[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17076-17092]
[From the U.S. 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.

  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.

[[Page 17077]]

  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 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

[[Page 17078]]

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 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

[[Page 17079]]

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.
  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

[[Page 17080]]

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.
       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

[[Page 17081]]

     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.
       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.

[[Page 17082]]

       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 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.

[[Page 17083]]

  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.
  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.

[[Page 17084]]

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 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

[[Page 17085]]

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.
  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

[[Page 17086]]

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 
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

[[Page 17087]]

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. 
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.

[[Page 17088]]

  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 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.

[[Page 17089]]

  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:

       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

[[Page 17090]]

     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 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

[[Page 17091]]

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 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

[[Page 17092]]

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.

                          ____________________