Port Security Improvements Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois on the splendid work that he has done since becoming the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. He has devoted himself heart and soul and invested countless hours in the shaping of this legislation, and I really appreciate the splendid professional service he has rendered to the Nation and to the Congress.

And to the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), no more judicious, thoughtful Member serves in this body. His contribution is always one of openness, inclusiveness, and willingness to listen and work to reach the compromises necessary for the legislative process to work.

And to our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, again, as he has said, we have spent a great deal of time together working out the complexities of this measure. Were it up to us alone, we would have had this bill on the floor in the last Congress, but that was not possible because of a California problem, and maybe some other issues of lesser significance. But as the chairman said, we have together reasoned with the Members from California directly involved in the project in the Sacramento and American Rivers, and that matter is now resolved and is included in this legislation, and we will move forward. The gentleman from Alaska has been a splendid partner and leader in shaping this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we move with this bill to not only build but rebuild the Nation's water infrastructure, to expand international trade by improving our coastal ports and the inland navigation system. Through flood control and hurricane storm damage reduction, we will meet critical needs to protect lives and property.

We have a bipartisan solution to the complex issue of independent review of corps projects, and I compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), on the time they have invested, together with the chairman and me and with the corps, in resolving long-standing issues that span several Congresses.

I am a long-time supporter of the corps, an advocate for and admirer of the Corps of Engineers for the valuable service it does this country. The Nation needs the Corps of Engineers, but the corps also needs to be sure that its proposals can withstand the strictest scrutiny; that its proposals are as rock solid as the foundations of the most secure dams that the corps builds. And that is why we needed to craft this independent review process, to validate and give substance to and authority to the process by which the corps recommends projects for our committee to act upon.

This independent review process will help restore the confidence that Congress has long put in the Corps of Engineers but which has been shaken in recent years by outside critical review of the corps' process in evaluating major, multimillion dollar and multibillion dollar projects.

The corps is not a static entity, and it does not do this work all by itself. The corps, truthfully, does nothing that the Congress does not authorize it to do and direct it to do. Every water resources bill has clear direction for the Corps of Engineers, what to do and how to get to that goal. And several times we have acted to make commonsense reforms to improve the way the corps does its business.

Our committee instituted cost sharing. We established mitigation requirements. In fact, going back to 1977, the gentleman from Minnesota, then on the Republican side, Mr. Quie, and I, had an innovative proposal for the corps to do mitigation and reconstruction concurrently. We gave the corps a no-net loss of wetlands goal. We made environmental restoration a mission priority for the Corps of Engineers. We instituted floodplain management. We eliminated barriers to nonstructural flood damage reduction, allowing rivers to connect with the natural floodplain. This committee has initiated all of these activities and the corps has carried them out, but we always need to review and to move that process further.

Over the past 200 years, the Congress and Presidents have given the Corps of Engineers responsibility for a wide variety of critical military and civilian needs and have made this agency the world's premier water resource manager, the Corps of Engineers, the envy of other countries around the world who come to study the corps and try to emulate it in some fashion in their own back yard.

In the over 200 years since the Corps of Engineers was formed, that organization has served the Nation with great pride and extraordinary results. Throughout the 19th Century, it was the Corps that mapped the coastal fortifications, supervised the construction of those coastal fortifications, that went out and mapped the West in the aftermath of Lewis and Clark, constructed lighthouses, built jetties and piers for harbors, and carefully mapped the navigation channels of this country.

Its most important legacy, perhaps, was the work on canals, on rivers, and on roads. The Corps built those paths of commerce. Out of treacherous streams, the Corps built safe waterways, water highways for inland navigation and coastal safe harbors for a growing Nation that was founded on the water.

Congress expanded the Corps's responsibilities in 1826, authorizing the President to have river surveys made to clean out and to deepen selected waterways and make other river and harbor improvements that extended to the river basin of the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Missouri River systems.

The Corps shaped this Nation as it entered the 20th Century. Chief of Engineers, Henry M. Robert, who is also and perhaps better known as the author of Robert's Rules of Order, oversaw the planning of the Galveston Seawall, a major engineering project that has protected that area from destruction by numerous hurricanes since his pioneering work.

