into Devils
Lake.

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood
control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance
of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood,
as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a and 702g-1),
$324,450,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Army is directed to complete his
analysis and determination of Federal maintenance of the
Greenville Inner Harbor, Mississippi navigation project in

[[Page S8070]]

accordance with Section 509 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.

Operation and Maintenance, General

For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation,
maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood
control, and related works, including such sums as may be
necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by
a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of
harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and
straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $1,862,471,000, to remain available until
expended, of which such sums as become available in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662,
may be derived from that Fund; and of which such sums as
become available from the special account established by the
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that account for
construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor
recreation facilities: Provided, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, from the funds
provided herein for the operation and maintenance of New York
Harbor, New York, is directed to prepare the necessary
documentation and initiate removal of submerged obstructions
and debris in the area previously marked by the Ambrose Light
Tower in the interest of safe navigation.

Regulatory Program

For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$120,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use funds appropriated herein to:
(1) by March 1, 2001, supplement the report, Cost Analysis
For the 1999 Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits,
to reflect the Nationwide Permits actually issued on March 9,
2000, including changes in the acreage limits,
preconstruction notification requirements and general
conditions between the rule proposed on July 21, 1999, and
the rule promulgated and published in the Federal Register;
(2) after consideration of the cost analysis for the 1999
proposal to issue and modify nationwide permits and the
supplement prepared pursuant to this Act and by September 30,
2001, prepare, submit to Congress and publish in the Federal
Register a Permit Processing Management Plan by which the
Corps of Engineers will handle the additional work associated
with all projected increases in the number of individual
permit applications and preconstruction notifications related
to the new and replacement permits and general conditions.
The Permit Processing Management Plan shall include specific
objective goals and criteria by which the Corps of Engineers'
progress towards reducing any permit backlog can be measured;
(3) beginning on December 31, 2001, and on a biannual basis
thereafter, report to Congress and publish in the Federal
Register, an analysis of the performance of its program as
measured against the criteria set out in the Permit
Processing Management Plan; (4) implement a 1-year pilot
program to publish quarterly on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's Regulatory Program website all Regulatory Analysis
and Management Systems (RAMS) data for the South Pacific
Division and North Atlantic Division beginning within 30 days
of the enactment of this Act; and (5) publish in Division
Office websites all findings, rulings, and decisions rendered
under the administrative appeals process for the Corps of
Engineers Regulatory Program as established in Public Law
106-60: Provided further, That, through the period ending on
September 30, 2003, the Corps of Engineers shall allow any
appellant to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the
appeals conference under the aforementioned administrative
appeals process: Provided further, That within 30 days of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall require all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Divisions and Districts to record the date
on which a Section 404 individual permit application or
nationwide permit notification is filed with the Corps of
Engineers: Provided further, That the Corps of Engineers,
when reporting permit processing times, shall track both the
date a permit application is first received and the date the
application is considered complete, as well as the reason
that the application is not considered complete upon first
submission.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
throughout the United States resulting from work performed as
part of the Nation's early atomic energy program,
$140,000,000, to remain available until expended.

General Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal
Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity, the Water Resources Support Center, and
headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center,
$152,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of any other appropriation provided in title I
of this Act shall be available to fund the activities of the
Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive direction
and management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That none of these funds shall be available to
support an office of congressional affairs within the
executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

Revolving Fund

Amounts in the Revolving fund are available for the costs
of relocating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters
to office space in the General Accounting Office headquarters
building in Washington, D.C.

Administrative Provisions

Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--Corps of Engineers--Civil

Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no
fully allocated funding policy shall be applied to projects
for which funds are identified in the Committee reports
accompanying this Act under the Construction, General;
Operation and Maintenance, General; and Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries, appropriation accounts:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to undertake these projects
using continuing contracts, as authorized in section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 1922 (33 U.S.C.
621).
Sec. 102. Agreements proposed for execution by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works or the United
States Army Corps of Engineers after the date of the
enactment of this Act pursuant to section 4 of the Rivers and
Harbor Act of 1915, Public Law 64-291; section 11 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1925, Public Law 68-585; the Civil
Functions Appropriations Act, 1936, Public Law 75-208;
section 215 of the Flood Control Act of 1968, as amended,
Public Law 90-483; sections 104, 203, and 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (Public Law 99-
662); section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992, as amended, Public Law 102-580; section 211 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303,
and any other specific project authority, shall be limited to
credits and reimbursements per project not to exceed
$10,000,000 in each fiscal year, and total credits and
reimbursements for all applicable projects not to exceed
$50,000,000 in each fiscal year.
Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or
official to which the funds are made available that such
revision provides 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.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $38,724,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $19,158,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account:
Provided, That of the amounts deposited into that account,
$5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal contribution
authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act and $14,158,000 shall be available to the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry
out activities authorized under that Act.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,216,000, to remain available until expended.

Bureau of Reclamation

For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation
as provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17,
1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or
supplementary thereto) and other Acts applicable to that
Bureau as follows:

water and related resources

(including transfer of funds)

For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$655,192,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$1,916,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $38,667,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; of which $16,000,000
shall be for on-reservation water development, feasibility
studies, and related administrative costs under Public Law
106-163; of which not more than 25 percent of the amount
provided for drought emergency assistance may be used for
financial assistance for the preparation of cooperative
drought contingency plans under Title II of Public Law 102-
250; and of which not more than $500,000 is for high priority
projects which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation
Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, the amount for program activities
that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of
Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C.
460l-6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the

[[Page S8071]]

same purposes as the sums appropriated under this heading:
Provided further, That funds available for expenditure for
the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program may be expended
by the Bureau of Reclamation for site remediation on a non-
reimbursable basis: Provided further, That section 301 of
Public Law 102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is amended further by
inserting ``2000, and 2001'' in lieu of ``and 2000'':
Provided further, That the amount authorized for Indian
municipal, rural, and industrial water features by section 10
of Public Law 89-108, as amended by section 8 of Public Law
99-294, section 1701(b) of Public Law 102-575, Public Law
105-245, and Public Law 106-60 is increased by $2,000,000
(October 1998 prices): Provided further, That the amount
authorized for Minidoka Project North Side Pumping Division,
Idaho, by section 5 of Public Law 81-864, is increased by
$2,805,000: Provided further, That the Reclamation Safety of
Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is amended as follows: (1)
by inserting in Section 4(c) after ``1984,'' and before
``costs'' the following: ``and the additional $95,000,000
further authorized to be appropriated by amendments to that
Act in 2000,''; (2) by inserting in Section 5 after
``levels),'' and before ``plus'' the following: ``and,
effective October 1, 2000, not to exceed an additional
$95,000,000 (October 1, 2000, price levels),''; and (3) by
striking ``sixty days (which'' and all that follows through
``day certain)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``30 calendar
days''.

bureau of reclamation loan program account

For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $8,944,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended:
Provided further, That these funds are available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $27,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
sums appropriated, the amount of program activities that can
be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from
that Fund.

central valley project restoration fund

For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $38,382,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.

policy and administration

For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$50,224,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.

administrative provisions

Sec. 201. Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation
shall be available for purchase of not to exceed four
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only.
Sec. 202. Funds under this title for Drought Emergency
Assistance shall be made available primarily for leasing of
water for specified drought related purposes from willing
lessors, in compliance with existing State laws and
administered under State water priority allocation. Such
leases may be entered into with an option to purchase:
Provided, That such purchase is approved by the State in
which the purchase takes place and the purchase does not
cause economic harm within the State in which the purchase is
made.

GENERAL PROVISION

Sec. 203. (a) For fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year
thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior shall continue the
funding of monitoring and research, as authorized by section
1807 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4672), at not more than $7,687,000, adjusted to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor.
(b) The activities to be funded as provided under
subsection (a) include activities required to meet the
requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 1805 of
the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4672),
including the requirements of the Biological Opinion on the
Operation of Glen Canyon Dam and activities required by the
Programmatic Agreement on Cultural and Historic Properties.
(c) To the extent that funding under subsection (a) is
insufficient to pay the costs of the monitoring and research,
the Secretary of the Interior may use funds appropriated to
carry out section 8 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly
known as the ``Colorado River Storage Project Act'') (43
U.S.C. 620g), to pay those costs.
Sec. 204. Effective for fiscal year 2000, and each
subsequent fiscal year, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no funds appropriated in this or any other act shall
be expended to implement the policies articulated in the
memorandum dated June 19, 2000, concerning the Middle Rio
Grande Project, written by the Solicitor of the Department of
the Interior to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
legal analysis referenced in the memorandum or any subsequent
recommendations, directives or other correspondence including
a letter referenced ALB-105 ENV-4.00, dated July 6, 2000, to
the Chief Executive Officer of the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District from the Albuquerque Area Manager of the
Bureau of Reclamation addressing the issues raised by this
Solicitor's memorandum except as may be provided in an
agreement entered into by all affected holders of water
rights within the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and
which agreement has been approved by the New Mexico State
Engineer, or as may be required by a final non-appealable
court order.
Effective for fiscal year 2000, and each subsequent fiscal
year, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds
appropriated in this or any other Act shall be expended to
implement the policies, recommendations and directives
articulated in a letter referenced ENV-4.00, ALB-105, dated
June 29, 2000, to the Chairman of the Board of Directors for
the Fort Sumner Irrigation District from the Albuquerque Area
Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the Fort
Sumner Diversion Dam Water Operations except as may be
provided in an agreement entered into by all affected holders
of water rights within the Fort Sumner Irrigation District
and which agreement has been approved by the New Mexico State
Engineer, or as may be required by a final non-appealable
court order.
Sec. 205. Section 202 of Division B, Title I, Chapter 2 of
Public Law 106-246 is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``This section shall be effective through
September 30, 2001.''.

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Supply

(including transfer of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply, and uranium
supply and enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
not to exceed 17 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, $691,520,000 to remain available until September 30,
2002, of which $12,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from
the United States Enrichment Corporation Fund: Provided,
That, in addition, royalties received to compensate the
Department of Energy for its participation in the First-Of-A-
Kind-Engineering program shall be credited to this account to
be available until September 30, 2002 for the purposes of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology activities.

Non-Defense Environmental Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction or expansion, $309,141,000, to
remain available until expended.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, $297,778,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $30,000,000 of
amounts derived from the Fund for such expenses shall be
available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Science

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 58 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, $2,870,112,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, not to exceed $51,163,000 of the
funds appropriated herein may be obligated for the Small
Business Innovation Research program and not to exceed
$3,069,000 of the funds appropriated herein may be obligated
for the Small Business Technology Transfer program.

Nuclear Waste Disposal

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $59,175,000, to remain available until expended
and to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That
not to exceed $2,500,000 may be provided to the State of
Nevada solely for expenditures, other than salaries and
expenses of State employees, to conduct scientific oversight
responsibilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, (Public Law 97-425) as

[[Page S8072]]

amended: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,887,000 may
be provided to affected units of local governments, as
defined in Public Law 97-425, to conduct appropriate
activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further, That the
distribution of the funds as determined by the units of local
government shall be approved by the Department of Energy:
Provided further, That the funds for the State of Nevada
shall be made solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management by direct payment and units of local government by
direct payment: Provided further, That within 90 days of the
completion of each Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division
of Environmental Management and the Governor of the State of
Nevada and each local entity shall provide certification to
the Department of Energy, that all funds expended from such
payments have been expended for activities authorized by
Public Law 97-425. Failure to provide such certification
shall cause such entity to be prohibited from any further
funding provided for similar activities: Provided, That none
of the funds herein appropriated may be: (1) used directly or
indirectly to influence legislative action on any matter
pending before Congress or a State legislature or for
lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for
litigation expenses; or (3) used to support multi-state
efforts or other coalition building activities inconsistent
with the restrictions contained in this Act: Provided
further, That all proceeds and recoveries by the Secretary in
carrying out activities authorized by the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 in Public Law 97-425, as amended,
including but not limited to, any proceeds from the sale of
assets, shall be available without further appropriation and
shall remain available until expended.

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $210,128,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $128,762,000 in
fiscal year 2001 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $81,366,000.

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $28,988,000, to remain
available until expended.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

National Nuclear Security Administration

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 12 for replacement
only), $4,883,289,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $908,967,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses for national
security and nonproliferation (including transparency)
activities in fiscal year 2001.

Naval Reactors

Office of the Administrator

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
of the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000), $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.

OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of 67 passenger motor vehicles
for replacement only, $4,635,763,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That any amounts appropriated under
this heading that are used to provide economic assistance
under section 15 of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
Withdrawal Act (Public Law 102-579) shall be utilized to the
extent necessary to reimburse costs of financial assurances
required of a contractor by any permit or license of the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant issued by the State of New
Mexico.

Defense Facilities Closure Projects

For expenses of the Department of Energy to accelerate the
closure of defense environmental management sites, including
the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment and other necessary expenses,
$1,082,297,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Environmental Management Privatization

For Department of Energy expenses for privatization
projects necessary for atomic energy defense environmental
management activities authorized by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $324,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Other Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

Power Marketing Administrations

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program, the
Cour D'Alene Tribe Trout Production facility, and for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500.
During fiscal year 2001, no new direct loan obligations may
be made. Section 511 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-206), is amended by
striking the last sentence and inserting, ``This authority
shall expire September 30, 2005.''.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $3,900,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected by the Southeastern
Power Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures as follows: for
fiscal year 2001, up to $34,463,000; for fiscal year 2002, up
to $26,463,000; for fiscal year 2003, up to $20,000,000; and
for fiscal year 2004, up to $15,000,000.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, and for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southwestern power area, $28,100,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,200,000 in
reimbursements, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That amounts collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures as follows: for fiscal year 2001,
up to $288,000; for fiscal year 2002, up to $288,000; for
fiscal year 2003, up to $288,000; and for fiscal year 2004,
up to $288,000.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related

[[Page S8073]]

activities including conservation and renewable resources
programs as authorized, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500,
$164,916,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$154,616,000 shall be derived from the Department of the
Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That of the amount
herein appropriated, $5,950,000 is for deposit into the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to
title IV of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, That amounts
collected by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant
to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses
shall be credited to this account as offsetting collections,
to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
making purchase power and wheeling expenditures as follows:
for fiscal year 2001, up to $42,500,000; for fiscal year
2002, up to $33,500,000; for fiscal year 2003, up to
$30,000,000; and for fiscal year 2004, up to $20,000,000.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$2,670,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $175,200,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$175,200,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2001 shall be
retained and used for necessary 2001 expenses in this
account, and shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated from the General
Fund shall be reduced as revenues are received during fiscal
year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $0.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sec. 301. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
for Department of Energy programs may be used to award,
amend, or modify a contract in a manner that deviates from
the Federal Acquisition Regulation unless, on a case-by-case
basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation is granted.
(b) The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall have the exclusive waiver authority for
activities under ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National
Nuclear Security Administration'' and may not delegate the
authority to grant such a waiver. The Secretary of Energy
shall have the exclusive waiver authority for all other
activities which may not be delegated.
(c) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver as provided for in subsection (b), the Secretary shall
submit to the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development
of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report notifying the
subcommittees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for
the waiver.
(d) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration intends to grant such a
waiver as provided in subsection (b), the Administrator shall
submit to the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development
of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report notifying the
subcommittees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for
the waiver.
Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
under ``Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear
Security Administration'' may be used to award, amend, or
modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration grants, on a case-
by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. The
Administrator may not delegate the authority to grant such a
waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Administrator intends to grant
such a waiver, the Administrator shall submit to the
Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development of the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report notifying the subcommittees of the
waiver and setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy, under section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for
a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.

