[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20227-20232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 20227]]

   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are about to cast a vote at 5:30. I 
think in many ways this is a very difficult situation. I come to the 
floor this afternoon expressing my gratitude to the distinguished chair 
of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and certainly to the ranking 
member, the Senator from Nevada, our extraordinary assistant Democratic 
leader, for the great work they have done in responding to many of the 
issues and concerns that our colleagues have raised. I think in large 
measure it is a very balanced bill.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve what is a very significant 
matter relating to the Missouri River and the precedent that it sets 
for all rivers. The Corps of Engineers must, from time to time, update 
the master manual for the rivers that it manages. Unfortunately, some 
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated that 
they were unwilling to compromise with regard to finding a way they 
could address their concerns without calling a complete halt to a 
multiyear process that has been underway to revise and update a master 
manual that is now over 40 years old. That is the issue: a manual that 
affects thousands of miles of river, hundreds of thousands, if not 
billions, of dollars of revenue generated from hydroelectric power, 
navigation, irrigation, municipal water, and bank stabilization.
  There is perhaps no more complicated management challenge than the 
one affecting the Missouri and, for that matter, the Mississippi 
Rivers.
  So our challenge has been to address the concerns of the two Senators 
from Missouri in a way that recognizes their legitimate questions 
regarding the Corps' intent on management, and also to recognize that 
there are stretches of the river both affecting the Mississippi in 
downstream States as well as all of the upstream States that also must 
be addressed, that also have to be worked out, that have to be 
recognized and achieved in some way.
  We have gone to our distinguished colleagues on the other side on a 
number of occasions indicating a willingness to compromise, indicating 
a willingness to sit down to try to find a way to resolve this matter. 
I must say, we have been rebuffed at every one of those efforts. So we 
are left today with no choice.
  What I hope will happen is that we can vote in opposition to the bill 
in numbers sufficient enough to indicate our ability to sustain a veto; 
the President will then veto this legislation, as he has now noted 
publicly and privately on several occasions; and that we come down 
together to the White House, or anywhere else, work out a compromise, 
work out some suitable solution that accommodates the Senators from 
Missouri as well as all other Senators on the river. That is all we are 
asking.
  It is unfortunate that it has to come to this, to a veto. I warned 
that it would if we were not able to resolve it. I am disappointed we 
are now at a point where that appears to be the only option available 
to us.
  Before he came to the floor, I publicly commended the chair of the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee for his work. And I will say so privately 
to my colleagues that what he has done and what the ranking member has 
done is laudable and ought to be supported. But the overriding concern 
is a concern that has been addressed now on several occasions. It was 
my hope that it was a concern that could have been addressed in a way 
that would have avoided the need for a veto. Unfortunately, that is not 
the case. So we are left with no choice, Madam President. I regret that 
fact.
  I hope that my colleagues will understand that this legislation is 
important. I hope after the veto, after it is sustained--if that is 
required--we can go back, get to work, and find the compromise that I 
have been seeking now for weeks, and find a way with which to move this 
legislation along.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  Are we scheduled by unanimous consent to vote at 5:30 on the 
conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, the senior Senator from Montana 
would like a minute or two to talk on this subject. Perhaps it would be 
better for him to do it now, and then you could close the debate, if 
that would be appropriate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was just going to ask. I saw him on the floor and he 
mentioned he might want to speak. I need about 6 minutes, so could you 
take the intervening time before the 6 minutes?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my colleague, I need only 5 or 6 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I only need about 6 minutes. I will yield the rest to 
the Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I inquire of the minority leader and the Senator from New 
Mexico if we could get perhaps an extra 5 minutes before the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it appears we have 10 minutes remaining 
before the vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5:32 and the time be 
equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
against adoption of the Conference Report for the Energy and Water 
Appropriations. Section 103 is an anti-environmental rider that 
prevents the sound management of the Missouri River.
  As my colleagues will recall, during Senate consideration of this 
bill last month, Senator Daschle and I proposed to delete this 
provision. Unfortunately we were not successful.
  Now, rather than attempting to work out a compromise, the conferees 
have included the very same language in the conference report before us 
tonight.
  I will not repeat all of the arguments made in the earlier debate 
about why this amendment is bad for the river and the people of my 
state. The important point is, nothing has changed from that debate and 
the need to remove this rider remains as true today as it did then.
  First, the Army Corps of Engineers is managing the Missouri River on 
the basis of a master manual that was written in 1960 and hasn't 
changed much since then.
  Today, conditions are much different. Priorities are different.
  Under the current master manual--40 years old--water levels in Ft. 
Peck lake are often drawn down in the summer months, largely to support 
barge traffic downstream, which is an industry that is dying and, 
according to the Corps' own analysis, has much less economic value than 
the recreation value upstream.
  These drawdowns have occurred time and time again. Their effect is 
devastating: Moving ramps to put boats in the lake a mile away, 
severely curtail boating and fishing that are enjoyed by thousands of 
Montanans and tourists alike. They also reduce the numbers of walleye, 
sturgeon, and other fish.
  The drawdowns are the big reason why eastern Montana has been getting 
an economic raw deal for years. More balanced management of the 
Missouri River, which takes better account of upstream economic 
benefits, is absolutely critical to reviving the economy in that part 
of our State.
  Now there has been some talk that the proposed split season will 
affect hydropower production. While detailed studies are not yet 
complete, in fact, the Corps estimates that the split season will have 
``essentially no impact to the total hydropower benefits.'' So there 
really should be no doubt. The split season is a better deal for 
Montana. It is a better deal for the whole river.