I would like to point out Hiram M. Chittenden, an engineer officer, who supervised the construction of roads, bridges and aqueducts we know today as Yellowstone National Park, wrote a report on his survey of reservoir sites in Wyoming and Colorado that contributed to the establishment of what we now today know as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

The Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the welfare of restoring Yosemite Valley and was the protector of our natural resources until the creation of the National Park Service. In fact, it was John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who in the 1880s said, ``Thank God for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have saved and restored Yellowstone Park.''

I will conclude by saying that this extraordinary agency is today at work not only at home, but in Afghanistan and in Iraq, ever protecting the long-range best interests and needs of the United States. This bill will assure that the Corps will continue to do that work in a manner of great credibility for the public.

George W. Goethals' early work at Davis Island and Muscle Shoals created the skills and management expertise needed to successfully finish the Panama Canal. Although the Panama Canal was not built by the Corps of Engineers, through the efforts of engineer officers such as Goethals, who were detailed to the Panama Canal Commission, some of the most difficult construction obstacles were overcome. If the Corps' original recommendations on the size of locks had been followed, there would be no need to expand the canal today.

The Corps' military and civilian functions have always been mutually supportive. Thousands of engineers troops served in France in 1917 and 1918, contributing to both front-line and rear-support efforts. The combat engineers constructed bridges, roads, and narrow-gauge railroads at or immediately behind the front. Other engineer troops enlarged French port facilities, constructed more than 20 million square feet of storage space, and built 800 miles of standard-gauge rail lines, plus an equal distance in yards and storage tracks. These types of contributions continued through World War II.

After World War II, the Corps developed and maintained new navigation systems such as the American portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the same time, modernization of existing waterways became a growing concern. Heavier tows, barges, and other vessels plied the nation's major rivers. Locks such as those on the upper Mississippi, built mainly in the 1930s, were no longer adequate to handle the traffic. Lock and Dam 26 near Alton, Illinois, was the principal bottleneck on the upper

Mississippi system until a new lock was constructed in the 1980s.

Corps' construction activities since World War II have been further expanded. The Corps built Veterans Administration hospitals; Nike, Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missile sites; NASA facilities, including the massive vehicle assembly building at Cape Kennedy; post offices and bulk mail facilities; and armed forces recruiting centers.

Successes at home were matched by the Corps' accomplishments abroad. The Corps provides technical assistance in conjunction with economic aid in an approach that came to typify many American foreign assistance programs.

Since the 1950s, the Corps has engaged in major engineering studies and projects in many countries. Under terms of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Corps began work in reimbursable programs through the State Department's Agency for International Development (AID).

Today, the Corps is active in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In foreign affairs, we need instantly available, in-house capabilities to address the Nation's strategic needs. Domestically, only the Corps has the experience to balance economic development with environmental stewardship.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and to continue the quality work of the Corps of Engineers in service to the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I just want to point out, in support of the committee position, that during the House-Senate conference on the port security bill last year, we were attempting to negotiate a fee proposition that would provide funding for the needs of ports to conduct the security measures that were required under the Port Security Act, and we hit upon this idea of a container fee. It was discussed between a Member of the other body and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and me. And we revised and revised this language down so we had it very narrowly honed to fit the definition of the Office of Management and Budget that a fee is a charge for a service directly related to the purpose for which the charge is imposed. That language proved to be unacceptable to the Office of Management and Budget, not on its merits, but on policy grounds that they did not want to fund port security with a container fee.

At the request of the President, Senator Hollings and I, and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) agreed to drop that language.

Now, while I am very much in sympathy with the purposes for which the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) wishes to generate this source of revenue, we tried a much more narrow application and ran aground on the rocks of OMB. We shoaled, if you will, on this issue. And I fear that there will be the same response were we to take a wider view. And I think that the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Duncan) wise injunction let us put this aside, let us come back to work on the issue together, constructively, and find a way that we can reason together with the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. Under the great leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our committee has focused on the need to meet our Nation's navigation, flood control and environmental restoration needs.

