[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7498-S7500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPROPRIATIONS
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.
[[Page S7499]]
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Missouri,
Office of the Governor,
Jefferson City, MO, July 24, 2000.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Kit: I am writing regarding recent developments
surrounding efforts to revise the Missouri River Master
Manual. I am especially concerned about proposed plans by the
Fish and Wildlife Service for a spring rise and request your
continued assistance in averting these plans.
The proper management of the Missouri River is critical to
the economic and environmental health of the state. As you
know, the July 12, 2000, letter from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior to the
Corps of Engineers outlined plans for a spring rise of 17,500
cubic feet per second. I have consistently opposed a spring
rise from Gavins Point Dam as detrimental to the state's
interests and would again like to state my opposition to the
current proposal. Implementation of a spring rise would
result in an increased risk of flooding and would have a
negative impact on Missouri farmland. The frequently-cited
experimental releases on the Colorado River in no way compare
to the situation in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri where
so many working farms and river communities would be harmed
by the spring rise.
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 support any efforts that would prevent the Corps from
initiating the recent proposal to initiate a spring rise.
Thank you for your continued support in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Mel Carnahan.
____
Proposed River Changes Will Further Endanger Species
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently considering
changes to the way that it operates the dams along the
Missouri River. These dams control the level of reservoirs
and the flow of water in the river from South Dakota to St.
Louis. The Corps has to take into account all the users of
the river and its water and balance the agricultural,
commercial, industrial, municipal and recreational needs of
those living near the river. As part of this review, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is examining the potential effect
on three endangered species that may result from the proposed
changes. The pallid sturgeon, least tern, and piping plover
depend on the river and the areas along its banks for their
survival.
There are three major problems with the operations plan
proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service that may actually
harm the species rather than help them recover. The plan
would increase the amount of water held behind the dams, thus
reducing the amount of river between the big reservoirs by
about 10 miles in an average year. The higher reservoir
levels would also reduce the habitat for the terns and
plovers that nest along the shorelines of the reservoirs.
Finally, 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 nest giving them access to
the young still in the nests. While the impacts on the pallid
sturgeon are more difficult to determine because we know less
about them, low flows during our hottest weather may pose a
significant threat.
Some advocates of the proposed plan claim that this plan is
a return to more natural flow conditions. However, 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. Balancing the needs of all the river users is
complicated. Predicting the loss of habitat and
[[Page S7500]]
its impact on the terns and plovers should not be subject to
disagreements.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers need
to examine the implications of this proposal and recognize
its failure to protect these species.
Dr. Joe Engeln,
Assistant Director for Science and Technology, Missouri
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 24, 2000.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: We are writing concerning an important
provision in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill.
Section 103 of H.R. 4733 stipulates that changes in the
management of the Missouri River cannot be made to allow for
alteration in river flows during springtime. Removing this
provision would not only affect farmers in Missouri,
Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas by potentially flooding their land,
but also affect barge traffic movements on the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. Without proper management of river flows
over the course of the year, transportation movements could
be hampered by insufficient water levels on the Missouri
River and the Mississippi River between Memphis, Tennessee
and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
If an amendment is offered to strike Section 103, we urge
you to vote against it. Removing this provision would have
significant impacts on productive agricultural lands as well
as the movement of agricultural commodities and input
supplies along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
Sincerely,
American Soybean Association, Agricultural Retailers
Association, Midwest Area River Coalition 2000 (MARC
2000), National Association of Wheat Growers, National
Corn Growers Association, National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, National Grain and Feed Association.
____
Missouri River Flow Management Resolution
sponsored by governor ronnie musgrove of mississippi & governor mel
carnahan of missouri, approved march 23, 2000
Whereas, the flow of commerce on the Mississippi River is
essential to the economic welfare of the nation; and
Whereas, the United States Department of Agriculture
reports that 70 percent of the nation's total grain exports
were handled through Mississippi River port elevators; and
Whereas, more than one half of the nation's total grain
exports move down the Mississippi River to Gulf ports; and
Whereas, free movement of water-borne commerce on the
Inland Waterway System is critical to the delivery of goods
to deep-water ports for international trade; and
Whereas, the reliability of adequate flows for navigation
is a key requirement for fulfillment of delivery contracts,
employment in ports and terminals, and energy efficiency; and
Whereas, delays and stoppages would threaten the successful
implementation of international trade agreements under NAFTA
and GATT; and
Whereas, the Missouri River contributes up to 65 percent of
the Mississippi River flow at St. Louis during low water
conditions; and
Whereas, reduction of Missouri River flows above St. Louis
would result in more frequent and more costly impediments to
the flow of commerce on the Mississippi River; and
Whereas, the reach of the Mississippi River between the
mouth of the Missouri River at St. Louis and the mouth of the
Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois is at higher risk for delays
and stoppages of navigation because of low-water conditions;
and
Whereas, the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) is considering several proposed
alterations to the current edition of the Master Water
Control Manual for the Missouri River that would reduce
support of water-borne commerce by restricting the flow of
the river during the summer and fall, low-water period at St.
Louis;
Then let it be resolved that the Southern Governors'
Association would strongly oppose any alterations that would
have such an effect and would urge the Corps to consult with
affected inland waterway states prior to endorsing any
proposal that would alter the current edition of the manual.
____________________