(transfers of unexpended balances)

Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.
Sec. 306. Notwithstanding 41 U.S.C. 254c(a), the Secretary
of Energy may use funds appropriated by this Act to enter
into or continue multi-year contracts for the acquisition of
property or services under the head, ``Energy Supply''
without obligating the estimated costs associated with any
necessary cancellation or termination of the contract. The
Secretary of Energy may pay costs of termination or
cancellation from--
(1) appropriations originally available for the performance
of the contract concerned;
(2) appropriations currently available for procurement of
the type of property or services concerned, and not otherwise
obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those payments.
Sec. 307. Of the funds in this Act provided to government-
owned, contractor-operated laboratories, up to 6 percent
shall be available to be used for Laboratory Directed
Research and Development: Provided, That the funds in the
Environmental Management programs of the Department of Energy
are available for Laboratory Directed Research and
Development.
Sec. 308. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this title to
the Department of Energy, not more than $200,000,000 shall be
available for reimbursement of management and operating
contractor travel expenses.
(b) Funds appropriated by this title to the Department of
Energy may be used to reimburse a Department of Energy
management and operating contractor for travel costs of its
employees under the contract only to the extent that the
contractor applies to its employees the same rates and
amounts as those that apply to Federal employees under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or
rates and amounts established by the Secretary of Energy. The
Secretary of Energy may provide exceptions to the
reimbursement requirements of this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
Sec. 309. (a) None of the funds in this Act or any future
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act may be
expended after December 31 of each year under a covered
contract unless the funds are expended in accordance with a
Laboratory Funding Plan that has been approved by the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. At the beginning of each fiscal year, the
Administrator shall issue directions to the laboratories for
the programs, projects, and activities to be conducted in
that fiscal year. The Administrator and the Laboratories
shall devise a Laboratory Funding Plan that identifies the
resources needed to carry out these programs, projects, and
activities. Funds shall be released to the Laboratories only
after the Administrator has approved the Laboratory Funding
Plan. The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration may provide exceptions to this requirement as
the Secretary considers appropriate.
(b) For purposes of this section, ``covered contract''
means a contract for the management and operation of the
following laboratories: Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia
National Laboratories.
Sec. 310. Section 310(b) of Public Law 106-60 (113 Stat.
496) is amended by striking ``Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
and Sandia National Laboratories.'' in paragraph (b), and
inserting ``Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.''.
Sec. 311. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to establish or maintain independent centers at a
Department of Energy laboratory or facility unless such funds
have been specifically identified in the budget submission.
Sec. 312. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to restart the High Flux Beam Reactor.
Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
dispose of transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant which contains concentrations of plutonium in excess of
20 percent by weight for the aggregate of any material
category on the date of the enactment of this Act, or is
generated after such date.
Sec. 314. Term of Office of Person First Appointed as Under
Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy.
(a) Length of Term.--The term of office as Under Secretary
for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy of the first
person appointed to that position shall be three years.
(b) Exclusive Reasons for Removal.--The exclusive reasons
for removal from office as Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security of the person described in subsection (a) shall be
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
(c) Position Described.--The position of Under Secretary
for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy referred to
in this section is the position established by subsection (c)
of section 202 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7132), as added by section 3202 of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (title XXXII of Public
Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 954)).
Sec. 315. Scope of Authority of Secretary of Energy To
Modify Organization of National Nuclear Security
Administration. (a) Scope of Authority.--Subtitle A of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (title

[[Page S8074]]

XXXII of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 957; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 3219. SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF ENERGY TO
MODIFY ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATION.

``Notwithstanding the authority granted by section 643 of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7253) or
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy may not
establish, abolish, alter, consolidate, or discontinue any
organizational unit or component, or transfer any function,
of the Administration, except as authorized by subsection (b)
or (c) of section 3291.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 643 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7253) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(a)
Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) The authority of the Secretary to establish, abolish,
alter, consolidate, or discontinue any organizational unit or
component of the National Nuclear Security Administration is
governed by the provisions of section 3219 of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (title XXXII of Public
Law 106-65).''.
Sec. 316. Prohibition on Pay of Personnel Engaged in
Concurrent Service or Duties Inside and Outside National
Nuclear Security Administration. Subtitle C of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (title XXXII of Public
Law 106-65; 50 U.S.C. 2441 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:

``SEC. 3245. PROHIBITION ON PAY OF PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN
CONCURRENT SERVICE OR DUTIES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
ADMINISTRATION.

``(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, no
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Energy may be obligated or
utilized to pay the basic pay of an officer or employee of
the Department of Energy who--
``(1) serves concurrently in a position in the
Administration and a position outside the Administration; or
``(2) performs concurrently the duties of a position in the
Administration and the duties of a position outside the
Administration.''
``(b) The provision of this section shall take effect 60
days after the date of enactment of this section.''.
Sec. 317. The Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration may authorize the plant manager of a
covered nuclear weapons production plant to engage in
research, development, and demonstration activities with
respect to the engineering and manufacturing capabilities at
such plant in order to maintain and enhance such capabilities
at such plant: Provided, That of the amount allocated to a
covered nuclear weapons production plant each fiscal year
from amounts available to the Department of Energy for such
fiscal year for national security programs, not more than an
amount equal to 2 percent of such amount may be used for
these activities: Provided further, That for purposes of this
section, the term ``covered nuclear weapons production
plant'' means the following:
(1) The Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
(2) The Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(3) The Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas.
Sec. 318. Limiting the Inclusion of Costs of Protection of,
Mitigation of Damage to, and Enhancement of Fish and
Wildlife, Within Rates Charged by the Bonneville Power
Administration, to the Rate Period in Which the Costs Are
Incurred. Section 7 of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839e) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(n) Limiting the Inclusion of Costs of Protection of,
Mitigation of Damage to, and Enhancement of Fish and
Wildlife, Within Rates Charged by the Bonneville Power
Administration, to the Rate Period in Which the Costs Are
Incurred.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, rates established by the Administrator, under this
section shall recover costs for protection, mitigation and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, whether under the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act or any
other Act, not to exceed such amounts the Administrator
forecasts will be expended during the fiscal year 2002-2006
rate period, while preserving the Administrator's ability to
establish appropriate reserves and maintain a high Treasury
payment probability for the subsequent rate period.''.
Sec. 319. Notwithstanding any other law, and without fiscal
year limitation, each Federal Power Marketing Administration
is authorized to engage in activities and solicit, undertake
and review studies and proposals relating to the formation
and operation of a regional transmission organization.

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman
and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$66,400,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $18,500,000, to remain available until
expended.

Delta Regional Authority

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to establish the Delta Regional
Authority and to carry out its activities, $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended, subject to enactment of
authorization by law.

Denali Commission

For expenses of the Denali Commission including the
purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment as necessary and other expenses, $30,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including official representation expenses (not to exceed
$15,000), $481,900,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $21,600,000
shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$457,100,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That $3,200,000 of the
funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and
assistance to other Federal agencies and States shall be
excluded from license fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C.
2214: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during
fiscal year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation estimated at not more than $24,800,000.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $5,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees,
inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $5,500,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained
and be available until expended, for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 2001 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation estimated at not more
than $0.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,000,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.

TITLE V

FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Cerro Grande Fire Activities

For necessary expenses for fiscal year 2000 to remediate
damaged Department of Energy facilities and for other
expenses associated with the Cerro Grande fire, $203,460,000,
to remain available until expended and to become available
upon enactment: Provided, That the entire amount shall be
available only to the extent an official budget request for
$204,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.

TITLE VI

RESCISSION

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

(rescission)

Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 104-46 for interim
storage of nuclear waste, $85,000,000 are transferred to this
heading and are hereby rescinded.

TITLE VII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of title 18,
United States Code.
Sec. 702. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in

[[Page S8075]]

America'' inscription, or any inscription with the same
meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the United
States that is not made in the United States, the person
shall be ineligible to receive any contract or subcontract
made with funds made available in this Act, pursuant to the
debarment, suspension, and ineligibility procedures described
in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 703. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
Reclamation law.
Sec. 704. Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3))
and Public Law 106-60 (113 Stat. 501), is further amended by
striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting ``September 30,
2001''.
Sec. 705. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol.
Sec. 706. (a) Sections 5105, 5106 and 5109 of Division B of
an Act making appropriations for military construction,
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2001, and for other purposes (Public Law 106-246), are
repealed.
(b) Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2001''.

Pending:

Domenici amendment No. 4032, to strike certain
environmental-related provisions.
Schumer/Collins amendment No. 4033, to establish a
Presidential Energy Commission to explore long- and short-
term responses to domestic energy shortages in supply and
severe spikes in energy prices.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a request that the leader asked
me to make that has been cleared on both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the Thursday
morning vote relative to the Missouri River provision in the energy and
water appropriations bill, the Senate then proceed to a vote on the
adoption of the motion to proceed on H.R. 4444, notwithstanding the
provisions of rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with
respect to the energy and water appropriations bill, all first-degree
amendments must be filed at the desk by 6:30 p.m. this evening, with
the exception of up to five amendments each to be filed by Senator
Domenici of New Mexico and Senator Reid of Nevada, and those be filed
no later than 7:30 p.m. tonight, and that all first-degree amendments
be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence of the distinguished
Senator from the State of Missouri, Mr. Bond. I say to the Senate,
since the amendment that we are now going to take up for up to 3 hours
this evening has to do with the upper and lower Missouri River debate,
I am not going to manage any of that. I am going to let the management
be in the hands of Senator Kit Bond, if he does not mind, in my stead.
I join him in his effort. He knows that. But nonetheless, it is his
issue. I prefer to have him managing it.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4081

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr.
Baucus, for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson, proposes
an amendment numbered 4081.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike the section relating to revision of the Missouri
River Master Water Control Manual)

On page 58, strike lines 6 through 13.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 hours of debate on this amendment.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, this issue really has a very fundamental premise. The
issue is: Can we use the best information available to us to manage the
Missouri River, to manage it in a way that recognizes the sensitive
balance that exists today--environmentally, industrially,
agriculturally, recreationally? Can we take the best information we
have available to us and put together the best management plan
recognizing that balance? That is the essence of the question before
us.
My distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has said: I
don't want the Corps of Engineers to alter the manual that has been
used now for more than 40 years. His view is that the manual that was
written in the 1950s and adopted in approximately 1960 ought to be the
manual that we use from here on out, and he wants to stop in its tracks
any effort to consider whether or not the Missouri River management
reflects today that sensitive balance.
I think it is wrong to say to the Corps of Engineers--to say to any
Federal agency--we don't want you to look at the facts. We don't want
you to look at the information. We don't want you to take into account
that delicate balance. We want you to blindly follow whatever decisions
you made in 1960--I might add, before even all the dams on the Missouri
River were built--and we want you to follow that verbatim.
We can't afford to do that. The decisions that we make on the
Missouri affect the decisions we make on the Mississippi and on
virtually every other river in this country. For us to freeze in place
whatever decisions may have been made decades ago, and say it must not
change, is putting our head in the sand and, I must say, endangering
the health and the very essence of the river for years, if not decades,
to come.
It was in 1804 that Meriwether Lewis and William Clark set out on
their Corps of Discovery expedition to explore the Missouri River and
search for a passage to the Pacific Ocean.
Stephen Ambrose wrote an extraordinary book, ``Undaunted Courage,''
that I just reread over the summer. I must say, I do not know that
there is a better book about what they found and the splendor that they
discovered having traversed the entire Missouri River.
Along this expedition, Lewis and Clark encountered a wild river,
teeming with fish and wildlife, that rose every spring to carry the
snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains and shrank back in the summer as part
of the ancient and natural flow cycle. That is what the river did; that
is what most rivers do.
Since that historic trip, we have constructed six major dams and we
have forever changed the flow and the character of that river. The last
earthen dam was completed during the administration of John F. Kennedy.
To manage the dams, the Corps produced, in 1960, as I noted a moment
ago, a management plan, that we call the master manual. That manual
caters primarily

[[Page S8076]]

