Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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 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.

Mr. BOND. Please; my colleague has the floor.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 134, submitted earlier today by Senators Hutchison and Gramm.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing entitled ``Slotting Fees: Are Family Farmers Battling to Stay on the Farm and in the Grocery Store?'' The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 2000, 1:00 p.m. 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will be broadcast live over the Internet from our homepage address: http://www.senate.gov/sbc For further information, please contact David Bohley at 224-5175. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. When the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., there will be 10 minutes remaining for closing remarks with respect to the motion to strike the Missouri River provision contained in the energy and water appropriations bill. Immediately following that vote, a vote will occur on the motion to proceed to the China PNTR legislation. Therefore, two back-to-back votes will occur at approximately 9:40 a.m. Following those two votes, the Senate will consider the China PNTR bill. It is hoped that agreements can be reached on various amendments to the bill and, therefore, votes can be expected to occur throughout the day. As a reminder, the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to the energy and water appropriations bill was 6:30 this evening. As a further reminder, the Senate will continue to consider the China trade bill and the energy and water appropriations bill on a dual track for the remainder of the week, with votes expected throughout each day.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our colleague from Illinois and others have talked about the things we have not passed and that they would like to see passed in this session. But we have a big problem. We have a problem because the absolutely essential work that this body must do is being held up. The work on appropriations bills that fund the agencies of Government for the next year must be done before the end of the fiscal year--September 30. Many of the things my colleague has talked about have already been passed and are in conference. But we can't get floor time to do it when we are dealing with filibusters. The Democratic plan has been to stall, delay, and block. We will have an opportunity to vote on cloture on the Treasury-Postal bill. That means cutting off a filibuster. But that goes through the lengthy process of the 30 hours that are required for debate. We are also ready to take up the energy and water appropriations bill. But the minority leader has raised objection to that. Energy and water carries many important things. It carries funding for projects that are vitally important to South Dakota--to river States such as Missouri, to the Nation, the national laboratories in New Mexico, and others. All of these vital appropriations are being held up because the minority leader is now objecting to a provision that was included in the bill this year but has been included in four previous bills Congress has sent to the President and which have been signed by the President. The state of affairs is, we are ready for a time agreement. If there are objections to particular items in a bill, we have a process called amendments. You can move to strike; you can move to amend. We are ready to do business. Let there be no mistake. Let the American people understand. We are watching a series of Democratic stall, moves--delay, stall, and block. Sometimes we call them a filibuster. But filibusters don't need to be people talking on the floor. It can be refusal to allow a bill to come up. It can be filibustered by amendments. Basically, it is the Democratic side that is trying to keep the Senate from doing its work. We have lots of important votes. They may win; we may win some. The Senate has its rules. It permits debate and amendment. We are willing to do so and debate a commonsense provision that happens to be in this bill to see what the will of the Senate is. The provision in the bill as reported out of committee that has existed in four previous appropriations bills, previously signed by the President, is designed to prevent changes to Missouri River management which would increase the risk of spring flooding and bring many dire consequences. I intend to lay out some of the problems and a number of leaders in this country who oppose it. The provision is very simple. It is also very important. The provision is designed to stop flooding. Out West we hear the Fish and Wildlife Service is now proposing to tear down dams. Here the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to take action on flow management to pretend that dams don't exist. They have gone out of their way to try to dictate the work of the Corps of Engineers. There are all kinds of procedures--there are public hearings, there are assessments, there are impact statements, and many other things--required before an agency can take action. The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to jump over all that and say: Corps of Engineers, you do our bidding. They sent a letter on July 12 which said: You must establish a plan to increase spring flooding on the Missouri River and to cut off the possibility of effective barge transportation, environmentally sound barge transportation in the summer and the fall, affecting not only the Missouri River but the Mississippi River as well. The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to do to the communities, to the States along the Missouri River, what the National Park Service did to the community of Los Alamos when it tried a control burn. We don't need a controlled flood that the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed. While we have a lot to debate with our friends in the upper basin about the way the river is managed, I never expected they would ever support an action simply designed to increase downstream flooding. As far as I know in the debates--and they have been vigorous debates in the past--that was never their intent. I don't know what the intent now is of the minority leader. We have fought vigorously and honestly with our friends in the upper river States about their desire to keep fall water for their recreation industry. We want to work out ways to help them. We need that late year water to ensure we keep river transportation so our farmers have an economical