[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15985-15986]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something 
closer to home for me. Perhaps one of the most important things that 
has ever been known or understood in the economy of Missouri is the 
Missouri River. It is part of the lifeblood of our State. It transports 
commerce from one part of the State to another and from our State down 
through the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico and around the world.
  There are some troublesome issues regarding the flows in the Missouri 
River. They relate to the energy and water appropriations bill which 
includes specific measures relating to language in this year's bill 
that is identical to language found in previous bills.
  Under normal Senate procedure once a committee acts and reports out a 
bill, the bill comes to the floor, and if a Senator does not like a 
certain provision in the bill, then that Senator has the right to move 
to strike that position. That is a guaranteed right.
  However, it appears that one of the provisions, which is totally 
consistent with language that has been in previous bills regarding 
flows in the Missouri River system, is not to the liking of some 
individual Senators. In particular, the minority leader has indicated 
his opposition to Section 103. Senator Daschle has done what he could 
to prevent debate on this section, and has worked to make sure the bill 
does not come to the floor at all.
  That is a harsh and inappropriate way for us to act. If any Senator 
does not like a provision, then that Senator can move to strike the 
provision, and the Senate can vote on such a motion. Unfortunately, 
this election to stall; to interrupt the progress and business of the 
Senate; to say we do not want to allow a bill to come to the floor as 
it was reported by the committee and as it has come year after year is 
a way to interrupt the business of the Senate, is inappropriate.
  I was pleased that earlier this afternoon the majority leader filed a 
cloture motion on the energy and water appropriations measure, but it 
is unfortunate that he had to do so. I regret the majority leader had 
to take such action, but because the Democrats insisted on stalling the 
normal legislative process, such action was necessary.
  The Missouri River and the Mississippi River are the two most valued 
treasures of Missouri citizens. They are essential for not only 
transportation in our State but about 40 percent of all the people in 
our State get their drinking water out of those rivers. They are 
important for irrigation and for cost-efficient transportation.
  I have had the privilege through the decades of fighting to protect 
that resource, not only for human consumption but for transportation as 
well. As attorney general, I was involved in litigation that went all 
the way to the Supreme Court. I was pleased to be part of that, to be a 
moving factor in that litigation which protected our waterflows at that 
time in the river.
  I watched as the Missouri River, when it had inadequate flows, 
paralyzed a community. I remember years ago when I was Governor, an ice 
bridge developed. This was a natural impairment of the flow north of 
Missouri in the river and north of the city of St. Joseph. Instead of 
the water flowing down, the ice jam backed up the water.
  The river levels fell and a great city such as St. Joseph, MO, was 
without water. When I went to look at the water intake facility for St. 
Joseph, I noticed the water was a foot or two below the intake. We 
worked night and day to get a new pump and a new system of drawing 
water out of the river. Proper river flows are essential to the well-
being of our State.
  In the committee report of the energy and water appropriations bill, 
Section 103 prohibits the expenditure of resources to diminish the flow 
or to otherwise tamper with the flow of the river because the river 
flows are so essential to the well-being of our State. The Corps' plan 
for rewriting the way the river will be managed is known as the 
Missouri River Master Manual. It would send additional surges of water 
down in the spring, which would cause flooding, and withhold additional 
water in the fall, which would cause low levels in the river.
  If you make the level of the river low in the fall, the crop which 
has been grown can't be shipped as efficiently when there is inadequate 
river flow for transportation. Of course, you may not have a crop to 
ship if in the spring you

[[Page 15986]]

release so much water that you cause widespread flooding. This flooding 
potential concerns many of our communities. I have worked closely with 
the rest of the Missouri delegation in the Congress, the Missouri Farm 
Bureau, and the Mid-America Regional Council 2000. We uniformly oppose 
management of the river in a way that would cause flooding in the 
Spring, and then a restriction of the flow of the river in the fall 
which would make impossible the kind of transportation upon which our 
farm, agricultural, and other industries must rely.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently recommended to the 
Army Corps of Engineers a spring pulse or spring rise on the Missouri 
River. This recommendation is irresponsible and dangerous. The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service wants to do this because it is interested in 
improving environmental conditions for certain species of fish and 
birds. We all are concerned about fish and birds, the shorebirds, the 
piping plover, and the shark-like pallid sturgeon fish. But this 
protection should not come at the expense of the lives of thousands of 
people living downstream.
  Section 103 to H.R. 4733, forbids any funding in the bill from being 
used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual to allow 
for an increase in the springtime water release program during the 
spring heavy rainfall and snowmelt period in the States. This spring 
release, or spring rise, or spring pulse would be dangerous for all 
citizens living and working downstream from Gavins Point, located on 
the border of Nebraska and South Dakota.
  It normally takes about 12 days for water to travel from Gavins Point 
to St. Louis. During the spring, weather in the Midwest is especially 
unpredictable. It is usually said if you don't like the weather, just 
wait a bit. If it is that unpredictable, especially in the spring, it 
is very difficult to correctly predict the weather for a 12-day period. 
And if you are going to send a big pulse of water down the river and 
then, as you are in the process of doing so, there is a substantial 
rainstorm or series of storms that develop, the very purpose of 
restricting flooding and providing a basis for reasonable flow in the 
river is defeated. If you are already sending a charge of water down 
the river that is closer to the capacity of the river, any additional 
rain from nature would create widespread flooding in the downstream 
communities.
  The combination of a spring rise and a heavy rain during the 12-day 
period would increase greatly the chances for downstream flooding. The 
spring rise would come at a time of the year when downstream citizens 
are the most vulnerable to flooding. The Corps' plan provides less 
flood control and less navigability than the current plan, thus it 
should not be imposed.
  I oppose the Corps' plan for rewriting the Missouri River Master 
Manual, and I call on the Corps to adopt a plan that better suits a 
balance among water uses. If the President decides, after we have 
passed the bill with this same provision in it that we have had in it 
for the last several years, to veto it, it is his prerogative. But what 
that tells the citizens of the lower Missouri basin is that the 
Clinton-Gore administration is willing to flood downstream midwestern 
communities. It is that simple. Section 103 provides the necessary 
protection for all citizens downstream from the Gavins Point Dam who 
live and work along the banks of the Missouri River.
  In closing, each Senator is entitled to his or her opinion on any 
piece of legislation, but the Senator should understand that that 
opinion should be reflected in the legislative process with 
opportunities to strike. That opinion should not be expressed by 
keeping legislation reported by committees from coming to the floor. We 
simply want to debate section 103 and any motion with regard to this 
commonsense provision. We are willing to live by the will of the Senate 
in determining what should be the outcome. We believe the availability 
of this legislation should not be curtailed, especially since it 
includes identical language found in the last several years of this 
same energy and water appropriations. As a matter of fact, it is the 
will of the committee which has sent it to the floor.
  With that in mind, I look forward to working to protect the interests 
of Missouri citizens, to protect them against flooding in the spring 
and to protect the output and available water resources for a flow 
which will support navigation in the fall.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________