In our subcommittee, we have held numerous hearings in which witnesses have testified about the importance of these water resources projects to our economy. Just last week, our subcommittee held a hearing on the contributions of ports and inland waterways to the Nation's intermodal transportation system. It is clear from the testimony we received that if we do not take action now to improve our ports and waterways, we could severely harm our economy as a result of congestion in our transportation systems.

That is just one reason why we need to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. There are many other reasons.

Each of the over 400 provisions of the bill meets an important national purpose. We are confident of this because for each request the committee received, the committee consulted with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that there was a Federal interest in the project and that the request complied with all rules on cost-sharing and cost-benefit analysis. Obviously not all requests met this standard, but after this review, the committee was able to approve over 60 authorizations, modifications, studies and policies relating to navigation improvements, over 100 flood control authorizations, modifications and studies, over 80 environmental authorizations, modifications or studies.

H.R. 2557 also includes some important new policies. H.R. 2557 encourages watershed planning by authorizing greater technical assistance to State and local governments and authorizes an additional 24 watershed studies.

This bill encourages the Corps of Engineers to carry out projects in partnerships with its local sponsors and to streamline the process for entering into agreements with local sponsors. In fact, this bill has very good streamlining provisions in it so that these very important projects, instead of sometimes taking 8 or 10 or 12 years, hopefully can be done in a much shorter time, saving taxpayer money and saving lives and doing good things for the environment in the process.

H.R. 2557 includes important provisions that allow the Corps of Engineers to help expedite environmental permits for non-Federal water resource projects as well as streamlining approvals for its own projects. And that, as I said, is one of the most important parts of this legislation.

H.R. 2557 includes consensus provisions on peer review of certain Corps of Engineers studies. This is a landmark provision in this legislation. It also includes, Mr. Chairman, 27 shoreline and streambank protection projects, 16 water conservation projects, 12 recreation projects, 12 dam safety projects, and many other projects too numerous to name.

This bill has been put together on a true bipartisan basis. There are no Republican or Democrat navigation, flood control, or environmental restoration projects. We all recognize that communities across the country have water resources needs, very important water resources needs. This bill responds to those communities, our constituents.

I want to recognize the assistance and expertise and friendship provided

by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). Thanks to his efforts and the efforts of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as the entire committee, we tackled some very contentious issues, as I mentioned when I spoke on the rule; and we have come together on a bill that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, without whose support and hard work this legislation would not be here on the floor today.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is currently evaluating a test barrier that was authorized under the National Invasive Species Act in 1996. At the same time, the Corps is studying the potential of building a second barrier under a continuing authority for small projects. I will work with the gentlewoman and be glad to do so to see that this project is not delayed.

This is a serious matter that involves the missions of several Federal agencies and impacts the entire Great Lakes region. The committee plans to work on a reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act during the next session. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman as we work on that legislation to encourage a regional and multi-agency response to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for her kind words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), another member who has worked hard on certain parts of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I likewise would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member, for his work on this legislation. I used to say that during my 6 years as Chairman of the aviation subcommittee that I knew of no other chairman and ranking member of a subcommittee who got along better than I did with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my ranking member. We got along with each. Now, I can say the same thing about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). There must be something special about people from Illinois, Mr. Chairman, but it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on this bill. This is the most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act that this Congress has ever produced. It is also a good bill for the taxpayers in the provisions that it has to speed up and thus

hold down the cost of these very needed projects around the country.

So like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention following committee action.

Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has prepared nine additional chief's reports, recommending that Congress authorize certain water resources projects. The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing Corps authorities to improve navigation, provide flood damage reduction and improve the quality of the environment. For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes four new Corps of Engineers studies.

This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and must comply with cost-sharing and cost-benefit rules. This means not every project could be addressed. But, within these constraints, we did our best to meet the needs of all our communities and all the Members that we possibly could.

I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time and urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my understanding from staff on the other side is that the staff on the other side of the aisle and the Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if the gentleman withdraws his colloquy at this point.