and environmentally sound way of getting their products to the market. We also need flood control. We have never had them complain about flood control. Dams were built in the middle of the last century, principally to prevent flooding on the lower Mississippi and lower Missouri Rivers. Mr. President, 85 percent of the population in the Missouri River basin lives in the lower basin below Gavin's Point. That doesn't include the lower Mississippi River which gets that water from the Missouri. As with the dams out West, the Fish and Wildlife Service has a theory that we should travel back in time and have rivers that ``mimic the natural flow of the river.'' Dams were built to stop the natural flow because the natural flow was flooding many hundreds and thousands of acres. It was killing people and damaging billions of dollars of property. One third of our State's food production is in the floodplain of the Missouri River and the Mississippi River. In 1994, the Corps of Engineers proposed to change the river and have a spring rise. On a bipartisan basis, we communicated our opposition to the President. Twenty-eight Senators representing States along the Missouri and Mississippi and Ohio Rivers signed this letter to the President. The Corps went back to the drawing board and began fresh to develop a consensus plan. Between then and early this year, a consensus among the States--with the exception of Missouri--was developed that included conservation measures but had no spring rise. The Fish and Wildlife Service, at the table with the States for years, came to Washington, and the next thing we know they are insisting on a spring rise, the will of the States, the comments of the people, the overwhelming objection of State and local officials notwithstanding. The Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't want public comments. They heard them. They know what the comments are. Don't flood us out. The Fish and Wildlife Service has no mandate to protect people from the dangers of flooding. I invite them out the next time we have a spring flood in Missouri to see the devastation, to comfort and console the families who have lost loved ones in floodwaters. We lost some this year in floods in Missouri. The public has gone on record strongly opposing this spring rise. In 1994, the public opposed it, from Nebraska to St. Louis to New Orleans to Memphis and beyond. To prevent the risk of downstream flooding in 1995, Congressman Bereuter from Nebraska put a provision in the energy and water appropriations bill to block any change in river management that included a spring rise. The same provision was included again in 1996, 1998, 1999, and again by the Senate subcommittee. As I repeat, this provision has been adopted by voice vote in the House and has been included in four previous conference reports, signed by the President four times before. Let me note two additional realities. According to our State Department of Natural Resources, not only is this plan experimental, but it could injure species. I quote from the assistant director for science and technology who said the plan calls for a significant drop in flow during the summer. This will allow predators to reach the islands upon which the terns and plovers--the endangered species--nest, giving them access to the young still in the nest. While the impacts on the pallid sturgeon are more difficult to determine because we know less about them, low flows during the hottest weather may pose a significant threat. In other words, there is a real danger to the environment and to the endangered species. The U.S. Geological Survey is studying what can be done to encourage and protect the habitat for the pallid sturgeon. I visited them. They do not know--and they are the ones who have the most expertise; they have been studying--they do not know yet that anything like a spring rise would have any impact on the pallid sturgeon. They say the jury is still out. I can explain that better. They don't know if this would protect the pallid sturgeon. We do know that the spring rise will increase flood risk. It is totally experimental in terms of improving habitat. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources had a very good argument that it may make it more dangerous for the endangered species. Finally, this proposal by the Fish and Wildlife Service ignores the hard and fast and undisputed reality that on the lower Missouri we already have a spring rise, courtesy of the Kansas River, the Osage River, the Platte River, the Blue River, the Grand River, the Tarkio River, the Gasconade River, and others. Each flows into the Missouri, and when it rains, the Missouri lifts from the tributaries into its basins. We already have a spring rise. It floods Missouri regularly. We don't need another source of flooding to carry out some experiment that the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to conduct at the peril of our citizens. We cannot stand the Fish and Wildlife Service sending an additional ``pulse'' of water downstream that will put it above our heads. When they release water at the last dam in Nebraska, it takes 12 days to arrive in St. Louis. In those 12 days, we can experience thunderstorms and flash floods in the spring, and there is no way to get that water back once it is sent down the river. Unless the Fish and Wildlife Service can predict 12 days of weather, or 14 days of weather for Cape Girardeau, then they are betting on the safety of the hundreds of people whose lives may be put at danger if they put out a spring release as proposed. As I said, I have worked with them and others. I worked with our upstate upper-river people. I have worked with Senator Kerrey, Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, and others to fund conservation efforts that do not imperil our citizens. These are the ones on which we ought to be focusing, these are the ones that would be tested, these are the ones that do not flood us. This is not a partisan issue. It is a philosophical issue and it is a regional issue. Our Governor is a strong Democrat. He has sent me a letter, which I will ask be printed in the Record, which outlines very strongly his opposition. Governor Carnahan wrote: An analysis of the flooding that occurred along the Missouri River during the spring of 1995 showed that, had the spring rise proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service been in effect, the level of flooding downstream would have been even greater. The Corps could not have recalled water already released hundreds of miles upstream. If the current plan is implemented and the state incurs heavy rains during the spring rise, there is a real risk that farms and communities along the lower Missouri River will suffer extensive flooding. In addition, a spring rise has a detrimental effect on Missouri agricultural land. Sustaining high river flow rates over several consecutive weeks will exacerbate the problem of poor drainage historically experienced by farmers along the river. The prolonged duration of an elevated water table will limit the productivity and accessibility of floodplain croplands. The combination of an increased risk of flooding and damage to some of the state's most productive farmland poses too much of a risk for the economy and the citizens of Missouri. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Governor and the statement by the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our Department of Natural Resources representatives are as green and pro-environment as any group around. They believe it is a bad idea. Farm groups oppose it. The ports and river transportation and flood control people oppose the spring rise. The Southern Governors' Association opposes the spring rise. There should be an important conservation element in any balanced plan, but balance is not in the Fish and Wildlife Service mandate nor in its plan. They want to manage a river solely for critters. We need to have it managed for people. We cannot have the next flood laid at the doorstep of the Congress that is now considering whether to experiment with the lives and property of millions of people who live along the river. Some say the President may veto the bill, but he signed it four times before. If he were to do that, he could answer to the people from Omaha to Kansas City to Jefferson City to St. Louis to Cape Girardeau to Memphis down the delta to New Orleans. I urge my colleagues to move forward on this bill. We can debate this provision, but I believe it is important for safety. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for this position from the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Agricultural Retailers Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Grain and Feed Association, the Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association. I also ask a resolution from the Southern Governors' Association printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am delighted the acting minority leader has brought up the energy and water measure because I have just received some very disturbing news, that the minority leader has indicated we can't bring up the energy and water bill unless a provision that was in the bill signed last year, that was in the bill signed the year before, that was in the bill signed the year before that and the year before that--he now finds it objectionable, and he will not let this bill be brought up unless we strike it out. This provision deals with the spring rise on the Missouri River that Fish and Wildlife thinks is a good idea. But all of the people downstream know it would cause flooding, hardship, damage, property loss, and loss of lives from floods. This is a serious matter. It also threatens commerce and transportation, not just on the Missouri River but on the Mississippi River, because in dry years, 65 percent of the flow of the Mississippi at St. Louis comes from the Missouri River. If they have a spring rise, there isn't water to maintain river transportation during the summer and the fall. I had understood, from the minority leader's staff, that he wanted a time agreement so he could move to strike it. I think this matter needs to be aired. We are willing to enter into a time agreement, so on Monday or Tuesday--whenever he wants--we can talk about the reason that this was included in the bill last year, the year before, the year before, and the year before that, because it is of vital importance to our State and to other States on both the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers. We have a way of doing business around here and that is, the committee acts and they report out a bill; the bill comes to the floor. If somebody does not like a provision in the bill, they have a right to move to strike it. That right is totally protected. We are trying to get appropriations bills passed. Frankly, I do not want to be held hostage by an idea that the minority leader has, that all of a sudden we can't put a provision in this year's bill that was in last year's bill and the bill the year before that. I call on the minority leader to follow through with the commitment to have a time agreement. If he wants to move to strike it, fine. We have a lot of good reasons, and we want to let our colleagues know why that provision needs to be kept. I do not want to be held hostage by the minority leader saying, we are going to stop the appropriations process unless you take it out of the bill--a measure that is vitally important to the State of Missouri, to the States of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I am ready to talk about and argue against the minority leader's motion to strike. But to say that we can't even bring up the bill with that provision in it is, I think, inappropriate, unwise, and unprecedented. So I am here. I will be back here on Monday or Tuesday to do business. I just ask that the minority leader let us bring up the bill. This is an unbelievable effort to hold a bill hostage because of a particular interest he may have in that bill. He can deal with it by an amendment to strike, a motion to strike--whatever he wants. But let us bring the bill up because there is too much that is important in it to have it be held hostage by an effort to say what can be in the bill, approved by the committee, where somebody does not like something in the bill. There is a remedy: A motion to strike or a motion to amend. We will be here to do business Monday, Tuesday--whenever the minority leader wants. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Nevada, if we pass a bill out of committee, what is the precedent for saying, oh, we have to change it before you even bring the bill to the floor, the measure that is reported out of the committee? We have a process around here. There are many things that come out of committees that we disagree with. We have the option to change it on the floor. We need to move forward. Energy and water is vitally important. I appreciate the excellent work my colleague from Nevada does on this and other measures. But why, for Heaven's sake, are we supposed to hold an entire bill hostage because a single Senator wants to strike something out of a measure that has been adopted at the subcommittee and full committee level? I just do not understand why we can't do this in the normal course of business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 2392) was introduced on June 30, 1999, and referred to the House Committees on Small Business and Science. Both Committees held hearings and the House Committee on Small Business reported H.R. 2392 on September 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-329). In the interest of moving the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives promptly, the Committee on Science agreed not to exercise its right to report the legislation, provided that the House Committee on Small Business agreed to add the selected portions of the Science Committee version of the legislation, as Sections 8 through 11 of the House floor text of H.R. 2392. H.R. 2392 passed the House without further amendment on September 27. The Science Committee provisions were explained in floor statements by Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Morella, and Mark Udall. On March 21, 2000, the Senate Committee marked up H.R. 2392 and on May 10, 2000, reported the bill (S. Rept. 106-289). The Senate Committee struck several of the sections originating from the House Committee on Science and added sections not in the House-passed legislation, including a requirement that Federal agencies with Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs report their methodology for calculating their SBIR budgets to the Small Business Administration (SBA) and a program to assist states in the development of small high- technology businesses. Negotiations then began among the leadership of the Senate and House Committees on Small Business and the House Committee on Science (hereinafter referred to as the three committees). The resultant compromise text contains all major House and Senate provisions, some of which have been amended to reflect a compromise position. A section-by-section explanation of the revised text follows. For purposes of this statement, the bill passed by the House of Representatives is referred to as the ``House version'' and the bill reported by the Senate Committee on Small Business is referred to as the ``Senate version.'' Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. The compromise text uses the Senate short title: ``Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000.'' The table of contents lists the sections in the compromise text. Section 2. Findings. The House and Senate versions of the findings are very similar. The compromise text uses the House version of the findings. Section 3. Extension of the SBIR Program. The House version extends the SBIR program for seven years through September 30, 2007. The Senate version extends the program for ten years through September 30, 2010. The compromise text extends the program for eight years through September 30, 2008. Section 4. Annual Report. The House version provides for the annual report on the SBIR program prepared by the SBA to be sent to the Committee on Science, as well as to the House and Senate Committees on Small Business that currently receive it. The Senate version did not include this section. The compromise text adopts the House language. Section 5. Third Phase Activities. The compromise text of this technical amendment is identical to both the House and Senate versions. Section 6. Policy Directive Modifications. The House version includes policy directive modifications in Section 9 and the requirement of a second phase commercial plan in Section 10. The Senate version includes policy directive modifications in Section 6. The Senate version and now the compromise text require the Administrator to make modifications to SBA's policy directives 120 days after the date of enactment rather than the 30 days contained in the House version. The compromise text drops the House policy directive dealing with awards exceeding statutory dollar amounts and time limits because this flexibility is already being provided administratively. Addressed below is a description of the policy directive modifications contained in the compromise text that were not included in both the Senate version and the House version. Section 10 of the House version requires the SBA to modify its policy directives to require that small businesses provide a commercial plan with each application for a second- phase award. The Senate version does not contain a similar provision. The compromise text requires the SBA to modify its policy directives to require that a small businesses provide a ``succinct commercialization plan for each second phase award moving towards commercialization.'' The three committees acknowledge that commercialization is a current element of the SBIR program. The statutory definition of SBIR, which is not amended by H.R. 2392, includes ``a second phase, to further develop proposals which meet particular program needs, in which awards shall be made based on the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the proposals, as evidenced by the first phase, considering among other things the proposal's commercial potential'', and lists evidence of commercial potential as the small business's commercialization record, private sector funding commitments, SBIR Phase III commitments, and the presence of other indicators of the commercial potential. The three committees do not intend that the addition of a commercialization plan either increase or decrease the emphasis an agency places on the commercialization when reviewing second-phase proposals. Rather, the commercialization plan will give SBIR agencies a means of determining the seriousness with which individual applicants approach commercialization. The commercialization plan, while concise, should show that the business has thought through both the steps it must take to prepare for the fruits of the SBIR award to enter the commercial marketplace or government procurement and the steps to build business expertise as needed during the SBIR second phase time period. The three committees intend that agencies take into consideration the stage of development of the product or process in deciding whether an appropriate commercialization plan has been submitted. In those instances when at the time of the SBIR Phase II proposal, the grantee cannot identify either a product or process with the potential eventually to enter either the commercial or the government marketplace, no commercialization plan is required. The compromise text also adds new provisions that were not contained