[[Page 20228]]

  Of course, this rider is about more than just Ft. Peck.
  It also prevents the Corps of Engineers from obeying the law of the 
land. Specifically, the Endangered Species Act.
  If we create a loophole here, there will be pressure to create 
another loophole somewhere else. And then another. Before you know it, 
the law will be shredded into tatters.
  We all know the Endangered Species Act is not perfect. I believe we 
need to reform it so it will work better for landowners and for 
species.
  We are working hard to pass returns, but those reforms haven't 
passed. So the Endangered Species Act remains the law of the land, and 
we have to respect it. And so should the Corps.
  Forget about the species for a minute. Think about basic fairness. We 
require private landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
  Why should the Federal Government get a free pass?
  The answer is, they should not. The Army Corps of Engineers should be 
held to the same standard as everybody else, and the Corps agrees.
  We have a public process in place, to carefully revise the master 
manual. It's been underway for 10 years.
  Now, at the last minute, when the end is in sight, a rider in an 
appropriations bill would derail the process by taking one of the 
alternatives right off the table.
  That's not fair. It's not right. It's not the way we ought to make 
this decision.
  Instead, we should give the open process that we began ten years ago 
a chance to work.
  We should give people an opportunity to comment on the biological 
opinion and the environmental impact statement.
  So the final decision will not be made in a vacuum.
  But this rider makes a mockery of that process. The rider allows for 
an extensive period for public comment. But then it prohibits the 
public agencies from acting on those comments.
  A better way is to allow the agencies and the affected parties to 
continue to work together to strike a balance to manage this mighty and 
beautiful river: for upstream states, for downstream states, and for 
the protection of endangered species; that is, for all of us.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, along with many of my colleagues, I 
voted in support of an amendment to the energy and water appropriations 
bill when it moved through the Senate to strike an anti-environment 
rider from that bill. Unfortunately, that amendment failed and the 
rider remains in the conference report we consider today.
  For that reason, I must vote against this legislation. I understand 
that the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation 
because of this antienvironment provision.
  The antienvironment rider included in this bill stops changes in the 
management of the Missouri River called for by existing law. Those 
changes would ensure that the river is managed not only for navigation, 
but also for the benefit of the fish and wildlife that depend on the 
river for survival.
  It is critical that those changes go into effect promptly because 
without them several endangered species may become extinct.
  The Missouri River management changes that this antienvironment rider 
blocks are called for by a 600-page Fish and Wildlife Service study. 
The study is itself based upon hundreds of published peer-reviewed 
studies, and would modify the 40-year-old Corps of Engineers policy of 
managing the flows of the Missouri River primarily to benefit a $7 
million downstream barge industry.
  That old Corps policy is largely responsible for the endangerment of 
three species--the piping plover, the least interior tern, and the 
pallid sturgeon--that depend upon the river for survival. Two other 
fish species are also headed toward extinction.
  It is very unfortunate that this provision was included in a bill 
that otherwise has much to commend it.
  I appreciate the conferees' hard work in crafting a bill that funds 
several important California priorities. The Hamilton Wetlands Project 