I will say that there is language in the bill at this time that attempts to get at the problem that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is trying to solve. The language says, ``In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall award contracts based on an invitation for bids procedure.''

If that is not satisfactory to accomplish the goal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), if he feels that he is in a position to withdraw the colloquy at this point, then it is my understanding that the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will try to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to resolve this issue.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) wanted to be here to make a statement in opposition to this amendment. On his behalf, I have been asked to point out, at least, that the ports already have the authority to charge fees for the services that they render; they do not need Congress to give them this authority.

Also, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) feels that if this amendment were to pass, this could force ships to go to other ports. Also, we have letters from the American Association of Port Authorities and the California Marine Affairs Navigation Conference, the Port of Long Beach, the California Association of Port Authorities, the Virginia Port Authority, the Port of Stockton, and other similar groups opposing the gentleman's amendment.

Let me just say that as the gentleman from Illinois has said, we certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from California and I came to Congress together. There is almost nobody in this Congress that I admire and respect more than the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I think, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this amendment is well intentioned. I think it is something that our subcommittee could and should hold a hearing about. And I think that perhaps if the gentleman would work with the committee and the subcommittee and the various organizations, the port authorities and the shipping industry, there might be a way to accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish through this amendment.

But at this point, we do have to rise in opposition to this amendment because it is something that I think probably deserves and probably needs a little additional work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may have remaining to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will see to it that the massive costs in making our ports and harbors more secure are shared by those foreign manufacturers who use these facilities. The American people should not be stuck with the entire costs of the expensive infrastructure and security upgrades now necessary for the sake of homeland security.

What happens under the current system is that Americans are taxed to pay for improvements to our ports, which are then used by foreign manufacturers to move more efficiently in their exporting of products into our market. Yes, we end up taxing our own manufacturers in order to help their foreign competitors put them out of business. Something is wrong with this formula.

My amendment will permit local port authorities the right to levy a fee on containers traversing through their ports. This fee will be fed into a fund controlled by the authority to meet the new and rising cost of security and infrastructure.

Why should all the tens of billions of dollars needed for this upgrading come out of the hide of our own taxpayers? Should the manufacturers in Shanghai not pay a share of the cost through a fee on the containers they use? After all, are these foreign manufacturers not making huge profits by using an infrastructure provided for them by our own taxpayers?

Surprisingly, some of our ports are opposed to this amendment. You can hear lobbyists around the Hill talking about it. They like the status quo. They come to Washington and expect us to provide them more and more money by just simply taking it right out of the hide of the American working people. They want us, whenever there is an upgrade necessary, especially as we look into the future where it is not just regular upgrades and regular structural operations in their ports, now that we are looking at a huge expense because of homeland security needs, they just expect us to hand it to them and take it right out of the pockets of the American people.

Well, I am sorry, but that is not the fair way to do things, and that is not the best way to do things. We should be expecting foreign businesses through a container fee to pay their fair share.

If the ports do not want to ask them for that, but would rather come here and have us take that money out of the pockets of our own people, well, I am sorry, they are going to be disappointed. But the American people will not be disappointed. The American people will be disappointed if we continue to provide people overseas who manufacture products that put our own people out of work, that we continue to provide them these services free of charge, of course, at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, lobbyists have been around. Some of the people who vote on this bill will have heard from their lobbyists saying they have to be against the container fee, I am suggesting, because it is going to go to a

non-Federal interest. That is right, it is not going to go into the Federal pool of money here. It is going to be kept locally by the port authorities to be used for infrastructure and security matters in those local areas, or it could perhaps, for example, be used for matching funds. If the Federal Government is going to provide something, they could use that for matching funds. This is fair to the American taxpayer.