in either the Senate version or the House version. Current law (Section 9(j)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act) requires that the Administrator put in place procedures to ensure, to the extent practicable, that an agency which intends to pursue research, development or production of a technology developed by a small business concern under an SBIR program enter into follow-on, non-SBIR funding agreements with the small business concern for such research, development, or production. The three committees are concerned that agencies sometimes provide these follow-on activities to large companies who are in incumbent positions or through contract bundling without written justification or without the statutorily required documentation of the impracticability of using the small business for the work. So that the SBA and the Congress can track the extent of this problem, the compromise text requires agencies to record and report each such occurrence and to describe in writing why it is impractical to provide the research project to the original SBIR company. Additionally, the compromise text directs the SBA to develop policy directives to implement the new subsection (v), Simplified Reporting Requirements. This subsection requires that the directives regarding collection of data be designed to minimize the burden on small businesses; to permit the updating the database by electronic means; and to use standardized procedures for the collection and reporting of data. Section 103(a)(2) of P.L. 102-564, which reauthorized the SBIR program in 1992, added language to the description of a third phase award which made it clear that the third phase is intended to be a logical conclusion of research projects selected through competitive procedures in phases one and two. The Report of the House Committee on Small Business (H. Rept. 102-554, Pt. I) provides that the purpose of that clarification was to indicate the Committee's intent that an agency which wishes to fund an SBIR project in phase three (with non-SBIR monies) or enter into a follow-on procurement contract with an SBIR company, need not conduct another competition in order to satisfy the Federal Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). Rather, by phase three the project has survived two competitions and thus has already satisfied the requirements of CICA, set forth in section 2302(2)(E) of that Act, as they apply to the SBIR program. As there has been confusion among SBIR agencies regarding the intent of this change, the three committees reemphasize the intent initially set forth in H. Rept. 102-554, Pt. 1, including the clarification that follow-on phase three procurement contracts with an SBIR company may include procurement of products, services, research, or any combination intended for use by the Federal government. Section 7. Report on Programs for Annual Performance Plan. This section requires each agency that participates in the SBIR program to submit to Congress a performance plan consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. The House and Senate versions have the same intent. The compromise text uses the House version. Section 8. Output and Outcome Data. Both the House and Senate versions contain sections enabling the collection and maintenance of information from awardees as is necessary to assess the SBIR program. Both the Senate and House versions require the SBA to maintain a public database at SBA containing information on awardees from all SBIR agencies. The Senate version adds paragraphs to the public database section dealing with database identification of businesses or subsidiaries established for the commercial application of SBIR products or services and the inclusion of information regarding mentors and mentoring networks. The House version further requires the SBA to establish and maintain a government database, which is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and is to be used solely for program evaluation. Outside individuals must sign a non-disclosure agreement before gaining access to the database. The compromise text contains each of these provisions, with certain modifications and clarifications, which are addressed below. With respect to the public database, the compromise text makes clear that proprietary information, so identified by a small business concern, will not be included in the public database. With respect to the government database, the compromise text clarifies that the inclusion of information in the government database is not to be considered publication for purposes of patent law. The compromise text further permits the SBA to include in the government database any information received in connection with an SBIR award the SBA Administrator, in conjunction with the SBIR agency program managers, consider to be relevant and appropriate or that the Federal agency considers to be useful to SBIR program evaluation. With respect to small business reporting for the government database, the compromise text directs that when a small business applies for a second phase award it is required to update information in the government database. If an applicant for a second phase award receives the award, it shall update information in the database concerning the award at the termination of the award period and will be requested to voluntarily update the information annually for an additional period of five years. This reporting procedure is similar to current Department of defense requirements for the reporting of such information. When sales or additional investment information is related to more than one second phase award is involved, the compromise text permits a small business to apportion the information among the awards in any way it chooses, provided the apportionment is noted on all awards so apportioned. The three committees understand that receiving complete commercialization data on the SBIR program is difficult, regardless of any reasonable time frame that could be established for the reporting of such data. Commercialization may occur many years following the receipt of a research grant and research from an award, while not directly resulting in a marketable product, may set the groundwork for additional research that leads to such a product. Nevertheless, the three committees believe that the government database will provide useful information for program evaluation. Section 9. National Research Council Reports. The House version requires the four largest SBIR program agencies to enter into an agreement with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a