to barge traffic on the Missouri River at the expense, virtually, of
everything else, at the expense of fish and wildlife, at the expense of
agriculture, at the expense of recreation, at the expense of ecological
considerations, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of
people virtually north of the State of Missouri.
What is amazing to me is that we do this with the recognition that
the barge industry today is minuscule, valued at $7 million--that is
million with an ``m''--and it transports less than 1 percent of all
agricultural goods transported in the upper Midwest. Talk about the
tail wagging the dog. This is the tip of the tail wagging the tail and
the dog. The legs, the head, you name it, it is all wagging because of
the tip of the tail.
These charts reflect the current circumstances on the river. This is
the barge traffic that was first projected. They thought, when they
wrote the master manual, that about 12 million tons of traffic would be
carried by barge on the river on an annual basis. That was the estimate
when the manual was written in 1960. I was about 10 years old, I
suppose, when that manual was written. The Corps, of course, did the
best they could projecting what they thought would be the level of
traffic, 12 million tons. But as oftentimes is the case, they made a
mistake. It wasn't 12 million tons. By 1977, it was only 3 million
tons. And guess what. Current traffic is not 12, it is not 3, it is
1.5. That is all the traffic there is, 1.5 million tons, representing
three-tenths of 1 percent of all agricultural traffic.
What is really amazing--as I said a moment ago, is that this is a
classic example of the tip of the tail wagging the rest of the tail and
all of the dog. Look who has sacrificed. Navigation provides roughly $7
million in benefits annually, compared to $85 million in recreational
benefits. It compares to $415 million in flood control, $542 million in
water supply projects and priorities of all kinds, and $677 million,
two-thirds of $1 trillion, in hydropower. Yet we have written a manual,
incredibly, that says we are going to let this minuscule $7 million
industry dictate what is best for the 85, the 415, the 542, and the
$677 million. Figure that out. Who in his right mind would say that
somehow we ought to let that minuscule amount dictate what is best.
Forget the ecological and environmental factors for a moment.
I go back to my original point. Barge traffic today is three-tenths
of 1 percent. If I had not magnified this slice, you couldn't even find
it in this pie. Roughly 99.7 percent of all agriculture produced in the
Upper Midwest doesn't go by barge. How does it go? It goes the way the
rest of the country. It goes by rail and by truck. So why would we
threaten to throw even more out of kilter the ecological priorities of
the river by putting barge traffic first? Why would we endanger
hydropower, water supply, flood control, and recreation? I cannot
answer that question.
But that is not even the question we are facing tonight. There are
those on the other side who have said: We don't care what factors are
out there. We don't care what percentage is barge traffic. We will not
even let the Corps consider, even think about the possibility of
changing the master manual, regardless of the facts. Don't confuse us
with the facts. We are going to protect the barge industry, and it does
not matter what the costs are.
We will have to face extraordinarily problematic ramifications of
this provision for all of these other very critical priorities,
including the ecology of the river. Three endangered species are headed
towards extinction: the piping plover, the least interior tern, and the
pallid sturgeon. Two fish species are candidates for listing on the
endangered species list. But that isn't the only thing this fight is
about. What this fight is all about is whether or not we can recognize
the delicate balance that exists today.
This fight is not about endangered species. This fight is about an
endangered river. This fight is about whether or not the health of the
Missouri can be secured. That is what this fight is about. This fight
is about restoring balance to management of the river. We will never go
back to the days of Lewis and Clark, the pre-dam period. That will
never happen. But there are things we can do through good management
that will give us the opportunity to make the river as vibrant as it
can be. But we cannot do it if the current provision in this bill stays
intact and becomes law.
Recognizing that, the question is whether or not we will let the
Corps be the Corps, whether or not we will allow the Corps to go
through the legal process involved in evaluating what is best for the
river and change the management plan to reflect a more fair balance.
That is all we are asking. Let us come up with a plan that allows us
in the most complete way to analyze what is happening to the river,
what is best for the river, what can be done in Montana and the Dakotas
and Iowa and Missouri and all the way up and down the Missouri River to
ensure that the health and vitality of that river can be sustained and
even improved upon. That is what the Corps is trying to do.
What the Corps is simply trying to do is to say, look, we can do a
better job than we did in the 1950s and 1960s in managing this river.
We can reflect the new balance, and the recognition must be made that
things have changed dramatically since the fifties and sixties. We need
to reflect that change in the master manual itself.
Here is the process; the process is pretty simple. A preliminary
draft of the EIS, environmental impact statement, was completed all the
way back in 1998. Following that, there was a coordination and public
comment period that lasted through January of 1999. That period allowed
tribal and public officials to respond to the preliminary revised draft
of the environmental statement. Then we went on to the fish and
wildlife consultation and biological opinion phase, which some of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to stop just recently.
They wanted to kill that, to move it so we would not have the
opportunity to consider very carefully what the scientists and
biological experts have said about the quality of life on the Missouri
today. They wanted to kill it.
Thanks to the Director of the Corps, Joe Westphal, and others, we are
now in a position to at least hear what the scientists have had to say,
and we will have that report by November 1. Following that, there will
be a revised draft of the environmental impact statement. They will
take into account all of the comments made by those who are concerned
on all sides. They will take into account this coordination and what
comments public officials have made, in particular. They will then take
into account fish and wildlife and biological opinions.
When all of that has been gathered, we will then revise the draft and
make available to the public a draft for additional comment for 6
months. We then see the final environmental impact statement after a 6-
month tribal and public comment period. Washington will then review all
of those comments. A record of decision will be made and the revise of
the master manual will then be implemented. Those are all the steps.
This is like a court of law. This is like any other legal process.
There are a number of very important steps that we apply in all cases--
in all cases where difficult decisions involving critical public policy
have to be made. We make these steps for a reason. We want public
comment. We want scientific input, the best decisions from governmental
leaders at all levels. We want to do that with the full involvement in
a democracy of everyone who cares and everyone who has some
responsibility.
But here is what happens. Under the provision currently in the bill,
there is a big red stop sign on this process. It says: You are not
going to do any of this. We are going to stop you in your tracks. We
are not going to let you go through that process. We are not going to
allow public comment and the array of other opportunities for public
involvement. We are not going to have that process. It is over. That is
what this amendment says; that is what the provision in the bill says.
So I have to say it is extraordinarily damaging to the river to have
this attitude. It is such an important issue involving so many
priorities--environmental, ecological, industrial, recreational,
agricultural--because it is endangering the interests of our country in
such a profound way on this river. This administration has said,
without equivocation, it will be vetoed if this provision is still in
the bill. That is how strongly the administration

[[Page S8077]]

feels about it. It will be vetoed. So we can play this game as long as
our colleagues wish to do so. But let's make one thing clear. This will
not become law. This will not become law because it is just too
important.
I don't fully appreciate the reasons my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are opposed to even allowing the process to go forward,
given what I have said is this multistep opportunity for careful
consideration of all the options. But it goes down to, as I said in the
beginning, a need on the part of some to protect this minuscule barge
industry regardless of all of its ramifications on everything and
everybody else.

But as I understand it, there are those on the other side who are
opposed because they understand that what has happened is that there
has been some effort to find this new balance. This new balance is a
recognition of all of the different factors that need to be calculated,
in part, through the Fish and Wildlife Service and, in part, through
the Corps of Engineers and, in part, through States' direct
involvement.
What has been proposed is that the Corps slightly revise its master
manual to increase spring flows, known as a ``spring rise,'' once every
3 years--not every year, but once every 3 years they would increase the
spring rise in an effort to attempt to bring back a natural flow, a
natural rejuvenation of the river as we have understood it prior to the
time the dams were built. They would reduce summer flows, known as a
``split season,'' every year.
The spring rise and the split season roughly mimic the natural flow
of the river, which increase in the spring due to snowmelt and sharply
decline in the summer, beginning around July 1. It is as Lewis and
Clark found it. We can't go back to Lewis and Clark. Nobody is
suggesting that. What we are attempting to do, however, is to show once
again that there is this balance, this need to recognize that if we are
going to keep the river healthy, we have to allow it to do what it once
did, prior to the time the dams were built. This is the flow pattern
under which native species developed, which is absolutely critical to
their very survival--not just the three endangered species, but all
species on the river.
The spring rise is needed to scour sandbars clean of vegetation so
they can be used by endangered birds for nesting habitat.
The spring rise also signals native fish species that it is time to
spawn. This is the green light. They see these spring rises, and that
triggers to the species that they can spawn. When they don't have that
spring rise, the whole natural cycle is put out of whack. That is what
has been happening year after year and decade after decade.
The low summer flows, or split season, exposes the sandbars during
the critical nesting time, so that the birds have sufficient room to
nest and so that the nests don't get flooded. To prevent any potential
downstream flooding, the Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others,
have already thought about addressing the concern of some downstream
who are understandably concerned about flooding. They would simply
eliminate this plan from implementation during the 10 percent highest
flow years--eliminate it; it would not happen. Changes would not be
implemented during the 25 percent lowest flow ``drought'' years.
So this plan would not harm Mississippi River navigation. We have
already conceded that. This is the balance. This is an effort to try to
find middle ground. We are going to say we will lop off the top 10
percent and the top 25 percent; we will deal with those normal years in
the middle. Once consultation between the Corps and Fish and Wildlife
Service is completed, the Corps then still will take into account other
suggestions made during the public comment period.
There are so many beneficiaries of this plan. Naturally, the river
itself is the biggest beneficiary.
The river itself--not species on the river, not those living along
the river, not the States upstream, but the river--will be the prime
beneficiary of this effort. Why? For the reasons I have just stated--
because we want to find a way to bring balance back into the
management. We want to find middle ground in an effort to recognize all
uses on the river.
Downstream farmers will benefit from better drainage from fields
during the summertime. That is a given. The public will have greater
opportunities to recreate up and down the river. Even the Mississippi
barge industry will benefit from the changes that are being called on
for the Missouri River.
I wish to take a few minutes to talk briefly about each of those
benefits.
First, with regard to the river itself, the combination of the spring
rise and flood season will help restore the health of the river and
recover from the dangerous imbalance that we have with regard to all
species on the river today.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's draft opinion and the
Corps of Engineers' revised draft environmental impact statement of
1998, high spring flows will signal native fish species to spawn, flush
detrital food into the river, inundate side channels for young fish
habitat, and build up the sandbars in the river channel for the tern
and plover nesting habitat, and provide a greater area for the
endangered birds to nest, as well as for all birds.
The 600-page draft of the Fish and Wildlife Service opinion is based
on hundreds of published peer review studies. The opinion itself was a
peer review by a panel of experts who supported all of those
conclusions.
The fact is that whether or not we give the Missouri River the chance
to survive, to flourish, to be healthy again depends in large measure
on whether or not we as Senators will allow the Corps, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and all affected governmental authorities to
recognize the importance of proper balance; to recognize that what we
decided to do in 1960 does not now apply and should not be used to
manage the river in the next century; to recognize that if we are going
to take all of the economic and environmental concerns and put them in
proper balance, we have to revise the manual. To say that the Corps
will be prohibited from doing so is just bad, bad policy.
We recognize that maybe the barge industry on the Missouri--not the
Mississippi barge industry--will be hurt by this. But we recognize that
this minuscule three-tenths of 1 percent should not dictate all of the
other uses of this river, or any river. We shouldn't let the tip of the
tail wag the tail and the dog. But that is what is happening today.
That is what this legislation would do. That is why it is so important
that we strike it when we have the vote. That is why I feel so strongly
about this issue.
There is one other factor as we look at the barge industry itself
that is perplexing. Barge benefits on the river economically are about
$7 million. The subsidies to the barge industry last year exceeded the
total benefits of the industry itself. There is $8 million in subsidies
to the barge industry even recognizing that the industry generated $7
million in benefits. Not only do we have managerial concerns, not only
do we have concerns reflecting the life and health of one of the most
important rivers in the United States of America, we ought to have
taxpayer concerns. Why in Heaven's name are we subsidizing a $7 million
barge industry with an $8 million subsidy? That one I don't understand.
But that is why we are having this debate.
I am very appreciative of the leadership shown by the senior Senator
from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who has been the preeminent environmentalist
and environmental leader, as ranking member of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. I am grateful for his presence on the
floor, as well as my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who
has been an extraordinary advocate of the effort that we have made now
for several months to ensure that the Missouri River has the future
that it deserves.
I yield the floor. I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I certainly concur with my friend from South
Dakota on the great words he said about Stephen Ambrose's book,
``Undaunted Courage.'' I know the occupant of the chair read it. A lot
of the guys who started out in my State wound up in the State of
Oregon. It is truly a masterful piece of work and a wonderful piece of
history.

[[Page S8078]]

I had a great, great, great, great-grandfather who was one of the
fellows who poled the barges up the river. He wasn't sufficiently
outstanding to get his name in the book. But it is quite an honor to
have somebody who went up the river who was with Lewis and Clark. So I
have been a great devotee of the river and have followed it a good bit.
I was really interested to hear the Senator from South Dakota talk
about what we were trying to do to hurt the poor old river. The
minority leader claims the provision that he seeks to strike would stop
any changes in the Missouri River manual and would keep the plans just
as they have been for 50 years.
So I thought to myself: Gee, that wasn't the section that I put in.
Maybe they changed it somehow in the writing of it. So I went back and
read section 103. This is the provision that would be stricken. It
says:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when it
has been made known to the Federal entity or official to
which the funds are made available that such revision
provides 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.

What it says is that you can't implement a plan to increase flooding
during spring flood season on the Missouri River during the course of
2001.
Contrary to what you have just heard, any other aspect of the process
to review and amend the operation of the Missouri River, to change the
Missouri River manual, to consider the opinions, to discuss, to debate,
to continue the vitally important research that is going on now on the
river and how we can improve its habitat will continue.
I have been proud to sponsor the Mississippi and Missouri River
Habitat Improvement Program in which we funded the Corps of Engineers
to make changes to improve the river and to bring it back more to its
natural state. It is not going to be all the way back to its natural
state but to provide conservation opportunities, to provide spawning
habitats, nesting habitats for birds, the kind of habitat we want to
encourage the biological diversity on the river.
The U.S. Geological Survey has an environmental research arm that is
studying the river to find out what really works. Do you know
something. That work is going on. Those studies are being pursued. They
have some interesting information that they don't have a conclusion on
yet. It is not the spring rise that would improve the habitat. Perhaps
it is the gravel bars on side channels. That looks promising. This work
can continue; so can all of the work under the National Environmental
Policy Act to develop an environmental impact statement. Any other
change to the manual can continue. Analysis and public comment can
continue.
The provision is clear. It tells the U.S. Government that the ``risky
scheme'' of increasing the height of the river in the flood-prone
spring months is one option and the only option that cannot be
implemented during the coming year because it is too dangerous.
This is the fifth time that we have put forward this prohibition. It
has been signed into law four times previously by this President.
Why is it so important this year? Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service decided to short circuit the process, to jump over all of the
proceedings, the hearings, the studies, that the Corps of Engineers has
carried out.
They issued what I guess is called in an authoritarian, Communist
government, a diktat, a letter, on July 12 to the Corps of Engineers:
You will change the manual to have a spring rise, the spring surge.
They were the ones who wanted to skip over the process. They were the
ones dictating to the Corps--despite the public comment, despite all
the other information--they should implement that.
We have spring rises on the Missouri River. This chart shows 1999. In
March and April the river rises. These are the rises at different
stages of the river. We have spring rises. We already do because there
are many tributaries coming in. Perhaps we don't have quite the floods
in some years that we did because there have been dams built to reduce
the danger of flooding and to reduce somewhat the loss of life and the
damage to property and communities.
We already have a spring rise because of tributaries, including the
Platte and the Kansas, the Tarkio, the Blue, the Gasgonade, and others.
That spring rise results in frequent flooding. And the more water
released at Gavins Point, the greater the flood risk.
Since when should this deliberative body, the U.S. Congress, say we
should encourage a Federal agency to take a premeditated action to
increase flood risk when there is no scientific evidence that it will
have the benefit for endangered species that is proposed.
This is untenable for farmers living along the river. One-third of
the commodities of Missouri are grown in the floodplains of the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. It is untenable for mayors who want
their communities and their critical infrastructure protected. It is
imperative for the families who do not want to lose their family
members in floods. Some who don't live in areas of flood may not know
but floods do take lives. Floods are deadly. Floods are devastating. I
have witnessed the aftermath of too many floods. I have seen the
heartbreak and devastation, not just the loss of homes. I have seen
families who have lost a parent, lost a child, in floods.
Agricultural groups, flood control groups, have supported our
position very strongly. It is not a complicated issue. It is certainly
not a partisan issue. The Governor of Missouri is a Democrat. The
Democratic mayors of St. Louis and Kansas City support this provision.
The Southern Governors Association supports this provision because of
the impact of the Missouri River on the Mississippi River and its lower
tributaries.
Make no mistake about it, the impact of this spring flood is serious
on the traffic on the Mississippi River.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters
regarding this issue.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Southern Governors' Association,

Washington, DC, August 29, 2000.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: On behalf of the Southern Governors'
Association, I am writing to express concerns about proposed
plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service for a springtime rise
of 17,500 cubic feet per second in the Missouri River at
Gavins Point Dam. This plan has the potential to harm
citizens and agricultural activities along the lower portion
of the Missouri River and urge your support for restricting
this spring rise proposal.
If the current plan is implemented and these states incur
significantly heavy rains during the rise, there is a real
risk that farms and communities along the lower Missouri
River will suffer serious flooding. In addition, a spring
rise has a negative effect on agriculture land. Sustaining
high river flow rates over several consecutive weeks will
exacerbate the problems of wetness and poor drainage
historically experienced by farmers along the river, limiting
the productivity and accessibility of floodplain crop lands.
Finally, the proposal for a spring rise also brings harm to
Mississippi River states and users of the nation's inland
waterway system. Any spring rise in April or May puts
additional water in the Mississippi River when it is normally
high and does not need the extra water. This spends water out
of a limited water budget in the Missouri River Basin and
ends up subtracting water out of the Mississippi during the
summer or fall when the water is needed for river commerce.
We appreciate your serious attention to these concerns and
urge your support for a restriction on the spring rise
proposal.
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee.
____

Office of the Governor,

State of Missouri,

Jefferson City, August 17, 2000.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing regarding recent
developments surrounding efforts to revise the Missouri River
Master Manual. Specifically, I am concerned about proposed
plans by the Fish and Wildlife Service outlined in letters to
the Corps of Engineers dated March 28, 2000 and July 12,
2000. The July 12 letter directs the Corps of Engineers to
implement major changes in operations affecting both the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers while circumventing the
public review processes required by law.