funded in this bill would restore approximately 1,000 acres to wetlands 
and wildlife habitat at Hamilton Army Airfield. The American River 
Common Elements funded in this bill would result in 24 miles of levee 
improvements along the American River and 12 miles of improvements 
along the Sacramento River levees, flood gauges upstream of Folsom Dam, 
and improvements to the flood warning system along the lower American 
River. Finally, the Solana Beach-Encinitas Shoreline Feasibility Study 
funded in this bill would assist both cities in their efforts to battle 
beach erosion, and would provide needed data for the restoration of 
these beaches. Projects such as these are extremely important to 
California.
  Because of these and the other benefits of this bill for California, 
I find it unfortunate that I must vote against this legislation. I do 
so, however, because a vote for this bill is a vote to support an 
antienvironment rider that may well lead to the irreversible damage of 
causing the extinction of several endangered species.
  I expect that this legislation will be taken up by the Senate without 
this rider in the next few weeks, and that we will move forward with 
important energy and water projects without doing irreversible damage 
to our environment.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Madam President, the FY 2001 Energy and Water 
Appropriations conference report includes $24 billion in funding for 
the Department of Energy, civil projects of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, and a 
number of independent agencies. I understand the difficulty of reaching 
a consensus on such a comprehensive bill. I would like to thank the 
Managers of the legislation for all their hard work in reaching this 
consensus.
  I am particularly pleased with the nearly $4 million in funding 
included in the bill for a number of important Rhode Island coastal 
restoration and water development projects. The bill contains $1.95 
million in funding for authorized repairs to the Fox Point Hurricane 
Barrier. Since its construction in 1966, the barrier has provided 
critical flood protection to the City of Providence. The bill contains 
$191,000 for Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration to assist the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental 
Management to restore degraded salt marshes and freshwater wetlands, 
improve overall fish and wildlife habitats, and restore anadramous 
fisheries. The bill also contains $54,000 for South Coast Erosion to 
complete feasibility study work on potential coastal protection 
projects along the southern coastline of Rhode Island.
  Additionally, the bill contains $584,000 in funding for the final 
Environmental Impact Statement and design work associated with 
maintenance dredging of the Providence River and Harbor federal 
navigation channel. The proposed maintenance dredging project involves 
the removal of approximately four million cubic yards of material from 
the Providence River and Harbor. The Environmental Impact Statement 
process will allow for full and open debate on the placement of dredge 
spoils from the project. We certainly cannot overlook the importance of 
protecting and minimizing the impact on our environment, especially the 
impact on our fisheries.
  As we move into the heating season, funding Environmental Impact 
Statements for Providence Harbor dredging projects cannot be 
overstated. Specifically, until dredging Providence Harbor is 
completed, deep draft vessels carrying precious heating oil to Rhode 
Island and other points in the Northeast will have to continue the 
dangerous and inefficient practice of off-loading their cargoes into 
small barges, in the middle of Narragansett Bay, for delivery to the 
pierside terminals in Providence Harbor. Anyone who has experienced the 
fury of winter wind, ice, and rough waters on the Narragansett 
recognizes this practice is an accident waiting to happen--one with 
disastrous consequences.

