[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 103 (Thursday, September 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8129-S8132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 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.
Pending:
Domenici amendment No. 4032, to strike certain environment
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.
Daschle (for Baucus) amendment No. 4081, to strike certain
provisions relating to revision of the Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual.
Amendment No. 4081
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the Daschle amendment No. 4081 on which there
shall be 10 minutes of debate equally divided.
The distinguished Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may use part of my leader time if my
comments go over the 5 minutes. I ask that that be recognized should it
be required.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that
is critical not only for an important region of our country, the upper
Midwest, but really the whole country. How we decide the process by
which we make critical decisions about the ecological and environmental
balance that must be taken into account as we consider all of the
challenges we face with regard to proper management is really what is
at stake here.
The Missouri River is one of the most important rivers of the
country, but this could apply to the Mississippi River and to any one
of a number of rivers throughout the country. Ultimately, it will be
applied. You could say this is a very important precedent. A process
has been created, enacted by this Congress, that allows very careful
consideration of all the different factors that must be applied as we
make
[[Page S8130]]
decisions with regard to management of a river, of wetlands, of
anything else.
Basically what this amendment does is simply say, let that process go
forward, without making any conclusion about what ultimately that
process will lead to. If we ultimately decide that whatever process
produced is wrong, we, as a Congress, have the opportunity to stop it.
Why would we stop it midway? Why would we say today that we don't want
that process to continue; we don't want it to reach its inevitable end
with a product that we could look at for comment? That is the first
point: a process is in place. The legislation currently within the
energy and water bill stops that in its tracks.
I don't have it in front of me, but the report language makes it very
clear. Senator Bond and others may argue that, no, this process can
continue, but the effect of this amendment stops it in its tracks. We
will not have an opportunity to carefully consider all of the
recommendations given the language that is currently incorporated in
the bill. We must not stop a process that allows us a result upon which
we will then pass judgment.
The Missouri River is a very critical river. It is a multifaceted
river that requires balance. The current management plan was written
when the Presiding Officer and I, Senator Bond, and others were, at
best, in our teens, if not in our early years of life. It was written
in the 1950s and adopted in about 1960. It has been the plan for 40
years.
What the Corps of Engineers is now saying, what Fish and Wildlife is
now saying is that after 40 years, prior to the time the dams were
constructed, it is time to renew that manual; let's find another; let's
take another look at it to determine whether or not what worked in the
1950s and 1960s is something that will work today. Their feeling is
that it will not, that we need to upgrade it; we need to refresh it; we
need to renew it.
Back when that manual was written, the anticipated amount of barge
traffic was about 12 million tons. We never reached 12 million tons. We
are down to about 1.5 million tons of barge traffic, totaling about $7
million.
We are spending $8 million in barge subsidies to support a $7 million
industry. At the same time, we have an $85 million recreation industry.
We have an incredible $667 billion hydropower industry. We have
industries that are held captive, in large measure, because of a manual
written in 1960 that anticipated barge traffic that never developed.
It is time to get real. It is time to allow the process to go
forward. It is time to allow those agencies of the Federal Government,
whose responsibility it is to manage this river, to do it without
intervention. There will be plenty of time for us to take issue, to
differ, to ultimately come to some other conclusion if that happens.
But that is not now, especially given the recognition that the manual
is out of date. The manual didn't produce the kind of result over four
decades that was anticipated. Now it is time to change. That is all we
are asking.
Let the process go forward. The President has said that unless this
change is made, this bill will be vetoed. We are nearing the end of the
session. If we want to guarantee that this is going to be wrapped up in
an omnibus bill with absolutely no real opportunity for the Senate to
have its voice heard, then the time to change it, so it can be signed,
is now--not 4 weeks from now. I am very hopeful my colleagues will
understand the importance of this question, the importance of this
amendment. I am hopeful that, on a bipartisan basis, we can say let us
allow the Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and the biological experts to do
their work. Then let us look at that work and make our evaluation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes and ask that I be
advised when that is up so I may yield to my colleagues.