If there is any problem with wording, a little bit of wording here, little tweaks that need to happen to make this a perfect bill, I am happy to work with the chairman and work with the people on this committee as this bill moves forward. But if this bill loses today, if my amendment loses today, it will mean the American taxpayer is going to get stuck with all of this cost, and we are basically letting these foreign manufacturers off the hook; and we all know that. This is our chance to start this process down the road so we will have container fees and a more fair system of providing resources to our ports and our harbors.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest, we do not represent the ports here. By the way, if anybody represents the ports in this room today, it is me. I represent, in my district, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; and if there is anything I understand now about being a Congressman from an area that represents ports is the ports are looking for leadership. The American people, surprise, surprise, are looking for leadership from us.

Our job is not to make our decisions by, well, let us call up the people who want Federal money and see if they want us to give them Federal money. That is not our job. Our job is to try to structure a system that works for the benefit of the American people.

I would suggest this: that even though I represent both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, who I really represent are the American people. I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the experience that I have with the small manufacturers in their areas. I have gone to small manufacturers in my area, and what have I found? They are going out of business. And they are going out of business because we have set up a structure that has permitted foreign manufacturers to slip into our market at almost no expense to those foreign manufacturers and undercut our own manufacturers. Why is it so wrong that we would expect that those foreign manufacturers pay a little fee, a little fee on the containers they are using so they can help build the infrastructure, rather than tax those companies that I visited in my district who are going under because of this, really, actually, American tax-supported competition that they are having to face? This is not right.

I can see why our ports and harbors do not want this. They do not want to have to ask for that fee. Well, the fact is, it is good for America, it is good for the American manufacturer, and it will be good for our ports in the end if we give them this right.

This idea that they may not get the money, we can tweak this language; we all know that. If this amendment passes, we can tweak the language to make sure it goes exactly where we want it, into security and infrastructure for these ports. But if we do not pass this amendment, this idea is dead, this idea is dead; and what is going to happen is, the tens of billions of dollars, right now, that we are making a stand on, will be paid by the American

people, rather than through a container tax paid for by foreign manufacturers.

I say it is time for this body to stand up and provide some leadership. Who cares what the ports say right now. If they are operating in their self interests, we have to operate in America's interests, and it is in America's interests to have foreign manufacturers contribute to infrastructure costs here.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, let me just note that this creates a new revenue flow. This amendment will create new revenue, a new source of revenue that begins perhaps in Shanghai or some other foreign country, and that revenue then can be used to our benefit. Now, the only other option we have, of course, is to fight over limited revenue, all of which is taken out of the pockets of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended by 1 minute on each side to allow the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect those people, especially the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for the very hard work they have put into this legislation.

It has always been my intent to support this legislation. So this is not

done with the spirit of anything except trying to do something for the American people because this is an opportunity that we have today to start working on a very positive idea.

There is no reason for us to put this off. If we put this on this legislation today, this idea will move forward, and a lot of work will be done on this, and we will move toward this goal.

If this amendment fails, what we have done is condemn the American people to tens of billions of dollars of expense that could have been taken up by foreign manufacturers who are importing their goods into our ports and putting their goods onto our market and undercutting our domestic manufacturers.

Earlier the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) suggested that perhaps the ports already have this authority, thus this amendment is redundant. Let me say if that is the analysis, why not pass it then? There is no reason then, if the ports already have this authority, why are we so hesitant about passing this? The reason we are so hesitant is that there are powerful interests at play. We should be interested in what is the effect on the American people.

We face, in these next 12 months, a horrendous, an astronomic expense in our ports, making them safe, making them more secure and more efficient. We should start working right now, and this is how we can do it, finding a new revenue source, a source for manufacturers overseas that will help us accomplish this mission. OMB will go along. The ports will go along. The American people will applaud us if we provide the leadership today, and that is what I am suggesting.

I would ask my colleagues who are listening to this debate to join me, siding with the American people, the American manufacturer and let us not tax billions of dollars from them when we could have a fee paid by foreign manufacturers that would provide us the revenues necessary to make our ports secure and to upgrade their infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good work that those people who have worked on this legislation have done, and I intend to support this one way or the other.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This bill addresses what Congress failed to do last year, enact a Water Resources Development Act for 2002.

