or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2013

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Graves amendment.

The Missouri River, the Nation's longest, is an important economic tool for not only the state of Missouri but the Nation as a whole. The river is critical to the local water supply, is home to a diverse ecosystem, and also serves residential and recreational roles. Due to our dependence on the River, three million acres along the river have been distorted or changed, causing natural habitats to disappear. Reinvigorating the river and its wildlife will not only benefit those who live along the river, but those who depend on its resources as well.

I stand in strong support of the Missouri River Recovery Program, a program which serves to revitalize the Missouri River and allow native species populations to grow. Missouri needs this program to ensure that the future of the Missouri river ecosystem is one that is sustainable and affordable to maintain. This amendment does nothing to redirect funds for other means of flood control, but instead limits a program that is integral to the River's recovery. Without the funding this program needs, we risk programs that provide habitats and safety for federally listed endangered and threatened species. The maintenance and recovery of the Missouri River is vital to the millions of Americans impacted by the Missouri River basin. I urge my colleagues to consider the economic and environmental impact that a cut to funding for the Missouri River Recovery Program would have, and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.


Back to top