[[Page 20229]]

  While I voted in support of the conference report last night, I was 
disappointed to find that the Missouri River provision I objected to 
during Senate consideration of the bill was not removed during 
conference. I firmly object to this provision which would block funding 
for consideration of one of the alternatives to the Missouri River 
Master Water Control Manual. The targeted alternative would require 
seasonal river flow changes along the Missouri River in order to 
recover three endangered species including the pallid sturgeon, 
interior least tern, and piping plover. During my past year in the 
Senate, I have voted to remove environmental riders such as this one 
from appropriations bills. In my view, the Missouri River provision 
inappropriately transfers the decision regarding endangered species 
protection along the Missouri River from the Army Corps of Engineers 
and the authorizing committees to the Senate and House Appropriations 
Committees.
  I was one of two Republican Senators that voted in favor of an 
amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Baucus to strike this 
provision during Senate consideration of the FY 2001 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. When the vote failed, however, I voted 
in favor of the legislation because of its important funding for Rhode 
Island. The FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 
and the Missouri River provision contained within, passed 
overwhelmingly in the Senate by a vote of 93 to 1.
  The legislation still has a probable Presidential veto. I am hopeful 
we will be able to revisit the Missouri River provision before the end 
of this session, and ensure its elimination from the legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, during a statement I made on the Senate 
floor today regarding various pork-barrel spending in the final 
conference report for the FY 2001 energy and water appropriations, I 
incorrectly referred to a $20 million earmark for the CALFED Bay-Delta 
restoration project. I was informed by the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee that the conference agreement does not include any 
funding for this specific California project. I wanted to state for the 
Record that I will correct my statement that will be included on my 
Senate web page and remove this reference to the CALFED project.
  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I intend to vote against the energy and 
water appropriations conference report this afternoon. I support the 
vast majority of the bill, in fact, there are a number of projects I 
have worked for years to have included. But, once again, in addition to 
those projects, an anti-environmental rider was also attached to this 
legislation.
  The President has announced his intention to veto this bill because 
of that anti-environmental rider. So we will be back here in the next 
few days considering this legislation again. And I have been assured 
that when we take up this legislation again, our Virginia projects will 
be included, since they are not the subject of the dispute. I hope that 
in the intervening period, we can remove the rider which would prevent 
the Corps of Engineers from reviewing its procedures to protect the 
Missouri river and its environment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today in continuing concern over 
the National Ignition Facility, a massive stockpile stewardship 
facility being built at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore 
Labs in California. This program has been beset by cost overruns, 
delays, and poor management. The House in its Energy & Water bill 
included $74.1 million for construction of NIF. The Senate adopted an 
amendment I offered that capped spending at the same level, and also 
requested an independent review of the project from the National 
Academy of Sciences.
  I know the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee each have 
their own concerns about NIF, and I greatly appreciate their efforts to 