[[Page S8079]]

I respectfully request your immediate assistance in
directing the Service to reevaluate its plan and to commit to
a more open process that conforms to the public involvement
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Further, there are legislative efforts underway to prohibit
the Service from initiating its plan at this time, and I
request your support of those efforts.
Absent a change in the Service's plan, it is likely that
efforts to restore endangered species along the river will be
damaged, an increase in the risk of flooding river
communities and agricultural land will occur, and states
along the river will suffer serious economic damage to their
river-based transportation and agricultural industries.
There are numerous problems with the plan as proposed by
the Service that may actually harm endangered species rather
than help them recover. The plan calls for a significant drop
in water flow during the summer. The months of June and July
are, in fact, the two highest flow months under natural pre-
dam conditions primarily because of mountain snow melt
combined with downstream rainfall. Unfortunately, the
mistiming of the Service's plan will allow predators to reach
river islands on which endangered terns and plovers nest
giving predators access to the young still in the nests.
Predation is discussed in the species recovery plans as one
of the significant impediments to restoration of healthy tern
and plover populations.
In addition, model runs of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
proposal indicate substantially greater water storage behind
the Missouri River dams as compared with current operations.
This increased water storage would raise average reservoir
levels so that approximately 10 miles of free-flowing river
would be sacrificed to the artificial lakes. If solving the
Missouri River endangered species problems is the objective,
it would seem reasonable for the Fish and Wildlife Service to
make proposals that do not increase the dominance of
reservoirs over free-flowing rivers.
The spring rise will also increase our susceptibility to
flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. An
analysis of the Missouri River flooding that occurred during
the spring of 1995 shows that if the spring rise proposed by
the Service had been in effect, the level of flooding would
have been worse. The Corps could not have recalled water
already released hundreds of miles upstream, as the water's
travel time from Gavins Point to St. Charles, Missouri is 10
days. If the proposed plan is implemented and heavy rains
occur during the spring rise, there is a real risk that farms
and communities along the lower Missouri River will suffer
increased flooding.
The Service's plan for a spring rise also will damage prime
agricultural land because it will limit the productivity and
accessibility of floodplain croplands. If implemented, the
Service's plan will result in the Missouri River being held
four feet higher for several consecutive weeks along
southwestern Iowa and northwestern Missouri. Our agricultural
community is extremely concerned that increased soil
saturation and poor drainage will compromise the productivity
of their farms. In addition, the plan will damage the ability
for agricultural producers and commercial employers to
utilize the river to move their products to markets.
Consequently, it will make the price of these products
increase and damage the ability of our farmers and
manufacturers to compete in the world economy.
Mr. President, it is vitally important to the residents of
the State of Missouri as well as the entire Midwest that the
Service's plan be reevaluated. Again, I would appreciate your
assistance in this very important matter.
Very truly yours,
Mel Carnahan.
____

Office of the Mayor,

City of St. Louis, MO,

August 30, 2000.
Re: H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: The City of St. Louis is a central
transportation hub for the Midwest that includes the second
largest inland port in the nation. Water transportation on
the Mississippi River has been central to St. Louis'
development and today is integral to our economic structure.
All of this stands to be threatened by the Fish and Wildlife
Service proposal to implement a policy that increases the
risk of flooding on our principal inland waterways.
The movement of more than 100 million tons of cargo through
the Port of St. Louis could be placed in jeopardy during low
water years if flows from the Mississippi River are
restricted during the summer and fall months. Conversely, the
St. Louis region has struggled periodic flooding during the
spring that would be devastating without the management of
the Mississippi River for flood control purposes.
I urge you to press forward with your provision to H.R.
4733, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, that would
restrict implementation of a ``spring rise'' in the spring
and a ``split navigation season'' in the summer and fall as
requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Before any
provision or policy reversing the multiple uses of the rivers
can be supported, we must fully understand the economic and
environmental implications to the citizens of St. Louis.
Sincerely,
Clarence Harmon,
Mayor.
____

Office of the Mayor,

Kansas City, MO, July 25, 2000.
Subject: Spring Rise on Missouri River: Sec. 103--Energy &
Water Appropriations Bill.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate, Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: The City of Kansas City, Missouri wishes
to express its concern over consideration being given to a
spring rise along the Missouri River. The increase in release
rate being proposed for Gavins Point by the Fish & Wildlife
Service would raise the water service levels along the lower
Missouri River by approximately two feet. As you know, Kansas
City is susceptible to flooding from the Missouri River and
in 1993 several of the levees protecting our city came within
inches of overtopping. Any allowed increase in flows will
subject us to a worsened flooding condition.
As we proceed with the study of seven levees along the
Missouri and Kansas Rivers, in cooperation with the Corps of
Engineers and several other local sponsors, to investigate
changes that may be needed and justified to enhance flood
protection from the Missouri River it seems inappropriate at
best to be considering changes that will serve to decrease
our level of protection. Additionally, the spring rise will
necessitate a split navigation season, the impacts of which
would be potentially disastrous to the barge industry along
the lower Missouri River and have far reaching impacts to the
economy in our region.
We strongly urge that Section 103 preventing the study and
implementation of a spring rise along the Missouri River be
included in the upcoming Energy & Water Appropriations Bill.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for your
continued support in helping to reduce flooding throughout
the City of Kansas City, Missouri.
Sincerely,
Kay Barnes,
Mayor.

Mr. BOND. Every waterway group and every flood control group that I
have spoken to that is knowledgeable about the river supports the
provision.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed
by 92 organizations supporting my provision.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Waterways Alliance,

Washington, DC, September 1, 2000.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: On September 5, 2000, the Senate is
scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 4733, the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill for FY 2001. We are
writing to express our strong opposition to any efforts to
strike Section 103, which prohibits implementation of a
``spring rise'' on a portion of the inland navigation system.
A recent directive issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to implement a ``spring rise'' immediately on the
Missouri River is a reversal of water resource policy without
appropriate public review, independent scientific validation,
Congressional debate or endorsement. For decades, every
Congress and Administration has endorsed a policy of water
resource development that was designed to protect communities
against natural disasters and serve efficient and
environmentally friendly river transportation, reliable low-
cost hydropower and a burgeoning recreation industry.
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
``dust bowls.'' For decades, we have worked to mitigate the
negative implications of the ``natural hydrograph'' with
multiple-purpose water resources management programs,
including reservoirs storing excess flood and snow-melt
waters in the spring and releasing those waters in low-flow
periods. These efforts have protected communities from
floods, enabled the safe and efficient movement of a large
percentage of the Nation's intercity freight by a mode that
results in cleaner air, safer streets, and a higher quality
of life and also provided hundreds of thousands of family-
wage jobs in interior regions.
Retaining Section 103 will allow National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and provide time for Congress to
adequately consider whether reversing proven water resources
policy makes sense and whether a ``spring rise'' is
scientifically supported. We urge you to keep the existing
language in H.R. 4733 and oppose any efforts to strike or
unnecessarily amend it.
Sincerely,
Tal Simpkins, Executive Director, AFL-CIO Maritime
Committee, Washington, D.C.
Floyd D. Gaibler, Vice President, Government Affairs,
Agricultural Retailers Association, Washington, D.C.
Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation,
Park Ridge, Illinois.
Richard C. Creighton, President, American Portland Cement
Alliance, Washington, D.C.

[[Page S8080]]

Tony Anderson, President, American Soybean Association, St.
Louis, Missouri.
Thomas A. Allegretti, President, American Waterways
Operators, Arlington, Virginia.
Glen L. Cheatham, Executive Vice President, Arkansas Basin
Development Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Steve Taylor, President, Arkansas-Oklahoma Port Operators
Association, Inola, Oklahoma.
Martin Chaffin, President, Arkansas Waterways Association,
Helena, Arkansas.
Paul N. Revis, Executive Director, Arkansas Waterways
Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.
J. Ron Brinson, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Fred Ballard, President, Board of Mississippi Levee
Commissioners, Greenville, Mississippi.
Philip R. Hoge, Executive Director, City of St. Louis Port
Authority, St. Louis, Missouri.
Tracy Drake, Executive Director, Columbiana County Port
Authority, East Liverpool, Ohio.
Chuck Conner, President, Corn Refiners Association, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
R. Barry Palmer, Executive Director, Dinamo (Association
for Improvement of Navigation in America's Ohio Valley),
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Mark D. Sickles, President, Dredging Contractors of
America, Alexandria, Virginia.
Gary D. Myers, President, The Fertilizer Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Jeffrey T. Adkisson, Executive Vice President, Grain and
Feed Association of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois.
Dr. Adam Bronstone, Business Policy Consultant, Greater
Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, Kansas City, Missouri.
J.H. (Harold) Burdine, Port Director, Greenville Port
Commission, Greenville, Mississippi.
Douglass W. Svendson, Jr., Executive Director, Gulf
Intracoastal Canal Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Martin Chaffin, Executive Director, Helena-West Helena-
Phillips County Port Authority, Helena, Arkansas.
William O. Howard, Executive Director, Henderson County
Riverport Authority, Henderson, Kentucky.
Chris Hombs, Executive Director, Howard Cooper County
Regional Port Authority, Boonville, Missouri.
Leon Corzine, President, Illinois Corn Growers Association,
Bloomington, Illinois.
Luke A. Moore, President, Illinois River Carriers'
Association, Paducah, Kentucky.
John Prokop, President, Independent Liquid Terminals
Association, Washington, D.C.
Don W. Miller, Jr., Executive Director, Indiana Port
Commission, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Earl Bullington, President, Industrial Development
Authority of Pemiscot County, Caruthersville, Missouri.
James R. McCarville, President, Inland Rivers Ports &
Terminals, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.
Donald C. McCrory, Executive Director, International Port
of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.
Ron Litterer, President, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Des
Moines, Iowa.
Alan Peter, President, Kansas Corn Growers Association,
Garnett, Kansas.
George C. Andres, General Manager, Kaskaskia Regional Port
District, Red Bud, Illinois.
Hal Greer, President, Kentucky Association of River Ports,
Hickman, Kentucky.
Dr. Sam Hunter, President, The Little River Drainage
District, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Ronnie Anderson, President, Louisiana Farm Bureau
Federation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Christopher J. Brescia, President, MARC 2000 (Midwest Area
River Coalition 2000), St. Louis, Missouri.
Robert Zelenka, Executive Director, Minnesota Grain and
Feed Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
George C. Grugett, Executive Vice President, Mississippi
Valley Flood Control Association, Memphis, Tennessee.
Steve Taylor, Program Director, Missouri Corn Growers
Association, Missouri Corn Merchandising Council, Jefferson
City, Missouri.
Tom Waters, Chairman, Missouri Levee and Drainage District
Association, Orrick, Missouri.
Daniel L. Oberbey, President, Missouri Port Authority
Association, Scott City, Missouri.
Jack Horine, President, Missouri Valley Levee District,
Orrick, Missouri.
Patrick R. Murphy, Port Director, Natchez-Adams County Port
Commission, Natchez, Mississippi.
Terry Detrick, President, National Association of Wheat
Growers, Washington, D.C.
Paul J. Bertels, Director, Production and Marketing,
National Corn Growers Association, St. Louis, Missouri.
James P. Howell, Vice President, Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs, National Council of Farmers Cooperatives,
Washington, D.C.
Kendall Keith, President, National Grain and Feed
Association, Washington, D.C.
Leroy Watson, Legislative Director, National Grange,
Washington, D.C.
Harry N. Cook, President, National Waterways Conference,
Inc., Washington, D.C.
Scott Merritt, Executive Director, Nebraska Corn Growers
Association, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ronnie L. Inman, Chairman, New Bourbon Regional Port
Authority, Perryville, Missouri.
Timmie Lynn Hunter, Executive Director, New Madrid County
Port Authority, New Madrid, Missouri.
Joe LaMothe, Secretary, Northeast Industrial Association,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Patrick French, Executive Director, Northeast Missouri
Development Authority, Hannibal, Missouri.
Tracy V. Drake, Co-Chairman, Ohio Ports Commission, East
Liverpool, Ohio.
Glen L. Cheatham, Jr., Manager, Waterways Branch, Oklahoma
Department of Transportation, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Ted Coombes, Chairman, Oklahoma Waterways Advisory Board,
Tulsa Oklahoma.
Glenn W. Vanselow, Ph.D., Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association, Vancouver, Washington.
Duane Michie, Chairman, Pemiscot County Port Authority,
Caruthersville, Missouri.
Derrill L. Pierce, Executive Director, Pine Bluff-Jefferson
County Port Authority, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Hal Greer, Executive Director, Port of Hickman, Hickman,
Kentucky.
J. Scott Robinson, Port Director, Port of Muskogee,
Muskogee, Oklahoma.
James R. McCarville, Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh
Commission, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
John W. Holt, Jr., CED, PPM, Executive Port Director, Pot
of Shreveport-Bossier, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Joseph Accardo, Jr., Executive Director, Port of South
Louisiana, LaPlace, Louisiana.
Tom Waters, President, Ray-Clay Drainage District, Orrick,
Missouri.
Richard F. Brontoli, Executive Director, Red River Valley
Association, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Kenneth P. Guidry, Executive Director, Red River Wateway
Commission, Natchitoches, Louisiana.
Myron White, Executive Director, Red Wing Port Authority,
Red Wing, Minnesota.
David Work, Port Director, Rosedale-Bolivar County Port
Commission, Rosedale, Mississippi.
Debbi Durham, President, Chic Wolfe, Chairperson of the
Board, Siouxland Chamber of Commerce, Sioux City, Iowa.
Donald M. Meisner, Executive Director, Siouxland Interstate
Metropolitan Planning Council, Sioux City, Iowa.
Daniel L. Overbey, Executive Director, Southeast Missouri
Regional Port Authority, Scott City, Missouri.
Bill David Lavalle, President, St. John Levee & Drainage
District, New Madrid, Missouri.
Ted Hauser, Director of Planning, St. Joseph Regional Port
Authority, St. Joseph, Missouri.
Donald G. Waldon, Administrator, Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway Development Authority, Columbus, Mississippi.
Donald G. Waldon, President, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway
Development Council, Columbus, Mississippi.
James L. Henry, President, Transportation Institute, Camp
Springs, Maryland.
Robert L. Wydra, Executive Director, Tri-City Regional Port
District, Granite City, Illinois.
Tom Waters, President, Tri-County Drainage District,
Orrick, Missouri.
Robert W. Portiss, Port Director, Tulsa Port of Catoosa,
Catoosa, Oklahoma.
Robert W. Bost, Chairman, Tulsa's Port of Catoosa
Facilities Authority Catoosa, Oklahoma.
David L. McMurray, Chairman, Upper Mississippi, Illinois
and Missouri Rivers Association, Burlington, Iowa.
Russell J. Eichman, Executive Director, Upper Mississippi
Waterway Association, St. Paul, Minnesota.
James B. Heidel, Executive Director, Warren County Port
Commission, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Sheldon L. Morgan, President, Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway
Association, Mobile, Alabama.
Dan Silverthorn, Executive Director, West Central Illinois
Building and Construction Trades Council, Peoria, Illinois.
M.V. Williams, President, West Tennessee Tributaries
Association, Friendship, Tennessee.
B. Sykes Sturdivant, President, Yazoo-Mississippi Delta
Levee Board, Clarksdale, Mississippi.