We have had a lot of argument about whether we ought to stop the
process. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is stopping
flooding in downstream States, such as Missouri, Kansas, Iowa,
Nebraska, and States down the Mississippi, and the implementation of a
risky scheme. Section 103--and I am happy to show it to my colleagues--
says none of the funds made available may be used to revise the manual
to provide for an increase in the springtime water release during
spring heavy rainfall and snowmelt in States that have rivers draining
into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
This same provision has been included in four previous energy and
water bills in the last 5 years. It has been passed by this Congress
and signed by the President. It clearly permits a review of
alternatives to change river management. It only prevents one, single,
specific harmful alternative of a controlled flood, which was proposed
first in 1993, subjected to public review and comment by this Congress,
and rejected by the administration when it was considered in 1994. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture opposed it. The U.S. Department of
Transportation opposed it. There was unanimous opinion on people who
lived in and worked along the river. The officials there oppose this
risky scheme. Now, 5 years later, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a
letter on July 12 demanding that, as an interim step, a spring pulse
come down the Missouri River starting in 2001.
This is supposed to help the habitat of the pallid sturgeon. But what
it does is increase the spring rise, and the Missouri and Mississippi
already have a spring rise. We get floods and we have damage that hurts
land and facilities and kills people.
The people of Los Alamos know what happens when the Federal
Government gave them a controlled burn. They are still wiping soot out
of their hair. This is a proposal to give a controlled flood to areas
where there is great risk. That is why the Democratic Governor of
Missouri, the mayor of Kansas City, both Democrats, both oppose the
motion to strike. They support section 103. We know it would curtail
transportation, the most efficient and effective and environmentally
friendly form of transportation of agricultural goods, and that is
barge traffic. It would end barge traffic on the Missouri River, which
I think may be the objective. Barge traffic not only gets product down
the river to the world markets, but it keeps the cost of shipping under
control by competition. It would harm transportation on the Mississippi
River. That is why the Southern Governors' Association and waterways
groups have come out in strong support of section 103.
Our State Department and Natural Resources Conservation Department
oppose this risky scheme. They are dedicated to the recovery of the
species. They have other alternatives that need to be and can be
studied. The U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Research Center is
looking at what we can do to increase the number of pallid sturgeon,
and the likely objectives they have do not involve increasing floods in
the spring.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in rejecting this
motion to strike because it puts lives at risk; it ends transportation
for farmers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BOND. I yield that time to my colleague, the junior Senator from
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Missouri
for taking point on this very important measure that will protect a
livelihood and a set of very essential opportunities that exist in
downstream States. To send a surge of water downstream in the spring,
when we are already at risk of flooding, could hurt the capacity of our
farmers to produce. And then to compound the injury and add the insult
of making the shipping of what they produce difficult, or impossible,
or not competitive, would be very damaging.
Over half of the people in my State of Missouri drink water from the
Missouri River. We have come to rely on it as a resource. This doesn't
detract from the overall ability to measure and evaluate what happens
on the river. It simply says that prior to the plan we are not going to
authorize a spring surge which would add flooding and jeopardize the
livelihood of many individuals in Missouri and other States that border
the Missouri River.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
[[Page S8131]]
The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some leader time. I understand
I have 8 minutes remaining. My colleagues can vote any way they wish,
based upon the facts as presented. Let nobody be misled. This has
nothing to do with flooding--nothing. This doesn't apply when there is
flooding or when there are droughts. That is written right into the
language of this new master manual proposal. It has nothing to do with
flooding. This has to do with barge traffic. That is what this is
about. It is about barge traffic.
Now, the Senator from Missouri talks about the importance of
competition. How much competition is there when you have three-tenths
of 1 percent of all agricultural transportation related to barge
traffic and 99 percent is rail and highway? Is that competition? My
colleagues are appropriately trying to defend a dying industry in
Missouri, and they are using flood concerns to protect them. This is
not about floods. This is about protecting three-tenths of 1 percent of
all transportation for agriculture in the entire region. That is what
this is about. Nothing more and nothing less.
I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reemphasize the first point made by my
friend from South Dakota. He is entirely accurate. We hear about the
specter of floods. If you look at the facts, this amendment has nothing
to do with floods. Why do I say that? It is because of the Army Corps
of Engineers' own analysis. Looking at the alternatives, the current
master manual, compared with the spring rise/split season, there is no
statistical, no difference--it is 1 percent--in the flood control
benefits between the two alternatives. None. One percent is
statistically insignificant.
So you hear on the floor those protecting a dying industry using
another scare tactic, and that is floods. That is totally inaccurate.