bring this program under control. But frankly I am disappointed in what 
has come out of conference. The funding for NIF construction has risen 
from $74 million to $199 million. $74 million in the House, $74 million 
in the Senate, and $199 million out of conference.
  That is a lot of money to spend on a program that is out of control. 
Projected costs of constructing this facility have almost doubled in 
the last year. We don't know if the optics will work. We don't know how 
to design the target. Even if the technical problems are solved, we 
don't know if the National Ignition Facility will achieve ignition. We 
don't even know if this facility is needed. DOE's recent 
``rebaselining'' specified massive budget increases for NIF for several 
years, but, despite Congressional requests, did not say where this 
money would come from or what impact it would have on the stockpile 
stewardship program.
  This is the time to slow down, conduct some independent studies, 
reconsider how we can best maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile and 
whether this risky program really is critical to that effort. Instead 
we are saying full steam ahead.
  It is true that part of the money, $69 million, is held back until 
DOE arranges for studies of some of these issues and certifies that the 
program is on schedule and on budget. These issues are critical to 
future Congressional action on NIF. Unfortunately, the bill does not 
clearly specify who will conduct those studies.
  I wish we could entrust DOE with these reviews, but history suggests 
they have not earned our trust. A recent article in the journal Nature 
describes ten years of failed peer review on this project: so-called 
``independent'' reports that were not independent, that were written by 
stacked panels with conflicts of interest, that even were edited by 
project officials. A recent GAO report notes that reviews ``did not 
discover and report on NIF's fundamental project and engineering 
problems, bringing into question their comprehensiveness and 
independence.'' DOE is currently under threat of a second lawsuit 
regarding violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in NIF 
studies.
  We need a truly independent review. I am pleased that the Chairman 
and Ranking Member agreed to join me in a colloquy on this concern, and 
hope the studies mandated in this bill will be fully independent and 
credible. Otherwise, I fear that the $199 million we are appropriating 
will be poured down a bottomless pit with the $800 million already 
spent. We've seen this happen too many times, with the Superconducting 
Supercollider, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the Space Station, and 
on and on. I will continue to strive to protect our taxpayers, keep our 
nuclear stockpile safe, and end wasteful spending on NIF before more 
billions are spent.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
conference report on the energy and water appropriations bill. This is 
a very important bill, for it contains a provision that will protect 
the citizens of Missouri from a risky Administration scheme to flood 
the Missouri River Basin. 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. This is the section of the bill that 
was subject to an amendment to strike when the Senate considered this 
legislation on September 7, 2000. The Senate defeated the attempt to 
strike at that time, and I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, 
Senator Domenici, for maintaining Section 103 in the conference report 
now before us.
  Madam President, as you know, 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 the debate over Section 103 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.
  In an effort to protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, the least 
tern, and the piping plover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued 
an ultimatum to the Army Corps of Engineers insisting that the Corps 
immediately agree to its demand for a spring rise. The