Mr. BOND. These organizations represent labor, agriculture, port
facilities, flood control districts, and others. They are located in
areas as distant as the States of Washington, Louisiana, Minnesota, and
Pennsylvania.
Since this letter was signed, additional groups have asked to join
with us in our position in support of section 103. They include the
Minnesota Association of Cooperatives, the St. Louis Building and
Construction Trades Council, the Minnesota Farm Bureau, the Minnesota
Soybean Growers Association, and the Minnesota Corn Growers
Association.
In Missouri, our Department of Natural Resources supports section
103. They oppose raising the spring river height, and they are just as
knowledgeable and just as dedicated as the so-called experts at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who want to jump over

[[Page S8081]]

the process and impose their particular risky scheme on our State and
all the downstream States.
I had a very enlightening week traveling from the northwest corner of
my State, down the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers, talking with
real people, knowledgeable people, scientists, and experts about this
proposal. I was joined and supported by members of the Governor's
staff. I was joined by the director of our department of natural
resources. I was joined by farmers and mayors and chambers of commerce
officials, economists and flood control advocates, and other members of
our resource agencies. I was joined by representatives of our
independent department of conservation--one of the finest departments
of conservation in the Nation, one that is looked to as a model, and
one that is engaged in ongoing work to preserve the pallid sturgeon and
to work with us on reasonable, common sense, scientifically proven ways
to assure that we keep the pallid sturgeon.
From all of these people I heard firsthand how dangerous the Fish and
Wildlife Service plan is and how unnecessary it is. I heard from people
who ship the goods on the river now and from people who want to ship on
the river in the future but who are withholding investment in river
facilities until the uncertainty of the Fish and Wildlife Service
proposal is resolved. I have heard from mayors who are worried about
the flood risk in the spring. Unless you have been in one of those
communities or one of our large cities where a flood has hit, you do
not appreciate how devastating a flood is.
I have heard from power companies worried about not having adequate
water for cooling in the summer. I have heard from farmers who have
been flooded and know firsthand that more water in the spring, despite
suggestions to the contrary, means more risk of flood.
The farmers who live along the river know that even if it doesn't
flood, a higher river level in the spring means more seepage under the
levees and wetter fields that you cannot plow and you cannot plant.
We are here tonight discussing section 103 because despite the views
of the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the downstream
States, the agricultural groups, and the waterway users, the Fish and
Wildlife Service is determined to have it their way or no way. The Fish
and Wildlife Service wants to experiment with spring flooding. They
must think we have forgotten about the controlled burn in Los Alamos.
They want to give us controlled floods on the Missouri River in the
spring. I say no thanks; we have been there; we have done it; and we
don't need the Federal Government making floods worse.
This is not a new proposal. It was raised by the Corps of Engineers
in 1993, and after public hearings in Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis,
Quincy, Memphis, New Orleans, and elsewhere, the administration went
back to the drawing room to find a consensus with the States.
Apparently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is not interested in a
consensus or we would not be here today. They are not interested in the
dangers of increased flood risk or we would not be here today. They are
not interested in the public meetings and the viewpoints that were
expressed in 1995 or this would have ended then. They want to raise the
height of the river in the spring because they think flooding may
improve the breeding habitat for the pallid sturgeon.
The distinguished minority leader says we ought to be able to act on
the best information available. I have asked these people: Where is the
information?
When I talked with them last week, our resource agencies, the U.S.
Geological Survey had not seen any biological opinion. They issued that
diktat, that letter of instruction, on July 12. As of last week, the
State agencies, the U.S. Geological Survey, with expertise in
environmental assessment, a fellow Federal agency, had not seen it.
How can we let them go ahead with the scheme when they won't even
allow us to look at the basis for their proposal? This truly is a risky
scheme. This is one that we cannot tolerate.
Our State Department of Natural Resources disagrees with Fish and
Wildlife. Our State Conservation Department believes the Fish and
Wildlife plan is not necessary. They have presented a plan that does
not have spring flooding and no transportation flows in the spring--in
the summer and fall. And they believe that plan will do more to help
preserve the pallid sturgeon, the least tern, and the piping plover,
than this risky scheme put forward by Fish and Wildlife.
Our State Conservation Department has an alternative species recovery
plan. They cannot get Fish and Wildlife to look at it. Don't you think
they would want to look at the various options? Don't you think they
would want to consider the evidence before they threaten property and
lives with spring floods in Missouri?
I have a lot of respect for the difficult and important job of Fish
and Wildlife, but let me say this is not about who cares the most about
endangered species. The commitment of our Natural Resources Department
and our Conservation Department to fish and wildlife is not inferior to
that of Fish and Wildlife of the U.S. Government. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife does not have a monopoly on dedication and they do not have a
monopoly on wisdom. In fact, our Department of Natural Resources has
some serious concerns the Fish and Wildlife Service plan may actually
harm endangered species rather than help them recover. That fear was
expressed by our Governor of Missouri, Governor Carnahan, a Democrat,
in a letter to the President 2 weeks ago. Why? Because normally in the
summer the natural hydrograph is for the snowmelt to bring the river
up. Under this plan, river levels will be going down. That means less
water cover. It means burying sandbars where predators might come after
the smallest hatch.
Fish and Wildlife has a twofold plan. One, it proposes a split season
which will end river transportation on the Missouri and do great harm
to the river transportation on the Mississippi River. Without water
transportation, we are left with a regional railroad monopoly.
The minority leader said we initially projected there would be 12
million tons on the river. That is not true. If you look at the 1952
report and the testimony in 1952 and 1956 when they were developing the
Missouri River plan, they said 5 million tons. This past year, it was 8
million tons on the river. As I said earlier, there would be a lot more
because there is investment out there waiting to happen if we know that
Fish and Wildlife is not going to take over the river and get rid of
all barge traffic.
Barge traffic is the most environmentally sound means of transporting
grain to the world markets. It is the most efficient. One barge, one
tow with 25 barges, carries the same amount of grain as 870 individual
semitrailer trucks that put out far more pollution. Barge
transportation bringing inputs to farmers up the river is much more
efficient than rail or truck. That lowers the price farmers pay for
goods brought in in the spring for Missouri farmers. It lowers them for
South Dakota farmers too; the landed price at Sioux City has an impact
on what farmers pay. If you got rid of river transportation
altogether--which I think may be the ultimate goal. I don't think the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the people supporting this just want to
flood out the people downstream in the spring; I think there is a
greater objective--getting rid of barge transportation altogether. One
can only assume that the railroad industry thinks that having no
competition is a good idea. But I seriously question whether we, as
Senators, should be supporting consolidation rather than competition.

The low summer flow proposed by Fish and Wildlife is curious for two
additional reasons: One, because it will reduce energy revenues by more
than one-third at the dams generating hydropower, particularly during
high usage months in the summer. We are about to debate the necessity
of a national energy commission to look at how we can meet our growing
energy needs, and here we are with a Fish and Wildlife plan to decrease
clean hydropower generation. We do not have the luxury of letting
existing power capacity go to waste. The low summer flow proposed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service reduces revenues in the high demand
summer months by more than one-third.

[[Page S8082]]

Another reason the low flow is curious is that, while the Fish and
Wildlife Service said they want the river to ``mimic its natural
hydrograph,'' historically the highest flows were following the summer
snowmelt upstream, and that is the same time Fish and Wildlife demands
a low flow. They go the opposite way of their stated objective.
This risky scheme has not been subject to adequate analysis and
comment by scientists, by people who understand, who live along, work
with, and study the river. That is why we say it should not be
implemented in the coming year. Let the studies, the debates go on. We
would like to see sound science. We would like to see the best
information available. Fish and Wildlife has not shown it to us.
The fall harvest is approaching. It looks like bumper crops. We have
short supplies of storage. As a matter of fact, many elevators, grain
elevators, started calling my office saying they do not have rail
capacity. The railroads cannot get them the cars they need to carry out
the fall harvest, and they are going to have to stop taking in grain
that comes in. Two years ago, because of railcar shortages and
disorganization, grain was piled up on the ground as it was in the
former Soviet Union. The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes a complete
reliance on that one mode of transportation.
Last night on the floor, Senator Reid spoke candidly about the value
of our Nation's inland waterway system and noted that:

To move this additional cargo by alternative means would
require an additional 17.6 million trucks on our Nation's
highway system or an additional 5.8 million railcars on the
nation's rail system. To say what can be handled by our
inland water system can be moved by rail or trucks, it simply
can't be done.

I agree with Senator Reid. He is quite right. Fish and Wildlife seeks
to eliminate water transportation on the Missouri. But Fish and
Wildlife has really thought this through because they have a solution
for eliminating the transportation options. They are going to propose,
through this plan, to curtail agriculture production by flooding
farmers in the spring with high water. As I said earlier, raising the
river levels in the spring keeps farmers out of the field. So, as a
result of the Fish and Wildlife spring rise, there will be less
agricultural production awaiting the transportation that is not
available.
Doesn't that just gladden your hearts? I mean, the farmers who depend
for their living upon raising crops and shipping them economically into
the world market--guess what, you are not going to have the
transportation. But we will take care of that because we will keep you
from having the production. That is why the farmers of Missouri say,
``No thanks.''

Let me speak to a couple of assertions that do not paint a very full
picture of the importance of the debate. First, there is the assumption
by some that the Missouri River ends suddenly and does not impact the
Mississippi River. That is convenient, but it is not true. I have seen
the confluence with my own eyes. I know that in low-water years,
drought years, dry summers, 65 percent of the flow of the Mississippi
River at St. Louis comes from the Missouri River. And to say that the
Mississippi barge traffic would love to have that water cut back is
absolutely ludicrous. That is why the southern Governors, noting the
importance of the Missouri River flow in the Mississippi, have sent a
resolution in support of section 103 that the minority leader seeks to
strike.
Second, there is this notion--we heard it expressed earlier--the
Corps will never release extra water in the spring if there is a risk
of flooding. Good intention, of course. Give them full credit for
trying. But they could only carry out this intention if they could
predict the weather perfectly because water released from the South
Dakota dam takes 11 days to arrive in St. Louis. A lot of weather can
happen in 11 days.
Have any of you watched the weather forecasts for the Midwest this
summer? I try to keep some trees alive. I watch it. I turn on the
weather channel in the morning. It is a lot more informative than some
of the morning talk shows. My Farmers Almanac said we were going to
have heavy rains in mid-June and the end of June. The week before, 5
days before the middle of June--the middle of July, they said this is a
drought season; there is not going to be a drop of water; it is going
to be a dry year. The heavens opened up, and we had 5-, 6-, 8-inch
rains. A lot of weather can occur in even 3 days.
I have a lot of respect for my friend from South Dakota--political
miracles we see him perform--but I don't trust him or the Fish and
Wildlife Service to predict the weather 11 days in advance downstream.
One mistake is all it takes to result in a Government-imposed flood
that brings to mind the controlled burn in Los Alamos. That was not
supposed to happen, either. The water is not retrievable when it is
released.
Rainfall in the lower basin will swell the river after the release,
and water from the release will only supplement the flood damage.
If the water is at your Adam's apple, the Federal Government will do
you the courtesy of raising it to your temple.
Third, there is already a spring rise as I have stated. If a spring
rise is what is needed to recover the species, we ought to have
sturgeon all over the place because we had bodacious floods in 1993 and
1995. Those little sturgeons should be popping up all over because we
had a spring rise to end all spring rises. It did not happen.
Fourth, with respect to water transportation benefits, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and my colleague from South Dakota assume that in the
absence of competition, the railroad industry will not raise rates on
farmers. Try that out on any shipper. Ask anybody in the Midwest who
has been captive of the railroad if they really believe that
competition does not make any difference. That is the assumption which
underlies the small $7 million in benefits from river transportation
cited by the opponents of this transportation.
If it sounds as if I am picking on the railroad industry, which would
be the biggest beneficiaries, along with farmers and producers in Latin
America and Australia and Europe, I am not. I have no quarrel with the
railroads aiming to maximize their profits. You cannot blame a compass
for pointing north. They need to maximize profits.
If the Government wants to eliminate their competition, why would
they interfere? Every Senator knows, or should know if they studied
economics, that in the absence of competition, prices will rise. We see
prices rise at the end of the navigation season. On the Mississippi, we
see prices rise when locks are closed for maintenance.
There is a Fortune 100 firm on the Mississippi River that has built a
river terminal it has never used except when it negotiates with the
railroads. It has that river terminal, and the railroads come in and
say: We are going to charge you x amount for bringing your product in.
And they say: We will just open up this river terminal, and we will
beat your prices down. They come around.
According to the Tennessee Valley Authority which did a study on the
Missouri River, the savings to rail shippers because of competition
created by barge traffic is an estimated $200 million annually. That is
the benefit to shippers. Those people get goods coming in and those
shipping commodities out. That includes benefits worth $56 million to
shippers in Missouri, $43 million to shippers in Iowa, $36 million to
shippers in Nebraska, and as the occupant of the Chair will be
interested to know, $52 million to shippers in Kansas, and $14 million
to shippers in South Dakota.
In summary, flood control is important, energy production is
important, and having modern and competitive transportation options for
our farmers and shippers is important.
With respect to the species, our resource agencies say the Fish and
Wildlife Service is wrong and their plan is harmful and unnecessary.
That is why I included the provision for the fifth year. This provision
does not stop the process as has been alleged by my colleague. It
simply says the water management manual cannot be changed to force a
dangerous spring rise. It is a risky scheme on which we cannot afford
to gamble. It is a controlled flood that is not controllable.