In addition, the proposal of the spring rise/split season will be used
in only 1 out of every 3 years. And the proposal also provides that if
it looks as if there might be a wet year, or more precipitation in the
year a spring rise might otherwise occur, there would be no spring
rise. Why? Because the primary goal of the Corps of Engineers is flood
protection. Let's take that off the table; take flooding and the wall
of water down the river off the table.
In the 1993 and 1997 flood years, if this proposal had been in
effect, there would be no spring rise and no split season. It would not
exacerbate the 1993 and 1997 floods.
In addition, if this amendment to strike 103 is not adopted, we will
have a big lawsuit on our hands. Why? Because the environmentalists
will file a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers because of not
protecting the Endangered Species Act. We would have a whole set of
problems on our hands. Let's not have a lawsuit. Let's not have scare
tactics for the sake of trying to protect a dying industry that need
not be subsidized as it is now.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of
my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
The Bond provision of the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
from implementing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase
spring time releases of water from Missouri River dams to simulate the
natural ``rise'' and ``fall'' in the Missouri River. This could be
potentially devastating to Nebraska's farmers and ranchers and those
whose livelihood depends on the Missouri River because the ``rise''
increases flood risk, and the ``fall'' interferes with barge traffic.
This ``spring rise'' that increases flood risks down the Missouri and
the Mississippi is particularly irresponsible when you take into
account that over the last two years, FEMA has spent $32.6 million in
flood disaster for the Missouri River.
During the flood of 1993, the largest in recorded history, flood
costs ranged between $12 and $16 billion. More importantly, main stem
Missouri River Dams--the very ones Fish and Wildlife want to change--
prevented $4 billion in damages.
If the amendment to strike the Bond provision from the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill is successful, and this ``fall'' occurs, then
there is a real potential that water levels are reduced to a point
where barge traffic can't get through. Barge traffic is necessary to
the farmer. It brings fertilizer up in the spring and brings the
harvest to market in the fall. Senator Bond's amendment will ensure
that water levels are kept at a navigable level.
This provision is not new to the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. It has been included in four previous appropriations measures
that were signed into law by President Clinton. Now, President Clinton
is threatening to veto this bill if it contains the Bond provision.
I urge my colleagues to keep the Bond provision in this
appropriations bill and keep the Missouri River at a reasonable and
steady level.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes to respond to comments made by the distinguished minority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the leader.
I just have to say when the point was made that this is not about
flooding, that is what has people in Missouri scared to death. Floods
don't happen every year. But when the floods happen, they are
devastating.
That is why I want to read from a letter by the Democratic Governor,
Mel Carnahan, of Missouri. In an August 17 letter he wrote to the White
House trying to stop it, he said that absent change in the service as
planned, it is likely efforts to restore endangered species along the
river will be damaged and 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.
When the Southern Governors Association wrote to the minority and
majority leaders, Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas, speaking for the
southern Governors, said that 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.
Frankly, nobody can tell when the heavy rains are coming. I have
watched the National Weather Service. They do not know. They cannot
predict the heavy rains and floods that have devastated our lands and
killed people in recent years. They have come without warning. It takes
11 days for water to get from Gavins Point to St. Louis. They are not
good enough. None of us is good enough to know when those heavy rains
will occur.
I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know I have a couple of minutes
remaining in leader time. Let me respond. I understand it is 5 minutes.
I will not use all of it because I know we are about ready to go to a
vote.
Let me just say that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri
knows what I know and what everyone should know prior to the time they
are called upon to vote.
First of all, it is not a plan until it is adopted as a plan. But the
Bond language would stop the plan from even going forward before we
have had a chance to analyze what effect it would have on floods. But
the proposal, which is all it is at this point, says we will exempt
those years when there is a prospect for flooding. We will exempt the
master manual from being utilized and implemented if a flood is
imminent. We lop off the flooded years and the drought years. This plan
is to be used only in those times when there is normal rain flow. That
is really what we are talking about here.
But I go back to the point: Why stop this process from going forward
before we know all the facts? Why stick our head in the sand before we
really have the biological, ecological, and all of the managerial
details?
That is what the language does. That isn't the way we ought to
proceed. There will be time for us to oppose, if that may be the case.
But not now, not halfway through the process. Let's allow this process
to continue.
I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
[[Page S8132]]
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--52
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Akaka
Lieberman
Murkowski
The amendment (No. 4081) was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________