[[Page 20230]]

Corps was given one 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 language in section 103 will allow for the studies the Corps 
recommends. Section 103, inserted in the bill during the subcommittee 
markup, is a commonsense provision that states in its entirety:

       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--this exact language--has been included in the last four 
energy and water appropriations bills, all of which the President 
signed without opposition. Let's look at the support that the Energy 
and Water appropriations bills, with the exact same language, have 
enjoyed in the past.
  In October, 1995, the Senate agreed to the energy and water 
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 89-6.
  In September, 1996, the Senate agreed to the energy and water 
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 92-8.
  In September, 1998, the Senate agreed to the energy and water 
appropriations conference report by unanimous consent.
  In September, 1999, the Senate agreed to the energy and water 
appropriations conference report by a bipartisan vote of 96-3.
  In addition, this year, the Senate voted 93-1 in favor of final 
passage of the energy and water appropriations bill on September 7, 
2000, following the defeat of the amendment to strike Section 103.
  This lengthy record of support is part of the reason I am shocked and 
astounded to report that last week, the President's Chief of Staff, 
John Podesta, sent a letter to the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee chairman stating that the President would veto this bill 
if section 103 is included. In other words, the Clinton-Gore 
administration is threatening to veto the entire energy and water 
appropriations bill if it contains language to protect the lives and 
property of all citizens living and working along the lower Missouri 
and Mississippi Rivers.
  If the President follows through with a veto of the bill, after 
having signed this provision four times previously, he will be sending 
a very clear message 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.
  The President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Podesta, made a number of 
interesting, yet untrue, claims in his veto threat letter. We have 
corrected and clarified these points before, but allow me to do so 
again, in the hope that the administration will reconsider its position 
when confronted with the real facts on this issue.
  First, the administration claims in its veto letter that section 103 
would, ``prevent the Corps from carrying out a necessary element of any 
reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardizing the continued 
existence of the endangered least tern, pallid sturgeon, and the piping 
plover.'' This statement is false.
  Under section 103, alternatives can be studied and all alternatives 
can be implemented--with the exception of a spring rise.
  What is ironic is that spring flooding could hurt the wildlife more 
than it will protect them. And it will do so in a way that will 
increase the risks of downstream flooding and interferes 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 Service's proposed plan that 
may have the perverse effect of harming the targeted species rather 
than helping them.
  In his letter, he writes that, ``the higher reservoir levels [that 
would result from a spring rise] 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 the young still in the nests.
  Second, the administration claims that the Missouri Master Manual is 
outdated and, ``does not provide and appropriate balance among the 
competing interests, both commercial and recreational, of the many 
people who seek to use this great American river.'' This, also, is 
untrue.
  This administration's plan for ``controlled flood'' or spring rise 
places every citizen who lives or works downstream from the point of 
release in jeopardy by disturbing the balance at a time when downstream 
citizens are most vulnerable to flooding.
  Section 103 protects citizens of Missouri and other states from 
dangerous flooding while allowing for cost efficient transportation of 
grain and cargo.
  Section 103 is supported by bipartisan group representing farmers, 
manufacturers, labor unions, shippers, citizens and port authorities 
from 15 Midwest states.
  Also supporting Section 103 are major national organizations 
including the American Farm Bureau, American Waterways associations, 
National Grange, and the National Soybean Association.
  The strong support for Section 103 and against the spring rise 
undermines the administration's claim that the Master Manual must be 
immediately changed.
  In addition to the illusory argument that the spring rise is 
necessary to protect endangered species, some advocates of the spring 
rise claim that this plan is a return to more ``natural flow 
conditions'' and that the river should be returned to its condition at 
the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
  Not only is this unrealistic because the Midwest was barely habitable 
because of the erratic flooding conditions at that time, according to 
Dr. Engeln of the Missouri DNR, 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.
  Over 90 organizations representing farmers, shippers, cities, labor 
unions, and port authorities recently sent a letter to Congress saying: 
``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 dustbowls.''
  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 the Senate to support this conference report. I ask the 
President to rethink his threatened veto and side with the bipartisan 
consensus to protect the citizens living and working in the lower 
Missouri River Basin from the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan to flood 
the region.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to tell the Senate this is a 
good bill. I hope we will pass it.
  The Senate passed this bill 97-1. It went to conference. Obviously, 
there were some changes made in conference but clearly not significant 
enough to have somebody vote against this bill.
  When the call of the roll occurs, we are going to hear that a number 
of Senators on the other side of the aisle are going to vote against 
the bill. I hope

[[Page 20231]]