comprehensive study of how the SBIR program has stimulated technological innovation and used small businesses to meet Federal research and development needs and to make recommendations on potential improvements to the program. The Senate version contains no similar provision. The study was designed to answer questions remaining from the House Committees' reviews of these programs and to make sure that a current evaluation of the program is available when the program next comes up for reauthorization. The compromise text makes several changes to the House text. The compromise text adds the National Science Foundation to the agencies entering the agreement with the NRC and requires the agencies to consult with the SBA in entering such agreement. It also expands on the House version, which requires a review of the quality of SBIR research, to require a comparison of the value of projects conducted under SBIR with those funded by other Federal research and development expenditures. The compromise text further broadens the House versions' review of the economic rate of return of the SBIR program to require an evaluation of the economic benefits of the SBIR program, including economic rate of return, and a comparison of the economic benefits of the SBIR program with that of other Federal research and development expenditures. The compromise text allows the NRC to choose an appropriate time-frame for such analysis that results in a fair comparison. The three committees believe that a comprehensive report on the SBIR program and its relation to other Federal research expenditures will be useful in program oversight and will provide Congress with an understanding of the effects of extramural Federal research and development funding provided to large and small businesses and universities. The three committees understand, however, that measuring the direct benefits to the nation's economy from the SBIR program and other Federal research expenditures may be difficult to calculate and may not provide a complete portrayal of the benefits achieved by the SBIR program. Accordingly, the legislation requires the NRC also to review the non-economic benefits of the SBIR program, which may include, among other matters, the increase in scientific knowledge that has resulted from the program. The paragraph in the compromise text calling for recommendations remains the same as the House version, except that the bill now asks the NRC to make recommendations, should there be any. While the study is to be carried out within National Research Council study guidelines and procedures, the compromise text requires the NRC to take the steps necessary to ensure that individuals from the small business community with expertise in the SBIR program are well represented in the panel established for performing the study and among the peer reviewers of the study. The NRC is to consult with the consider the views of the SBA's Office of Technology and the SBA's Office of Advocacy and to conduct the study in an open manner that makes sure that the views and experiences of small business involved in the program are carefully considered in the design and execution of the study. Extension of the SBIR program for eight years rather than the five being contemplated when the House study provision was initially written has necessitated some adjustments in the study. The report is now required three years rather than four years after the date of enactment of the Act and the NRC is to update the report within six years of enactment. The update is intended to bring current, any information from the study relevant to the reauthorization of the SBIR program. It is not intended to be a second full-fledged study. In addition, semiannual progress reports by NRC to the three committees are required. Section 10. Federal Agency Expenditures for the SBIR Program. The Senate version requires each Federal agency with an SBIR program to provide the SBA with report describing its methodology for calculating its extramural budget for purposes of SBIR program set-aside and requires the Administrator of the SBA to include an analysis of the methodology from each agency in its annual report to the Congress. The House version has no similar provision. The compromise text follows the Senate text except that it specifies that each agency, rather than the agency's comptroller, shall submit the agency's report to the Administrator. The three committees intend that each agency's methodology include an itemization of each research program that is excluded from the calculation of its extramural budget for SBIR purposes as well as a brief explanation of why the agency feels each excluded program meets a particular exemption. Section 11. Federal and State Technology Partnership Program. This section establishes the FAST program from the Senate version, which is a competitive matching grant program to encourage states to assist in the development of high- technology businesses. The House version does not contain a similar provision. The most significant changes from the Senate version in the compromise text are an extension of the maximum duration of awards from three years to five and the lowering of the matching requirement for funds assisting businesses in low income areas to 50 cents per federal dollar, as advocated by Ranking Member Velazquez of the House Small Business Committee. The compromise text combines the definitions found in the Senate version of this section and the mentoring networks section. Section 12. Mentoring Networks. The Senate version sets forth criteria for mentoring networks that organizations are encouraged to establish with matching funds from the FAST program and creates a database of small businesses willing to act as mentors. The compromise text, except for relocating the program definitions to Section 11, is the same as the Senate text. The House version did not contain a similar provision. Section 13. Simplified Reporting Requirements. This section is not in either the House or the Senate versions. It requires the SBA Administrator to work with SBIR program agencies on standardizing SBIR reporting requirements with the ultimate goal of making the SBA's SBIR database more user friendly. This provision requires the SBA to consider the needs of each agency when establishing and maintaining the database. Additionally, it requires the SBA to take measures to reduce the administrative burden on SBIR program participants whenever possible including, for example, permitting updating by electronic means. Section 14. Rural Outreach Program Extension. This provision, which was not in either the House or the Senate versions, extends the life and authorization for appropriations for the Rural Outreach Program of the Small Business Administration for four additional years through fiscal year 2005. It is the intent of the three committees that this program be evaluated on the same schedule and in the same manner as the FAST program. Among other things, the evaluation should examine the extent to which the programs complement or duplicate each other. The evaluation should also include recommendations for improvements to the program, if any.