Ten years ago, the courts decided to review the river management.
Seven

[[Page S8083]]

years ago, it proposed a spring rise. It was opposed in public hearings
from Sioux City to Memphis to New Orleans. It was opposed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. It was opposed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. It was opposed by agriculture and other shippers.
Twenty-seven Senators in a bipartisan letter to the President opposed
it. So in 1995, the administration rejected the spring rise and went
back to the drawing board. The President ordered the Corps to work with
the States to find a consensus. Meanwhile, Congress included section
103 four different times to remind the Fish and Wildlife Service that
their obsession to increase flooding was not acceptable.
Last year, seven out of eight States arrived at a consensus that the
Corps accepted which did not include a spring rise. Then,
notwithstanding the public hearings in 1994, the letter to the
President, the legislative provisions, notwithstanding the consensus,
the Fish and Wildlife Service arrogantly pushes the same old plan to
raise the river height in the spring.
The U.S. Geological Survey told me last week that they do not know
enough about the river or the pallid sturgeon to know if there is any
chance the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan will work. They are the
ones who work to define habitat and biological response. They have not
been shown the information from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Missouri department of conservation says they have an alternative
to recover species which does not do premeditated damage to safety, to
property, and to human lives. The Missouri department of natural
resources said the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan is flawed and
unnecessary.
The provision permits any experiment the Fish and Wildlife Service
can dream up except the one risky scheme of a controlled flood in the
spring which we cannot tolerate. Members of Congress have every right
to place commonsense parameters on bureaucratic excursions. That is the
purpose of this provision.
We know there are many other benefits that come from wise management
of the Missouri River. The spring rise does not help the upstream
States. In fact, States such as the Dakotas and Montana will find that
they will not have the water they want for recreational purposes if it
is flushed down the river in the spring. I know the Fish and Wildlife
Service wants to run this river, just as it wants to take over
management of a lot of other rivers, but the rivers are authorized for
multiple uses. That is the way the Corps and the States manage them.
Because the proposal to initiate floods is harmful, because there are
alternatives, I believe section 103 is a prudent and restrained
safeguard that should be retained in this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose the motion to strike.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Daschle-Baucus
amendment to strike section 103 from the energy and water
appropriations bill. One might ask why. The answer is very simple:
Because section 103 is an anti-environmental rider that prevents the
sound management of the Missouri River. It is that simple.
I begin by endorsing the points made so well by Senator Daschle. The
Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River today on the
basis of a master manual that was written in 1960. Guess what? It has
not changed much since then. It is 40 years old. It is like trying to
run the Internet based on a plan that was written in the heyday of
rotary telephones. Conditions are different. Priorities are different.
As Senator Daschle explained, the master manual favors some uses of
the river, such as barge traffic, that may have made sense in 1960 but
makes little sense today. That is a very important point. In effect, a
40-year-old master manual favors the barge industry, which may have
made sense in 1960 but makes virtually no sense today based upon the
Corps's own economic analysis of the river, and it favors those uses
over other uses, such as recreation, which are much more important now
than they were in 1960.
As has been pointed out, the master manual also wastes taxpayers'
dollars. We are today spending more than $8 million a year in operation
and maintenance costs to support a $7 million barge industry. That is a
bad deal for taxpayers. It is a subsidy that does not make sense.
In the interest of time, I will not elaborate on all those points.
The Senator from South Dakota, the minority leader, has covered that
ground very well. I do not want to repeat them. Instead, I would like
to make three additional points.
First, the anti-environmental rider proposed by the Senator from
Missouri harms my State of Montana. Second, it prevents the Corps of
Engineers from complying with the law, from complying with the
Endangered Species Act. And third, the rider derails a process of
carefully revising the master manual, a process that is working.
In addition, I want to respond to an important argument made by the
Senator from Missouri and other proponents of the rider. They argue
that the rider is necessary to reduce the risk of floods. I will
address that in a later point.
First, the impact of the rider on my State of Montana would be
profound. The Missouri River flows not only through our State but
through our history, as well as the history of other States.
Meriwether Lewis found the source of the Missouri River on August 12,
1805. It is at Three Forks, MT. It is shown on this map up here to the
left, just east of the Continental Divide.
From there the river flows north, winding around near Helena, Great
Falls, past Fort Benton, and then east through the lake created by the
Fort Peck Dam near Glasgow.
There is Fort Peck Dam right here on the map. It is one of the major
dams in the Missouri River system.
This is eastern Montana, an agricultural region. As the occupant of
the Chair knows, agriculture has been suffering some very hard economic
times for more than a decade with low prices for wheat, low prices for
beef, drought. In eastern Montana, as well as in the western Dakotas,
people are moving out, looking for jobs, virtually for survival.
Fort Peck Lake--that is this lake shown on the map right here--is a
key part of our plan in our State to revive our State's economy, at
least in that part of the State. It is a center for boating, a center
for fishing, and, I might say, all kinds of recreation which is related
to the lake.
Fort Peck is host to several major walleye tournaments each summer.
The biggest is called the Governor's Cup, which attracts people from
all around the State, all around the Nation, and all around the world.
I was there last July with one of the major sponsors of it, Diane
Brant. I might say, she provides the gusto that makes the tournament
work. It is incredible watching everybody line up to go out and go
walleye fishing. Hundreds of boats went by the review stand, in single
file, as walleye anglers set forth to prove their mettle.
This tournament brings jobs and excitement to the area. We are
working hard to get more done. For example, I am working with Diane and
local community leaders, and others, to establish a warm water fish
hatchery on the north bank of the river to improve the walleye fishery.
But we face a problem. It is a big one. Under the master manual, water
levels in the Fort Peck Lake are often drawn down in the summer,
largely to support the barge traffic downstream, which is an industry
that need not be subsidized near to the degree that it is, and
certainly according to the Army Corps of Engineers' information.
In fact, there have been times when the lake has been drawn down so
low that boat ramps are a mile or more from the water's edge. This is
what this photograph shows. This is a photograph of a boat landing at
Fort Peck Lake. It is called Crooked Creek. It is a mile from the boat
landing to the edge of the lake.
Why? Because Fort Peck has been drawn down to support a barge
industry downstream. Frankly, the industry is dated and does not need
to be supported near that much at the expense of people upstream,
upriver, who, frankly, do not have many means of recreation. But the
main thing they want to do is to be able to put a boat in the river.
They are unable to do so because the boat ramp is over a mile from the
river.

[[Page S8084]]

These drawdowns have occurred frequently. The effect is devastating.
Obviously, drawdowns prevent people from boating and fishing. They also
reduce the numbers of walleyes, sturgeon, and other fish.
Let me be specific. Right now the water level at Fort Peck has been
drawn down about 10 feet, to increase flows for downstream barge
traffic. That is right now. A few weeks ago there was another walleye
tournament at Crooked Creek, and it could well have been canceled.
There was a lot of concern because ramps could not be used.
Fortunately, it did not happen this year, but very often it does.
The drawdowns are a big part of the economic raw deal that eastern
Montana has been getting for years. More balanced management of this
system, which takes better account of upstream economic benefits is
absolutely critical to reviving our State's economy in eastern Montana.
I am not going to stand here and try to kid anybody. This debate is,
to a significant degree, about who gets Missouri River water, and when.
That is accurate. But that is not all this debate is about. There is an
awful lot more to it.
The section 103 rider prevents the Corps of Engineers from obeying
the law of the land. Let me repeat that. The section 103 rider prevents
the Army Corps of Engineers from obeying the law. It is that simple. It
is that specific. It is that accurate. Specifically, it prevents the
Corps from following the Endangered Species Act.
Before I get into the details, let me say a couple things about the
Endangered Species Act. A lot of people are watching tonight. They may
wonder: What is all this fuss about? There is less than a month left of
the congressional session. Big issues need to be addressed--the budget,
prescription drug coverage, trade with China. Why in the middle of all
of this are we debating the fate of two birds and a fish? Good
question. This is why.
Any time an issue such as this comes up, it is tempting to think only
about the particular species that are being involved--the snail darter,
the spotted owl. In this case, the piping plover, the least tern, and
the pallid sturgeon. But that is thinking too narrowly.
In a much broader sense, the debate is about whether we really are
serious about protecting endangered species. It is about whether our
generation is going to meet its moral obligation to preserve the web of
life that sustains us, and pass it along, as a legacy, to future
generations.
If we create a loophole here, there will be pressure to create
another loophole somewhere else--and another and another. Before you
know it, the law will be shredded into tatters.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the Endangered Species Act
is perfect. It is not--far from it. I have worked for years to come up
with reforms that would improve the act, that would increase public
participation, assure that decisions are based on sound science, give a
greater role to the States, get more certainty to landowners, bring
people together, rather than drive them apart.
Over the last decade, I have worked as hard as anyone to reform the
Endangered Species Act. But those reforms have not passed. They have
been reported out of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, but
they have been kept off this Senate floor, as good as they are.
Nevertheless, in the meantime, the Endangered Species Act today
remains the law of the land. We have to respect it. It is the law.
With that as background, let me turn to specifics and explain how
Senator Bond's rider prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from managing
the Missouri River in a way that is consistent with the law.
The river provides habitat for three endangered species: the piping
plover, the least tern, and the pallid sturgeon. Each of these species
evolved along a river that had higher flows in the spring and lower
flows in the summer. That is the natural order of things. Each species
depended on a life cycle that depended on this pattern.
The tern and the plover need higher flows in the spring. Why? To
create the sandbars they nest on. Higher flows create sandbars. They
need lower flows in the summer. Why? To create a buffer that reduces
the risk that the nests might be washed away by, say, a storm. That is
the natural order of things.
The sturgeon needs high flows in the spring for breeding and lower
flows in the summer for the development of young fish.
This is a photo of a piping plover, a female, nesting over three
eggs.
But the way I just described the natural order is not the way the
river is being managed today. Under the master manual, today's
management system, the Corps tries to maintain steady water levels
through the spring and summer so there is always enough water to
support the barge traffic downstream. It is this steady, even, but
unnatural, flow that is driving the three species to the brink of
extinction.
The management plan in the master manual may have made sense in 1960,
before we knew about the threat to these species and before the
Endangered Species Act was passed--I remind my colleagues, it was
passed 13 years later, in 1973--but the master manual does not make
sense today. It may have made sense in 1960, not today. Therefore, when
the Corps began to revise the master manual 10 years ago--they have
been at this for a long time--it was the first time the Corps seriously
considered how the dams on the river affect endangered species.
There have been a lot of reports, a lot of discussions, a lot of
give-and-take, but finally, after a decade of work, the process is
moving forward. We are close to revising the master manual, revising it
so we have a better, more balanced current use of the river, such as
flood control, navigation, but also more to protect the plover, the
tern, and the sturgeon.
How do we do this? Basically by providing for a moderate rise in
flows in the spring and reduced flows in July and August. This is the
so-called spring rise/split season alternative. This alternative has
strong support. Fish and game officials from all seven Missouri River
basin States say it is the right thing to do.
Last summer, they recommended that we--I will not read the whole
quote, I will begin in the middle--

. . . provide higher flows during critical spring and early
summer periods for native fish spawning and habitat
development followed by lower flows during the critical
summer period.

That is the recommendation. They have studied this thing, believe me.
Guess what? The Fish and Wildlife Service agrees. Its draft biological
opinion says:

Spring and summer flow management is an integral component
of the measures to avoid jeopardy to listed species . . .
This would include higher spring flows and lower summer flows
than currently exist.

They have studied this. Guess what again? The Army Corps of Engineers
recognizes the benefits of a spring rise and a split season. The Corps
has said that ``periodic high flows are required for terns and plovers
to remove encroaching vegetation, but during the nesting season, stable
or declining flows are needed to avoid nesting flight.'' The Corps has
made similar observations about the pallid sturgeon. In other words,
the fish and game experts from the Missouri River basin States, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers all recognize the
importance of higher flows in the spring and lower flows in the summer.
This is where the section 103 rider comes in. Simply put, the rider
prevents the Corps from revising the master manual to provide for
higher water levels in the spring. The Senator from Missouri said so.
He said that is what he intends to do. Those are the words of the
rider: Prevent the master manual from providing higher water levels in
the spring. By doing so, the rider contradicts what fish and game
experts from the basin States and Federal agencies involved all
recognize is necessary to provide more protection for the three
endangered species and comply with the law.
Again, the debate is not just about the allocation of water between
upstream and downstream States. The debate is also fundamentally about
whether in one fell swoop we tell the Corps of Engineers to ignore the
law; ignore the Endangered Species Act regarding the management of one
of the country's largest rivers. The answer, of course, is obvious. The
Corps should obey the law, just like everyone else.
Forget about the species for a minute, think about basic fairness. We

[[Page S8085]]

require private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act,
so why shouldn't we also require the Federal Government to do so. They
shouldn't get a free pass, especially when the Federal Government is
the main cause of the problem. The Federal Government should not get a
free pass. The Federal Government--in this case, the Army Corps of
Engineers-- should be held to the same standard as everybody else, and
the Corps agrees that it should be held to that same standard.