everybody understands that most of them have asked for things in this 
bill, and they have been granted things in this bill their States 
desperately need. I don't know how all that will work out, but they are 
being asked to vote against this because the President of the United 
States, after signing similar language regarding the Missouri River 
four different times, has suggested that this year, if it is in this 
bill, he will veto it.
  This bill has taken much work on the defense side; that is, for the 
nuclear deterrent, nuclear weapons activities of America, and those 
activities related to it that have to do with nonproliferation. We have 
done an excellent job in increasing some of the very important work of 
these National Laboratories and our nuclear defense deterrent, people, 
equipment, and facilities. Sooner or later many more Senators are going 
to have to recognize the significance of that part of this bill.
  The second part of it has to do with nondefense discretionary 
appropriations; that is, mostly water and water projects across this 
great land. Many of them are in here for Senators on the Democrat side 
of the aisle. We were pleased to work with them on that.
  I hope the bill will get sent to the President and we will be able to 
work something out with reference to the Missouri River. The President 
indicates now that he doesn't want that paragraph, that provision, so-
called section 103, in this bill. I am not going to argue as eloquently 
as Kit Bond, the Senator from Missouri, did with reference to why that 
provision should be in the bill. But I can say that a compelling 
majority of Senators agreed with him when we had a vote on it, and then 
agreed to vote on final passage which included that.
  To make sure everybody understands a little bit about where we have 
been and where we are going, I will not talk much about this chart, 
except I will ask that we take a quick look at the orange part of this 
chart. You see how big that keeps growing while people worry about this 
bill, and legitimately so. Senator McCain argues that perhaps there are 
some things in this bill that should not be in it. He may be right.
  Let me tell my colleagues, when you have to put something together 
for a whole House and a whole Senate, sometimes you have to do some 
things that maybe one Senator wouldn't want done.
  This orange shows what is happening to the American budget of late. 
This is the 2000 estimate, the orange part of the entitlements and 
interest we pay in our budget for the people. See how it continues to 
grow. The yellow is the Defense Department. If you will focus for a 
moment on this purple piece, that number, $319 billion out of a budget 
of $1.8 trillion, is the 11 appropriations bills that have not yet been 
passed.
  May I point it out again. This is the entitlements plus the interest. 
This is defense, which has been passed. And this, which you can see 
from this year to this year to this year, not very big changes compared 
to the other parts of the budget, this is what the 11 appropriations 
bills will amount to more or less, including this one.
  It means that one-sixth of the Federal budget is at issue when we 
discuss the 11 appropriations bills that remain. Two of them were 
defense, and they belong in this portion of the budget. But if you look 
out, as we try to project 2005 and beyond, to see what keeps growing 
even though we are paying down the national debt, the entitlement 
programs keep growing. And the difference in this part, the purple 
part, is rather insignificant in terms of growth.
  This bill is slightly over the President's budget in the nuclear 
deterrent, nuclear laboratory, nuclear weapons activities, and is 
slightly over the President on all of the water projects. I failed to 
mention the science projects that are in this bill, which are 
nondefense projects. They go on at all of the laboratories, and they 
are the cutting edge of real science across America--in this bill we 
are talking about. All of these, this and 11 others, belong in this 
small amount. Even for those who think it is growing too much, our 
projections beyond the year 2005 are that it still will be a very small 
portion of our Federal budget with a very large amount going to 
entitlements.
  I wish I had one more I could predict, the surpluses along here, 
because I don't believe you need to worry about having adequate 
surpluses to take care of priorities in the future, to take care of 
Medicare, prescription drugs, and Medicare reform. Nor do I think there 
will be a shortage of money, some of which we should give back to the 
American people before we spend it.
  My closing remarks have to do with what should we do with the great 
surplus the American people are giving us by way of taxes, which they 
have never paid so much of in the past. I look to the person who had 
most to do with our great thriving economy, Dr. Alan Greenspan. He 
mentions three things to us: First, you should put as much of it as you 
can on the national debt. The second thing is, you should give the 
people back some of it by way of taxes. That is the second best thing. 
He comments, ``If you are going to look at the big picture, the worst 
thing you can do with the surplus for the future of our children and 
grandchildren is to spend it on new programs.''
  So I suggest we all ought to be worried about the future. But today 
we ought to get an appropriation bill passed. I hope our people will 
understand that in spite of the plea from the minority leader that you 
vote against it because of the Missouri language, we can pass it today 
and see if in the next few days we can work something out with the 
President if he remains dedicated to vetoing this bill over the one 
issue of which the Senator from Montana spoke.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I very much admire the work and the 
effort the Senator from New Mexico has put into this bill, and I hope 
after the President vetoes this bill, and it is sustained, we can work 
out this one problem so we can get the bill passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final 
passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah, (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye

[[Page 20232]]


     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been working on a number of issues. 
I want to enter one, and then we will have another quorum call while we 
conclude some other agreements. The first has to do with the 
intelligence authorization bill. Obviously, this is very important 
legislation. It has been agreed to on both sides.

                          ____________________