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the bill before us reauthorizes and improves upon one of the most successful small business programs we have in the Federal government--the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The Small Business Committee has spent close to nine months deliberating and negotiating this important bill. My colleagues on the Committee, and in particular, Senators Kerry, Burns, Levin, Snowe and Enzi, have all been very cooperative and provided valuable assistance in preparing this important piece of legislation. The product that has resulted from the Committee's consideration is a bi-partisan bill that should provide small businesses with confidence in the Congress' strong support for this program. Mr. President, this Managers' Amendment is the result of negotiations conducted among my Committee and the Small Business and Science Committees of the House of Representatives. The SBIR reauthorization bill that originally passed the House contained certain provisions that were not included in the bill reported by the Senate Committee on Small Business. These provisions had been interpreted by many in the small business community to place requirements on small businesses receiving Federal research and development funds that are not placed on other businesses or on universities that are also recipients of such dollars. My Committee negotiated with the representatives of the House Science Committee, which drafted these provisions, to come up with language that would provide information to Congress that is necessary for its oversight of this program, while ensuring that small businesses are not subject to government mandates that would affect their ability to perform high-quality research and development for the Federal government. The House Science Committee has been very cooperative to ensure that their provisions did not cause these unintended consequences. This bill, with the Managers' amendment will ensure that this program, which has been proven successful over a long period of time, can continue to be so. Seventeen years ago, President Reagan signed into law the Small Business Innovation Development Act, which required Federal agencies with extramural research and development budgets of $100 million or more to set aside not less than 2/10th of one percent of that amount for the first SBIR program. In 1992, the program was reauthorized and Congress dictated that the program grow to 2.5 percent of the extramural research and development budgets. Thousands of small firms have received research grants under the programs since 1982, and more than $1 billion was awarded to small businesses in Fiscal Year 1998 alone. The original drafters of the SBIR program acknowledged that small businesses are the primary source of our nation's innovations. Accordingly, the SBIR program was created to stimulate technological development by leveraging the capabilities of these small firms. The goals of the program are threefold. First, the program assists the government with its research and development needs. Second, the program provides a catalyst to groundbreaking research and development. Third, the program strengthens our economy by promoting the commercialization of technologies developed through Federal research. The commercialization of these technologies by small firms increases the competitiveness of our country in the world economy and expands employment opportunities. A good example of the benefits that the SBIR program provides to small businesses is the experience of Cutting Edge Optronics, a 49 employee firm in St. Charles, Missouri. Cutting Edge Optronics has received several phase one and phase two SBIR awards with NASA and the Air Force to develop high-output lasers with both military and commercial applications. The SBIR program has made the difference between Cutting Edge Optronics growing its business and merely staying in business. The SBIR program has allowed Cutting Edge to engage in state-of-the-art research in a very competitive climate, which it otherwise would not have been able to do. Moreover, if the Air Force research develops successfully, Cutting Edge Optronics expects that the commercial applications of the technology will spur astronomical growth of the company. Mr. President, small businesses are the greatest job creators in our economy. During the last seven years of economic growth, small businesses have accounted for the vast majority of all the net new jobs created. It is only rational that the Federal government distribute its research funds in a way that will contribute to this job growth by creating incentives to the private sector to market the technologies developed. As the example of Cutting Edge Optronics demonstrates, the SBIR program does just that. There is abundant evidence that the SBIR program has been a success both in assisting the government with its research and development needs and in turning that research into new products and services. Numerous studies have been conducted over the last several years that bear this out. A 1989 General Accounting Office (GAO) study reported that scientists and engineers at Federal agencies indicated that the overall quality of the research performed under SBIR awards equaled, and in some cases, exceeded the quality of other agency research they monitored. As the program has grown in recent years, it does not appear this conclusion has changed. A 1995 GAO study concluded that the quality of SBIR research proposals has kept pace with the program's expansion. Morever, the small businesses that have received SBIR awards, have had significant success in commercializing technology. This is especially important considering that these firms are engaging in cutting-edge research that will not always have a commercial application. A 1997 internal Department of Defense study found that the average phase-two SBIR award of $400,000 generated $760,000 in sales and attracted approximately $600,000 in additional non-SBIR