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure strongly supports this legislation for the corps' water resource program. It is critical to maintain this 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainty to the non-Federal local sponsors who support the corps' program. This 2-year cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the workings of the corps' program, often in response to changing circumstances.

H.R. 2557 authorizes projects for the entirety of the corps' civil works program. It includes flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and authorizations for several important projects to restore and enhance the Nation's environmental infrastructure. In developing this legislation over the past 3 years, the committee received over 300 individual requests from Members for projects of importance to the various regions of this country. The committee tried to accommodate as many requests as feasible within the jurisdiction and authority of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity now to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and in particular my colleague, friend, and chairman of the subcommittee for all of their hard work and their leadership. Without their leadership, support, and work we would not be here today. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) in particular, let me say, showed a willingness to work with individual Members on both sides; and we were able to put together what I believe is a good bipartisan bill.

The tough issue of independent review, which yielded a bipartisan solution to a very complex issue of great importance to the members of the committee and the entire House and to the improved operation of the corps' civil works program was accomplished because of this bipartisan support and their leadership.

The independent review language that is included in H.R. 2557 creates a firm, yet flexible, standard for the independent review of corps project studies. It is firm in that it establishes a $50 million threshold for projects to be reviewed. It is flexible in that the chief of engineers has the opportunity to exempt certain projects from review and retains the authority to time the reviews to a particular circumstance of an individual project study. This approach is the key to this bipartisan proposal.

Including this language in the bill will ultimately improve the corps' program. It will result in better recommendations for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to consider when developing future water resource legislation. I believe also that it will save the taxpayers money and it will enhance the quality of investment in water resource projects.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee.

(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), former ranking member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would urge passage of this legislation. I again thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for all of his hard work on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising actually in opposition to the amendment, but I am claiming the time. I actually am rising in support of the manager's amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is a bipartisan amendment addressing various needs and issues that have come to the committee's attention since the bill was considered at markup in July. The amendment contains modifications to provisions in the bill and a few new items. Each were considered by the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and they are consistent with the policies of the committee for inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act.

The Young amendment contains nine new authorizations or modifications based upon completed reports of the Chief of Engineers. It includes authorization of 5 small projects and modification to 10 existing projects. There are two new project deauthorizations and authority for the Corps to conduct four new project studies.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the underlying bill itself, was developed in a bipartisan process that ensured that Members on both sides of the aisle were treated fairly and openly.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for their cooperation in developing not only the bill, but this amendment, and I urge the adoption and approval of the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that, number one, we have an agreement to strike the language, we agree to that, and we will work with the gentleman and with the chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) further. But we are not willing to go any further today than to strike the language.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if the subcommittee chairman would make a motion to strike the language without any reference to legislative intent, just take the language out, we would agree to that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting the additional investment in infrastructure and security, but I believe that the Rohrabacher amendment is not the best way to pursue that goal.

In the brief time that we have had to review the proposal, the committee has heard only objections to the proposal. Port interests, those that one would expect would be supporting this proposal, have indicated that they are either in opposition or that they have no position. We have been contacted by the California Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference who are opposed to the amendment; the California Association of Port Authority is opposed; the American Association of Port Authorities, they defer action and recommend that we take no position on this issue, at least they take no position. The Port of Long Beach is opposed, and the Port of Stockton is opposed. Those are just some of the port interests that have contacted us just today, since the amendment was given to us.

Let me also say that a proposal similar to the Rohrabacher proposal, but a little more narrow than the Rohrabacher amendment, was considered in the last Congress during the committee's work on the Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002. That proposal was not adopted, in large part due to the strong objections from the Office of Management and Budget within the Bush administration.

The fees contemplated in the Rohrabacher amendment would be available for ports or States to use for any infrastructure project, including infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor, if the project is for transportation to, from, or through the harbor. This could be any road, rail, or even any airport project associated with the harbor. It could include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system.

The committee has long supported transportation trust fund financing of transportation modes. Highway users support highways, inland waterway users support inland waterways, airport users support airports, and port users support ports. It is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation modes.

