[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.

                          ____________________