funding. Additionally, the GAO has reported that the commercialization rate on SBIR projects is close to 40 percent. There is no question that this program's record of success easily justifies a long reauthorization. While there is general agreement that the SBIR program is successful, there have also been some concerns that this legislation is intended to resolve. First, the GAO released a report in June 1998, indicating that different agencies are using different interpretations of the term ``extramural budget.'' The use of different interpretations may lead to inaccurate calculations of the amount of funds that should be allocated to each agency's SBIR program. To remedy this situation, the bill requires each SBIR program agency to provide the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Congress with a description of its methodology for calculating the amount of the extramural budget for that agency. It is our hope that by closely analyzing how the agencies are calculating their extramural budgets, we can be assured that each agency will adopt a uniform definition of extramural budget that is consistent with the statutory language and Congress' intent. Second, the Committee on Small Business, which I chair, has received from the GAO disturbing information regarding the SBA's collection and maintenance of data on the SBIR program. Specifically, my Committee learned that the GAO, in preparing its two most recent reports on the SBIR program, spent substantial resources correcting and updating information in the SBA's SBIR database. When the Federal government is providing funds to third parties, whether in the private sector or to a state or local government entity, the most basic rule of program oversight is to monitor who has received those funds and what they have done with the funds. Accordingly, this legislation establishes a statutory duty on the SBIR program agencies to provide the SBA with data on each SBIR award winner in a timely manner. Moreover, it requires the SBA to maintain a comprehensive and public database of the small firms that receive SBIR awards and the activities supported by SBIR funds. Finally, the GAO recently issued a report raising questions about the geographic concentration of SBIR awards. From fiscal year 1993 through 1996, companies in one-third of the states received 85 percent of the SBIR awards. Companies on the east and west coast received a vast majority of these awards, while companies in the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain states generally received very few awards. For example, the GAO reported that in fiscal year 1997, companies in Massachusetts and California received 202 and 326 phase-two awards, respectively, out of approximately 1,400 awards nationally. Thus, they received almost 38 percent of the awards. Mr. President, if the SBIR program is going to continue to be successful, it is incumbent on us to do more to reach out and provide opportunities to firms in the South, the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states that can provide high-quality research and development and provide them with the information and assistance they need so that they may seize the opportunity to participate in the SBIR program. The SBIR program was never intended to serve a limited group of small businesses, and we must do all we can to increase the participation of as many small businesses as possible. Therefore, this legislation establishes a comprehensive program to assist states in the development of high-technology businesses that could participate in the SBIR program. Specifically, the bill creates a matching-grant program for organizations at the state or local level attempting to enhance or develop technology research and development by small business concerns. This legislation acknowledges that states that do not aggressively support the development of high-technology firms are at a competitive disadvantage in establishing a business climate conducive to technology development. More importantly, however, building stronger support for high-technology firms will expand economic opportunities for our country generally and will increase our competitiveness in the world market. The Small Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000 is a necessary step to ensure that the Federal Government continues to utilize the vast capabilities of high-technology small businesses to meet its research and development goals. Moreover, it ensures that these research funds are leveraged to strengthen our Nation's economy and its position as the lead innovator in the world. The bill in front of us, with the Managers' amendment, is a reasonable compromise that will provide an effective structure for this program for the next eight years. Given the hard work that has gone into this compromise legislation, I trust that the House will act quickly on this bill, so that small businesses involved in the SBIR program will have confidence that the program will continue without interruption. A bi-partisan statement has been drafted by the Senate Committee on Small Business and the Committees on Science and Small Business of the House of Representatives to explain provisions in the Managers' amendment that are not addressed in either the Senate or House Committee reports on H.R. 2392. I ask unanimous consent that, immediately following my remarks, this Explanatory Statement of H.R. 2392 be included in the Record. Thank you Mr. President and I ask for immediate consideration of the bill and its approval.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are great efforts in the EPA to protect children. They have special protections for infants and children. These products are important for sterilization of medical instruments, pest control, and other uses that are potentially beneficial to children. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lincoln, Kerrey of Nebraska, and Roberts be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. BOND. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the underlying amendment circumvents the science-based process at EPA which includes explicit and stringent protections for children. Additionally, it places children at risk by prohibiting EPA-approved products that protect our children from diseases such as asthma, encephalitis, malaria, Lyme disease, brown recluse spiders, and others. EPA does not support this amendment, and the amendment is based on the shockingly false premise that EPA does not care enough about children to protect them as mandated by law.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.