That brings me to a related point; that is, government by litigation.
Stop and think about this for a moment. If we think about it, we
probably all know what will happen down the road if this rider becomes
law. What is going to happen? The Fish and Wildlife Service will issue
its final biological opinion. Like the draft, it probably will
recommend higher flows in the spring, lower flows in the summer.
Normally, the Corps would then revise the master manual. But because of
the rider, the Corps cannot make the revisions necessary to comply with
the Endangered Species Act. The rider says: Army Corps of Engineers,
you cannot follow the law.
So what is going to happen? At that point there is certain to be a
lawsuit brought by environmental groups challenging the Corps' failure
to obey the law. Guess what? The environmental groups are likely to
win. Why? Because the master manual will effectively ignore the needs
of the species and therefore violate the Endangered Species Act.
It is not just my opinion that a master manual without a spring rise
and a split season would ignore the needs of the endangered species.
This is the unanimous opinion of the experts who reviewed the
biological opinion. This unanimous recommendation was based on sound
science. I might add, two people from the State of Missouri were on the
peer review committee. They unanimously agreed that this is the
alternative--that is spring rise/split season--which is necessary to
protect these species.
Let's go back a little bit. Let's say that the rider passes. Let's
say a lawsuit is brought. As I mentioned, the likelihood is very high
that the plaintiffs, the environmentalists, would win. What happens
next? We wind up with the river being operated not by the Corps of
Engineers, not influenced by the Congress, but by the courts, a judge
in some Federal court somewhere--they will get venue probably somewhere
along the Missouri River--will be overseeing the operation of the
entire Missouri River system; again, because of a lawsuit that wins.
That might be politically convenient for some, but it is an abdication
of our responsibility. As we have seen along the Columbia and Snake
Rivers, it generates much more litigation and much more uncertainty.
Let us not go down the path of litigation. We do have a process in
place to carefully revise the master manual. It has been underway for
years; 10 years to be more specific. Now at the last moment, when the
end is in sight, here we find a rider on an appropriations bill which
would derail the process by taking not only one of the alternatives
right off the table but the one that probably is necessary to comply
with the law. Of course, that is not fair; of course, it is not right.
It is not the right way for us to be doing business here. Instead, we
should give the process we began 10 years ago a chance to work.
Now that we have a draft biological opinion, there will be an
opportunity--this is a very important point--for public comment, both
on the draft and on the later environmental impact statement. That way
we have a decision that is not made in a vacuum. But this rider makes a
mockery of that process. There will be an extensive period for public
comment, but the public agencies cannot take any of those comments into
account. That is what this rider does. It says: OK, here is your
alternative, but you can't be implemented so the comments are
irrelevant. What kind of message does that send to our people, already
cynical about the way Government works? I say there is a better way:
allow the process to work.
With that, I will briefly respond to a point made by the Senator from
Missouri and some of his supporters. Concern has been expressed that if
we have higher flows in the spring, there is a greater chance of
flooding--a wonderful metaphor, floods; wonderful picture, floods; wall
of water; risky proposition. It gets people scared and nervous,
obviously. That is what it is designed to do. It is designed to scare
people, scare them into supporting the rider. But we are not only
emotional entities, we are supposedly analytical beings.
We are supposed to think about this stuff a little bit, look at the
facts, not just the emotion. So let's look at the facts, I say to my
other good friend from Missouri who is managing this bill at this time.
First of all, nobody wants floods. Flood control comes first. There
is no question about it. Flood control comes first. I might say,
though, the Corps and other agencies have taken flood control into
account. In fact, the Corps has modeled many different river management
alternatives. Their models show that under a spring rise/split season,
there is no difference in flood control. Statistically, it is about 1
percent, which is basically zero. The Army Corps of Engineers has taken
this question fully into account already. Of course, they would; it is
their responsibility, and they have done that. Their conclusions show
that under this alternative, there is virtually no difference in
flooding compared with the current master manual--virtually none.
I heard one of my good friends from Missouri say, well, gee, nobody
can predict the weather. Mr. President, that is a total red herring,
totally irrelevant. That has nothing to do with what we are talking
about here. We can't predict the weather today under the current master
manual or tomorrow if the spring rise/split season are adopted--in
either event. The two floods mentioned--in 1993 and 1997--under this
proposal, the spring rise/split season, would not have been in effect;
that is, the spring rise/split season proposal would not have been
permitted because of the modeling and the anticipation of the flood
years 1993 or 1997. Actually, the spring rise is to be implemented only
once every 3 years. Say year No. 1 comes up, and 4 years later year No.
1 comes up again, and this might be a flood year. The model says, no,
we don't implement a spring rise; we are not going to take the risk of
more flooding.
So let's get the flood scare tactic off the table here. It has
nothing to do with what we are talking about. The Army Corps of
Engineers' own models conclude that the risk of flooding is virtually
insignificant.
In closing, I want to also point out one other thing. The basic
argument of the Senator from Missouri is that we are just taking one
item off the table--spring rise/split season. That is all we are doing.
We are not taking other alternatives off the table, other environmental
enhancement measures, wetlands restoration, and habitat restoration. We
are not taking that off the table. So what is the big fuss here? That
is the basic argument.
The flaw in that argument is that the people who have studied this,
the peer reviewers, have unanimously concluded that both are needed in
order to solve this problem--that is, both a spring rise/split season
and legislation to help restore habitat. Both are needed. They have
concluded you can't have one without the other; you have to have both.
You have to have the spring rise/split season. It makes sense because
that is the natural order of things; that is the way the river runs
naturally. It tends to flood in the spring and not later on.
The argument has also been made that this is going to hurt
Mississippi barge traffic downstream. Frankly, that is another red
herring designed to scare Senators downstream from Missouri, from St.
Louis. It is a scare tactic because if you look at the data, at the
facts, the facts show that, actually, because more water is being let
out of the dams in the spring, and it is saved in the summer, on a net
basis, they are going to have to let a little bit more out in the fall,
which benefits the barge industry on the Mississippi. So it is a red
herring. It is inaccurate--more to the point--that this proposal would
hurt barge traffic down from St. Louis. That is not right. The Corps
data shows more water is going to be released at the time it is more
necessary.
To sum it all up, let's pass this amendment that strikes section 103.

[[Page S8086]]

Let the process continue to work. There is ample opportunity for
public comment. But let's not disrupt it in a way that will cause a
lawsuit and will cause a lot more problems than it will solve. I
understand Senators who feel obligated, regardless of the facts, to
support the Senator. But let's do what is right and not pass this.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to
join my colleagues to discuss the issue of the how the Missouri River
should be managed by the Corps of Engineers. I strongly urge the Senate
to adopt the Daschle-Baucus-Johnson amendment to strike Section 103
from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which prevents needed
changes to the management of the Missouri River that have been called
for by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. President Clinton has stated
that he will veto the bill if this amendment is not included. The time
has come to manage the river in line with current economic realities.
This issue has come before the Senate because some Senators from
states downstream on the Missouri River are attempting to politicize
the management of the River. As has been done in the last four years,
they are trying to politicize this issue by adding a rider to the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prevent the Army Corps of
Engineers from changing the 40 year old master manual that sets the
management policy of the river.
Mr. President, let me assure you and the rest of my colleagues that
after 40 years, the management of the Missouri River is in serious need
of an update to reflect the current realities of the River. The Corps
current plan for managing water flow from the Missouri River Dams,
known as the master manual provides relatively steady flows during the
spring, summer and fall to support a $7 million downstream barge
industry. The manual has not been substantially revised on 40 years.
In that time, the projections of barge traffic used to justify the
manual have never materialized. Instead, the steady flows required by
the manual have contributed to the decline of fish and wildlife along
the river.
To counter this problem, the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a
revision of the master manual which governs how the river is managed.
I was among those who first called for a revision of the master
manual because I firmly believed then, as I do now, that over the
years, we in the Upper Basin states have lived with an unfortunate lack
of parity under the current management practices on the Missouri River.
It is no secret that we continue to suffer from an upstream vs.
downstream conflict of interest on Missouri River uses. Navigation has
been emphasized on the Missouri River, to the detriment of river
ecosystems and recreational uses. I recognize that navigation
activities often support midwestern agriculture, however the navigation
industry has been declining since it peaked in the late 1970's. It is
no longer appropriate to grossly favor navigation above other uses of
the river.
Those of us from the upstream States have been working for more than
10 years to get the Corps of Engineers to finally make changes in the
40 year old master manual for the Missouri River.
After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the
Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of an $90
million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual
navigation impact downstream. The downstream barge industry carries
only 3/10 percent of all agriculture goods transported in the upper
Midwest. The Corps has been managing the Missouri River for navigation
for far too long and it is time to finally bring the master manual into
line with current economic realities. Passage of the Daschle-Baucus-
Johnson amendment will do just that.
As I stated earlier, the process to review and update the master
manual began more than 10 years ago, in 1989, in response to concerns
regarding the operation of the main stem dams, mainly during drought
periods. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in
September 1994 and was followed by a public comment period. In response
to numerous comments, the Corps agreed to prepare a revised DEIS.
After years of revisions and updates that have dragged this process
out to ridiculous lengths, the Corps finally came forward with
alternatives to the current master manual, including the ``split
season'' alternative, which I strongly support, along with my
colleagues from the Upper Basin States.
The rider to prevent implementation of changes in the manual has been
included for the last 4 years. In previous years, this rider was not as
important because the Corps was not ready to revise the river
management policies. However, this year, the Corps is consulting
extensively with the Fish and Wildlife Service and is officially
learning that it must implement a spring rise and split season to avoid
driving endangered species to extinction. Since the Corps finally has a
schedule to complete the process in the near future, rejecting this
rider is more than important than ever.
Those of us from the States in the Upper Basin are determined to work
aggressively for the interests of our region. For decades our states
have made many significant sacrifices which have benefitted people
living further south along the Missouri River.
Mr. President, now is the time to finally bring an outdated and
unfair management plan for the Missouri River up to date with modern
economic realities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from
Iowa may consume in opposing this motion to strike.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support
section 103 of the energy and water appropriations bill. This section
would prohibit changes to management of the Missouri River which would
unquestionably increase flood risk on the lower Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. If this section is dropped from the bill,
landowners in Iowa along the Missouri River will face the threat of
increased flooding. Farmers and other river barge users would face
increased transportation costs in getting their grain and other goods
to market. Both of these outcomes are unacceptable to a majority of
Iowans.
There is nothing new in this bill language. It has been placed in
four previous appropriations bill by my distinguished colleague from
Missouri, Senator Bond. Each of these bills has been signed into law by
this President. The measure would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers from implementing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to
increase releases of water from Missouri River dams in the spring. The
Daschle amendment could result in significant flooding downstream given
the heavy rains that are usually experienced in my, and other
downstream states during that time.
We must keep in mind that it takes 8 days for water to travel from
Gavins Point to the mouth of the Missouri.
Unanticipated downstream storms can make a ``controlled release'' a
deadly flood inflicting a widespread physical and human cataclysm.
There are many small communities along the Missouri River in Iowa. Why
should they face an increased potential risk for flooding and its
devastation? They shouldn't.
Equally unacceptable is the low-flow summer release schedule proposed
by the Clinton-Gore administration's Fish and Wildlife Service. A so-
called split navigation season would be catastrophic to the
transportation of Iowa grain to the marketplace. In effect, the
Missouri River would be shut-down to barge traffic during a good
portion of the summer. It would also have a disastrous effect on the
transportation of steel to Iowa steel mills located along the Missouri,
construction materials and farm inputs such as fertilizer.
Opponents of section 103 will advance an argument that a spring flood
is necessary for species protection under the Endangered Species Act,
and that grain and other goods can be transported to market by
railroad. I do not accept that argument. I believe that there is
significant difference of opinion whether or not a spring flood will
benefit pallid sturgeon, the interior least tern or the piping plover.
In fact, the Corps has demonstrated that it can successfully create
nesting habitat for the birds

[[Page S8087]]

through mechanical means. Further, it is in dispute among biologists
whether or not a flood can create the necessary habitat for the
sturgeon.

I would further point out that the Fish and Wildlife Service has yet
to designate ``critical habitat'' for the pallid sturgeon as required
by the Endangered Species Act.
Loss of barge traffic would deliver the western part of America's
great grain belt into the monopolistic hands of the railroads. Without
question, grain transportation prices would drastically increase with
disastrous results on farm income.
Every farmer in Iowa knows that the balance in grain transportation
is competition between barges and railroads. This competition keeps
both means of transportation honest. This competition keeps
transportation prices down and helps to give the Iowa farmer a better
financial return on the sale of his grain. This competition helps to
make the grain transportation system in America the most efficient and
cost effective in the world. It is crucial in keeping American grain
competitively priced in the world market. The Corps itself estimates
that barge competition reduces rail rates along the Missouri by $75-200
million annually.
Further, if a drought hits during the split navigation season, there
would be even less water flowing along the Missouri. This would greatly
inhibit navigation along the Mississippi River. We cannot let this
happen.
Less water flowing in the late summer would also affect hydroelectric
rates. The decreased flows would mean less power generation and higher
electric rates for Iowans who depend upon this power source.
I agree with the National Corn Growers and their statement that, ``an
intentional spring rise is an unwarranted, unscientific assault on
farmers and citizens throughout the Missouri River Basin.'' I urge my
colleagues to support section 103. Vote against the Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of section 103,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume to make my remarks.
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. But before I get into detailing those
considerations, let me commend Senator Baucus and the Senate
Appropriations Committee for including section 103 in the energy and
water appropriations bill.
This section protects the citizens of my State of Missouri and other
States from dangerous flooding and allows for cost-efficient
transportation of grain and cargo. Of course, cost-efficient
transportation provides a basis for much of our industry and
agriculture.
The pending amendment would delete section 103 in the underlying
bill, thereby sanctioning the Fish and Wildlife Service's attempt to
bully the Corps of Engineers into immediately changing the river's
water management plan to include a spring rise which would increase
flood risk on the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
This is not just a dispute between the States of Missouri and the
Dakotas. It is a much larger issue. It is about whether we will prevent
unnecessary administrative intrusion into the operation of the Missouri
or any U.S. river, and whether the public it is about should have the
opportunity to review proposed changes and whether we should allow a
disputed biological opinion to be the subject of independent scrutiny.
Without section 103, decades of operating the Nation's commercially
navigable rivers for multiple purposes will be reversed without clear
congressional direction.
Joining us in urging defeat of the pending amendment is a bipartisan
collection of people and organizations representing farmers,
manufacturers, labor unions, shippers, cities, and port authorities
from 15 Midwest States. Also supporting us in opposing the Daschle
amendment are major national organizations, including the American Farm
Bureau, the American Waterways Association, the National Grange, and
the National Soybean Association.
We are united in opposing this amendment because of the risk. It
would lead to a dangerous flooding condition and could interfere with
the movement and cost of grain and cargo shipped on our Nation's inland
waterways.
It is not a novel thing for me to stand in defense of the Missouri
River. I come to this debate after fighting for Missouri's water rights
as the Missouri attorney general and Governor, and I will continue to
make water flows on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers top priorities.
As background for this debate, Senators need to know that 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 this debate today is
what is called a spring rise. A spring rise in this case is a release
of huge amounts of water from above Gavins Point Dam on the Nebraska-
South Dakota border during the flood-prone spring months.
To see whether such a controlled flood may improve the habitat of the
pallid sturgeon, the least tern, and the piping plover, section 103 is
a commonsense provision that states:

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 has been included in the last four energy and water
appropriations bills, all of which the President signed without
opposition.
In an effort to protect the species' habitats, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service issued an ultimatum to the Army Corps of Engineers
insisting that the U.S. Corps of Engineers immediately agree to its
demand for a spring rise. The Corps was given 1 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 Bond language in section 103 will allow for the studies the Corps
recommends.
National environmental groups want to delete section 103. They want
to do that in an attempt to circumvent additional analysis of the
effects of the proposal.
What is ironic and even tragic is that spring flooding could hurt the
targeted species more than it would protect them, and it would do so in
a way that would increase the risks of downstream flooding and
interfere 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's proposed plan that may have
a perverse effect of harming the targeted species rather than helping
the targeted species.
First, Dr. Engeln points out that the plan would increase the amount
of water held behind the dams, which would have the effect of reducing
the amount of river between the big reservoirs by about 10 miles in an
average year and a reduction in certain parts of the river.
In addition, Dr. Engeln writes, ``The higher reservoir levels 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 young still in nests. It is clear there isn't a single view
about the value, even in terms of seeking to protect these species
which are the focus of this debate.

Some advocates of the proposed plan claim this plan is a return to
more natural flow conditions. They say, we want to return the river to
its condition at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Not only
is it unrealistic to return the river to its ``natural flow'' when the
Midwest was barely habitable because of erratic flooding conditions,
according to Dr. Engeln,

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.

Dr. Engeln's letter states:

[[Page S8088]]

Balancing the needs of all river users is complicated.
Predicting the loss of habitat and its impact on the terns
and plovers should not be subject to disagreements. The Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers need to
examine the implications of this proposal and recognize its
failure to protect these species.

Listen to the last comment: The Missouri Department of Natural
Resources--I might note, this is a well-recognized department; our
conservation and natural resource departments are nationally
recognized. We are especially supportive, with special independent tax
revenues for the conservation commission. The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources states that the Fish and Wildlife Service should
recognize the proposal's failure to protect these species.
The plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service fails to protect species.
It exposes the citizens of the Midwest and Southern States and their
farms and cities and ports to dangerous flooding. It also interferes
with the shipment of cargo and could lead to higher prices being
charged for the shipment of cargo.
Over 90 organizations representing farmers, shippers, cities, labor
unions, and port authorities sent a letter to Congress last week that
Senator Bond has had printed in the Congressional Record. Let me
briefly quote from this letter:

The spring rise demanded by the Fish and Wildlife Service
is based on the premise that we should ``replicate the
national hydrograph'' that was responsible for devastating
and deadly floods, as well as summertime droughts and even
dust bowls.

