[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.

                          ____________________