This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized cargo as a simple source of revenue, in effect, a hidden tax to finance any and all transportation modes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply does not have broad-based support, and we should reject the amendment. There have been no hearings on the proposal. I would suggest that we have the opportunity to learn more about the proposal in the appropriate forum in the subcommittee of this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. While I will say that my friend from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science, whom I serve with on the Committee on Science, that his amendment is well intentioned, and I would like to work with him to achieve what he is attempting to achieve, I believe that this amendment, in its current form, is more harmful than beneficial. Let us, on the appropriate authorizing committee, have the opportunity to consider and debate it. But I stand in opposition to the amendment as it is presented before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), as well as our chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). It has truly been one of the pleasures for me this Congress, watching the work that has been done in the subcommittee developing a broad range of inputs, looking with fresh eyes at some of the most important environmental and infrastructure issues that the country faces.

I am pleased that we now have a bill that is done right, which can enhance our country's ports, navigation and flood control, as well as the environment, and, ultimately, I am convinced will save the taxpayers money.

We are finally dealing with a number of Corps reform issues that heretofore had bogged down previous bills, including last year's bill. We now have, as has been referenced, independent review of costly and controversial projects, one of the key issues for me over the course of my tenure on this committee. And we are beginning a conversation about updating the Corps' principles and guidelines. These operating principles have not been updated in 20 years. The facts are that we have learned a great deal about our water resources projects, what works and what does not, in that time, and I look forward to working with our committee leadership, especially since the National Academy of Science is set to finish a report on updating the principles and guidelines this fall.

I am pleased that there was an amendment that I offered adopted to

give the Corps more flexibility in its planning process to take into account economic benefits of environmental restoration and environmental benefits of economic restoration. It asks the Corps to calculate the residual flood risk of a project, such as downstream impacts of a structural project like a levee. Our intent is to encourage the Corps to be able to do more nonstructural flood control projects which are clearly beneficial for the environment and the taxpayers, even though these benefits are sometimes more difficult to calculate.

This bill does take important steps that I think will help enhance the credibility of the Corps of Engineers. I must caution, however, that we have got to be continuing our work on the independent review process. It is not exactly as I personally would design it. It gives a bit more discretion, frankly, to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army than I think is helpful in terms of providing that clear picture that is important for the integrity of the Corps, but I think this is an important start.

I have some concerns about environmental streamlining provisions. I am all for dealing with ways that can shorten the planning and construction process, but not at the expense of the benefits that are required. Reports from the National Academy of Science show that delays in Corps projects are often caused by their complexity and inconsistent funding; and, occasionally, frankly, we run into problems because people try and jam through things and not follow the process, which creates problems in the long run.

Last but not least, I am very concerned about protections for destruction of our Nation's wetlands. I plan on coming back and speaking on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). But on balance, I think this bill moves us in the right direction. It starts a conversation about refining some important areas, and it is testimony to the hard work of our committee leadership in allowing us to come together and do the legislation the people deserve, which I appreciate.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time.

I think one of the things that is important for us to consider when we are dealing with issues of our infrastructure with ports, we have a requirement here I think of the Federal Government to be a full partner. The Federal Government is a full partner with our ports around the country, and I think we need to be careful with the authority to levy charges coming in and out of our ports. This could have a very significant differential effect up and down, for example, the west coast.

I am supportive of the notion of our committee investing more money in infrastructure from water resources to roads to transit, but I would hope that it is not done in a scatter-shot fashion where we take Federal authority and turn it over to interfere with the orderly flow of commerce and trade; but rather that we, as has been recommended by our ranking member and our chairman, have a consideration before the committee about what those resources' needs are.

Frankly, we have higher priorities, in my judgment, that we are not meeting now. We have had difficulty providing adequate resources now to deal with critical maintenance dredging, to deal with port infrastructure, to deal with other areas that are connected; and I think the last thing we need to do is to take a step back to balkanize this, to move away from the system. This is authority that I think we as a committee ought to be looking at to be able to have an integrated system dealing with multimodal requirements and promoting an integrated, smooth flow of trade.