The letter goes on to say:

For decades we have worked to mitigate the negative
implications of the natural hydrograph with multiple purpose
water resource programs. These efforts have protected
communities from floods and also provided hundreds of
thousands of families wage jobs in interior regions.

These 90-plus organizations are exactly right. For decades, the
Government has made water resource management decisions by taking into
account the many varied uses of the river in balancing the interests of
all affected groups: agriculture, energy, municipal, industrial,
environmental, and recreational. Our policies in the past have been
designed to protect communities against natural disasters, as well as
allow efficient and environmentally friendly river transportation, low-
cost and reliable hydropower and a burgeoning recreation industry.
Let me indicate when I was attorney general of the State of
Missouri--and that is several decades ago--there was a run made on the
river at that time to divert the river, to run it through a pipeline to
the lower Gulf States and to run the river in conjunction with powdered
coal through the pipeline as a means of taking the river.
I guarded the river then because I knew of its value to our State.
Half the people in the State of Missouri drink water from the Missouri
River. It is a tremendous resource in terms of transportation, in
moving grain downstream for international sale. Soybean farmers in
America have to sell over half of their crop overseas. Moving their
crop to the ports is essential. Moving the crop efficiently to the
ports is very important in terms of our competitive position. It is a
necessary thing that we preserve this potential for those who operate
our family farms--not just to have the transportation--to avoid the
unnecessary and devastating potential of floods.
Last week, the sponsors of the pending amendment circulated a Dear
Colleague letter regarding their amendment. It is a letter to explain
their idea of striking section 103. They laid out the arguments. The
environmental groups who are supporting the Daschle amendment have made
many of the same points in defense of their position. I want to take a
few minutes to refute the main points of the supporters of this
amendment, which is to strike this provision.
First, the supporters argue that the Missouri River management
changes will not create potential downstream flooding because the
spring rise would not occur every year. It would not be implemented
during the 10 percent highest flow years, they say, ``and the Corps
would not release additional water from Gavins Point dam if the
Missouri were already flooding.''
While this may sound reassuring, it is not acceptable to those
citizens living downstream because unreliable waterflows pose a grave
danger to everyone living and working along the banks of the river. The
spring rise would come at a time in the year when downstream citizens
are most vulnerable to flooding and downstream agriculture is certainly
very vulnerable to flooding.
It normally takes 11 or 12 days for water to travel from the Gavins
Point reservoir to St. Louis. During the spring, the weather in the
Midwest is unpredictable. I might want to protect myself. It may be
that the weather in the Midwest is always predictable.
I remember last summer visiting a flood-ravaged city in eastern
Missouri in this watershed. Union, MO, had a 14-inch rain that was not
predicted. I had flooding on my farm in late July when we had a 7-inch
unpredicted rain. And not only just this kind of outburst or cloud
burst, but we know that the weather in the Midwest is hard to predict.
Heavy rain or a series of heavy rains in the 12-day period following a
spring rise would certainly greatly increase the chances for downstream
flooding, and the amount that would be necessary to top a levy here and
there could be the amount precipitated with the rise, the purposeful
release of the water.
The second major point the opponents make is that section 103
prohibits the Corps from producing a final environmental impact study.
The true fact is the language of section 103 only forbids the use of
Federal funds to make revisions of the master manual to allow for a
spring rise. It does not impact the Corps' ability to produce a final
environmental impact study, nor does it permanently ban revisions.
Section 103 would only be operative for fiscal year 2001.

The third point that the opponents make is that the Fish and Wildlife
Service proposal will help Mississippi barge navigators. The true fact
is every Mississippi navigational organization and transportation
entity is against the proposed spring rise and in support of section
103. They say these folks will all be assisted by this. But all the
folks who actually work in this industry, every single navigational
organization says that kind of assistance ``we don't want.'' It is akin
to the fellow saying: I don't think the check is in the mail and I
don't think you are from the Federal Government and here to help me.
The fourth point that our opponents make is that the Missouri River
farmers will benefit by the proposed management changes. The real fact
is that every farm group is against the proposal and is in favor of
retaining section 103. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the
National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat
Growers, the American Soybean Association, the National Grain and Feed
Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Agriculture
Retailers Association--enough.
The fifth point our opponents make is that public recreational
opportunities in upstream States will be improved by the proposed
changes. According to the mark 2,000 set of groups, no evidence exists
to suggest that recreation and tourism will benefit from a spring rise.
The sixth point our opponents make is that the spring rise will help
to restore the health of the river and recover endangered fish and bird
species. No documentation has been provided that establishes the need
for a spring rise beyond what currently occurs naturally. As I
mentioned before, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources strongly
disagrees that a spring rise would have environmental benefits for
endangered birds.

The seventh point our opponents make in their letter is that the only
industry harmed by the proposal would be the downstream barge industry.
They don't always make this point. Sometimes they say this will not
make any difference to the barge industry. Sometimes they say it is
going to help the barge industry. Then they say the only industry that
would be hurt would be the barge industry. I think what we can all
agree on is the barge industry would be affected, and I think we ought
to listen to the barge industry. The barge industry simply says very
clearly they don't want any part of this, that they reject this
concept.
Competition on the waterways, of course, would be impaired. If you
hurt the barge industry, it is totally naive

[[Page S8089]]

to think that you can hurt the barge industry and that would be the
only industry hurt. If you hurt the barge industry and take that grain
shipment capacity out of the system, all of a sudden you have to load
more trucks. So there would be a greater demand for trucking. With more
demand, we all know what happens: Supply and demand, if the supply is
the same the price goes up. In fact, it doesn't take a particularly
strong analytical bent to get there. But the Tennessee Valley Authority
has made some estimates about this. According to the TVA, water
competition holds down railroad rates, not only trucking rates but
railroad rates, and the holddown of the railroad rates by water
competition is about $200 million each year.
If you are talking about that kind of impact holding down those
rates, I think it is fair to say there are potential ripple effects on
a lot of other folks than just the barge industry, and I happen to
believe this is a time when the American farmer might find himself on
the tracks and the fast freight coming through, and not for the benefit
of the American farmer. It is time for us to say we need as much
competition as possible in hauling these resources to market rather
than to minimize that competition.
Finally, the amendment sponsors say the President will veto this bill
if section 103 is maintained. If the President decides to veto the
entire bill after having signed this provision four times previously,
it states a very clear message by the Clinton-Gore administration 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. A vote for
the Daschle amendment sends the message to communities all along the
Missouri River that this Congress supports increased flooding of
property and higher costs for family farmers, factory workers, and
industrial freight movers.
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 Senators to look closely at the facts and to stand with the
men and women who depend upon sane, scientific management of the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, and to join me in voting no on the
Daschle amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The distinguished Senator
from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I don't know if the Senator from Missouri wants to speak
now. I have maybe 5 or 10 minutes of points I want to make, but if the
Senator wants to speak now----
Mr. BOND. Please; my colleague has the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just several points for the record. In all
due respect, listening to my colleagues, there were lots of
conclusions. I don't hear a lot of facts, support for the statements
made.
One of the statements I heard is that flood control benefits will be
much worse under the preferred plan, that is the spring rise/split
season. But that is not what the facts are, according to the Army Corps
of Engineers. If you look at all the various data here on all the
various alternatives that the Corps considered, it totaled up the flood
control benefits for the river from the Fort Peck Dam down to the
mouth, and I must say there is statistically no difference in flood
control benefits. So this big scare tactic of floods--I have heard some
say, not on this floor, a wall of water--is, according to the facts,
inaccurate. It is inaccurate according to the modeling done by the
Corps on all the various alternatives.
The benefits under the current master manual, flood control benefits,
according to the Army Corps of Engineers, are about $414 million. The
spring rise/split season flood control benefits are virtually
statistically the same; that is, $410 million--virtually no difference.
Those are the facts. Not the rhetoric, not the abstraction, not the
generalization, but the facts.
Second, I have heard here that the spring rise/split season will
increase Mississippi River navigation costs. That is the assertion.
Let's look at the facts, again, facts according to studies done by the
Army Corps of Engineers--not by that dreaded Fish and Wildlife Service,
but by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The facts: If you look at the average annual Mississippi River
navigation costs for the Army Corps of Engineers, under the master
manual it is about $45.70 million; under the spring rise alternative is
it $46.85, which comes out to less than a 1-percent difference. So,
again, it is a scare tactic and an inaccurate scare tactic to say that
the spring rise/split season is going to increase navigational costs
downriver on the Mississippi. It is just not accurate, according to
studies done by the Army Corps of Engineers.
I have also heard on the floor this evening that the spring rise/
split season will decrease hydropower benefits for the main stem
reservoir system. That is the assertion. That is the rhetoric. Let's
look at the facts. Let's look at what the Army Corps of Engineers'
actual data says. I have it here before me. Under the current master
manual, the average annual hydropower benefits total $676 million.
Under the spring rise/split season, the average annual hydropower
benefits are higher, $683 million; not lower, higher. So the hydropower
benefits under the spring rise/split season are actually better, higher
than they are under the current master manual.
Another point, you have heard stated many times on the floor tonight
this provision has been in the appropriations bill for about 4 years
and there has been no objection; the President hasn't objected, so what
is the big deal? The difference is in those prior years it was all
abstraction. That is, there was no Fish and Wildlife Service biological
opinion. We were dealing with thin air, not dealing with something
substantive. Now we are. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued their
biological opinion. We have something definite. And they concluded the
spring rise/split season is necessary.
On that same point, I might say the group that peer-reviewed this
proposal--I think there are seven or eight from the Missouri River
basin--unanimously concluded this is necessary.
I might tease my good friend from Missouri, saying his colleague at
length quoted a Missourian who has had problems with the proposal
alternative. I might tease my friend from Missouri, pointing out of the
seven scientists on the peer review who unanimously concluded this
makes sense, two of them are Missourians, one with the department of
conservation and the other with the University of Missouri at Columbia.
One says it is a bad idea; two say it is a good idea. I will take the
majority vote from the Missourians.
I might also point out that basically we want the Corps of Engineers
to follow the law. Under the law, whenever a species is threatened or
endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service consults with the relevant
agency--in this case the Army Corps of Engineers. And under the law,
the alternative must comply with the Endangered Species Act. It will
not have the devastating effect that has been asserted.
I say so not as an assertion but backed up by facts, backed up by the
Army Corps of Engineers' own data. Look at the data. The data shows, A,
this is not going to cause all the problems that have been asserted
and, B, this is probably necessary under the law. Otherwise, it is
thrown in the courts, and we all know what happens when something like
this is thrown into the judicial system. We will be wrapped up trying
to resolve this for years and years.
I strongly urge my colleagues to do what is right. Follow the
science, follow the law, and vote to delete section 103 from the
appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, which I hope ends
this debate for this group who is listening in rapt attention. I
appreciate the attention of those people who are sitting

[[Page S8090]]

on the edge of their seats learning more than they ever wanted to know
about the Missouri River. It is important to us. It is vitally
important to Missouri and other downstream States.
We do disagree with some of the statements that have been made by my
colleagues on the other side. We have a disagreement on the
interpretation and I think a disagreement on the facts.
The statement has been made that the Fish and Wildlife Service's
split season does not have any impact on the river flows in the
Mississippi River. That has not happened. The Fish and Wildlife Service
proposal, according to the Corps of Engineers' advice to us today, has
not happened. That is not accurate.
I believe strongly the spring rise will take water out of upstream
reservoirs. They need that water for recreation. I have worked very
closely with my friend and colleague from Montana, and others, to do
what we can to accommodate legitimate recreation needs. My colleague
from Montana was a very valuable ally when we pushed through the middle
Missouri River habitat mitigation plan that made changes that we think
are improving fish and wildlife habitat along the Missouri. I thank him
for that.
When he says the models show there is a statistically insignificant
impact downstream, any kind of spring rise in any year which is an
exceptional flood year is going to have exceptional and disastrous
impacts. Look at it in a low-flow year. It may not make much
difference, but if you put that spring surge down the river in a year
when we get that unexpected 6-inch, 8-inch, 10-inch, 14-inch rise, we
have a devastating flood that not only wipes out property and destroys
facilities along the river but puts lives at danger.
The statement was made that fish and game agencies are united behind
this plan. They are not. This is one of the big questions that needs to
be resolved. Resolution of those questions can and must go on during
the coming year. We do not stop all of the agencies from continuing the
discussions and debate. Contrary to what has been said on this floor by
the proponents of the motion to strike, we only say you cannot
implement the spring rise.
This risky scheme needs to be thoroughly worked out, thoroughly
debated, before anybody has a thought of putting it into action. That
is why we want to have a year with no spring rise implemented as
ordered by the diktat of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their
letter of July 12.
The statement was made that the consensus of the States in the
Missouri River Basin Association was in favor of a spring rise. There
is a difference between a spring rise in the upper part of the river
which is above the dams, above Gavins Point, which makes the difference
on what the flows are in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.
The Missouri River Basin Association recommends trial fish
enhancement flows from Fort Peck Reservoir. The enhanced flows will be
coordinated with the unbalancing of the upper basin reservoirs and thus
will occur approximately every third year. This is in the upper basin.
It does not have any impact directly downstream.
With respect to the lower Missouri River, which is below the last
dam--that is, Gavins Point releases--the statement of the Missouri
River Basin Association is that it recognizes the controversial nature
of adjustment to releases from Gavins Point Dam. MRBA recommends the
recovery committee investigate the benefits and adverse impacts of flow
adjustment to the existing uses of the river system. They did not, have
not, and are not recommending increased flows.
This effort by the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose their views
over the views not only of the neighbors of the people downstream who
have studied it, the fish and wildlife agencies, this is a risky scheme
that provides tremendous potential for a flooding disaster along the
Missouri River, and I urge my colleagues tomorrow to oppose the motion
to strike.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to say it has been a good debate.
Our views have been aired. I deeply respect that different Senators
might have different points of view on this issue. After all, that is
why we run for this job. That is why we are here. We all have various
points of view. I do not want to be corny, but that is what makes
democracy strong--various points of view.
I very much respect and appreciate my good friend from Missouri and
others who are arguing to include this provision in the appropriations
bill to prevent the spring rise. My basic point is we have different
points of view on this. My basic point is let the process work, do not
preempt it. There will be plenty of opportunities for comments on the
draft opinion and on whatever alternative the Army Corps of Engineers
picks. There are lots of different options. Let's not prejudge it by
saying it cannot be one as opposed to others. Somebody might come up
with a better idea between now and then. My belief is we should let the
process work. We can let it work by not adopting this rider to the
appropriations bill. We should work through this as it evolves.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time on this
side and bring this to a blessed conclusion after stating that I
appreciate the chance to discuss this issue with my good friend from
Montana and to say we are willing to let the process go forward. Just
do not send us a controlled flood next spring. That is all we ask. Let
the process work. Do not send the water down.
I now yield back the time on this side.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and
ask that we let the process work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

____________________