Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the War in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

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

I rise to urge all Members to support H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. I want to first acknowledge the great assistance, the hard work, and especially the bipartisan nature of all the efforts of the staff on both sides and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), our great chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who has worked on this committee as a staff member and as a member since being elected to the House and has seniority over all of us on that; and my close friendship and good working relationship with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie

Bernice Johnson), my ranking member. And I want to acknowledge also the hard work done by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the former ranking member, with whom we worked out so many contentious issues the first time this bill came up.

The bill authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies, projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and environmental restoration and protection. H.R. 2864 is very similar to H.R. 2557 from the last Congress, which passed this House on September 24, 2003, by a vote of 412 to 8.

At the beginning of this Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure leadership sent a Dear Colleague to all House Members to give them an opportunity to update their project requests. In response, the committee received more than 340 letters from Members making requests for more than 1,000 projects, studies and modifications. Given budgetary constraints, we could not accommodate every request. However, we were able to address over 600 separate matters.

The bill also includes provisions that reform the planning and project development process of the Corps of Engineers, including the most extensive independent peer review process ever set forth in one of these water resources bills or any other bill. These provisions were worked out in a bipartisan manner in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last Congress and were in the WRDA bill that the House approved overwhelmingly at that time.

We stand by the agreement that we made during the last Congress and have made only a few clarifying changes to these policy provisions. As a result, the main difference between H.R. 2864 and the bill from the last Congress is the addition of three large projects that were not ready for authorization during the last Congress but have now completed chief's reports from the Corps of Engineers. These projects are the Indian River Lagoon Everglades Restoration project, the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program, and the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration program. Together, these projects represent $5 billion in federal authorization or about half the cost of this bill. We knew these chief's reports were coming, so, in the last Congress, the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held separate hearings on each. Later there will be debate on part of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway chief's report, the authorization of the seven new locks there. This is a $1.8 billion authorization, but one half of that funding comes from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is funded by a 20 cents per gallon tax on inland waterway fuel.

These lock authorizations are the number one priority of the Inland Waterway Users Board, the board representing the people who pay into the inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is important to understand that the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Authorization is not the most costly Corps project. The authorization of $1.8 billion is for seven different locks; so the per-project cost is really on average $257 million.

At the subcommittee hearing on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway project, the subcommittee received very strong testimony in support of this project from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. All of the civil works projects in this bill, all of them, Mr. Chairman, are investments in America that save capital, make our exports more competitive, make our imports more affordable, and improve our environment and our quality of life.

Over 200 organizations have sent us letters supporting this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has stated that they will make this one of their key votes of the year; the American Farm Bureau; the American Association of Port Authorities; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the Associated General Contractors of America; the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies; the National Corn Growers Association; the National Association of Wheat Growers; the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; the National Mining Association; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the Portland Cement Association; seven different national labor unions. In fact, I do not believe that we will deal with any bill in the Congress this year that has more bipartisan and broad support from both labor and business than this legislation, and over 180 other organizations that would be too numerous to name, and it would take too much time.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize again the expertise and friendship provided by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the subcommittee. It is an honor and privilege to work with her and also the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, and the entire committee. We have a bill that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the committee.

(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a strong proponent of the Everglades portion of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute at this time to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for the purpose of making a brief statement and entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that this is a very fine project that the gentleman has endorsed and is strongly proposing here, and we will be glad to work with the gentleman in every way to assure that this ends up in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a former member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think everyone here knows that I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Congress, but this is a very fiscally conservative bill. It is not fiscally conservative to let a very important asset to deteriorate, and so I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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 informed the committee that six additional chief's reports recommending that Congress authorize a water resources project will be completed by December 31, 2005.

The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing corps authority to provide flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection.

For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes for new Corps of Engineers' projects. The amendment authorizes one land transfer for a navigation project. Finally, the amendment authorizes a number of activities or programs for water resources management.

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 rules. This means not every project could be addressed, but within these constraints we did the best to meet the needs of all communities. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December 31, 2005.

The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the alternatives considered, and the recommended plan.

In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31, 2005.

Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year. Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include his project as a contingent authorization.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the administration has issued performance-based budgeting criteria based on tonnage being moved. That method places a very low priority on maintaining small ports.

This process ignores the fact that two-thirds of all cargo on major waterways either start or finish at small ports. If we abandon our small harbors, we adversely affect the entire waterway system that is already plagued with deferred maintenance and crumbling infrastructure.

The gentleman's amendment would ask the Corps to prepare its budget using its previous criteria that were based on maintaining an acceptable level of service at least cost for a commercial port. It is not primarily based on the tonnage in transit. Using this previous method would not ignore the contributions of our small harbors to the Nation's commercial transportation system.

I believe the administration's current method of budgeting could adversely affect commercial navigation. Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

The gentleman from California is one of the best friends I have in this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is in opposition to this amendment.

The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security projects.

But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside the harbor.

First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary. Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure.

Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State. This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment.

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council all testified in opposition to this proposal.

This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from California brought to the House floor last

Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects. They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate how they make this business decision.

I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

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

I rise in opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. The gentleman from Oregon is one of the most active and one of the finest members of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The gentleman from Arizona and I vote alike on probably 98 or 99 percent of the issues that come before this Congress, so I cannot overstate my respect and admiration for both of these gentlemen; but I do have to oppose this amendment.

Failure to upgrade our infrastructure is not fiscally conservative. Not constructing the upper Mississippi navigation improvement project, according to the National Corn Growers Association, will result in a loss of $562 million in annual farm income by 2020. Of this, $246 million would be lost in reduced exports to other countries. Navigation on the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway provides for more than 400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The navigation improvement project in H.R. 2864 would create an additional 48 million man-hours of work. There is a critical Federal interest in navigation. The vast array of navigation infrastructure is important to the Nation's economy and a secure economy is a necessary part of a secure Nation.

Right now, increased transportation costs mean that some of our farmers and manufacturers will not be able to compete in the world market and may go out of business. This means the shipment of cargo on these rivers will decrease, not increase. So it is sort of a self- fulfilling prophecy that we have been discussing. Right now, traffic on these rivers is constrained, very constrained, by small aging locks. It is not fiscally conservative to constrain the United States economy with outdated and obsolete infrastructure. If you do not improve or maintain buildings and homes, they deteriorate. That is not a fiscally conservative thing to do. We could say the same about our locks and our dams.

The language contained in title 8 of the bill is compromise language. This language was negotiated last year with the other body. The WRDA bill pending in the other body contains virtually identical language. The Flake-Blumenauer amendment will either delay or halt the project, costing U.S. taxpayers much, much more in the future. As a fiscal conservative, I try to be a careful steward of taxpayer dollars. This project is an investment in America, and I support it. Voting against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment is the fiscally conservative thing to do. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I will not oppose the amendment. I will simply say, the gentleman's amendment relates to the project for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. This framework for what will be multiple projects is authorized in title VIII of the reported bill.

Section 8005 of H.R. 2864, as reported, requires that the Secretary make a determination whether or not the projects are being carried out at comparable rates. This amendment directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to Congress on this determination that is already required by the reported bill. I have no objection to the Secretary's reporting to Congress on this issue, and therefore, I have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for those very kind remarks, and I could say everything back to her that she just said. And we appreciate the cooperation and the hard work of the staff on both sides.

I had the privilege to introduce Susan Bodine to the Senate committee this morning, and I said so many good things about her at that time that I would not want to repeat those again or her head would get so big, she would not be able to get out of this room here today.

But we do appreciate so much the work that she has done over the years for our subcommittee, and she has been one of the finest staffers that this Congress has ever had, and we want to congratulate her. We hate to lose her to the EPA, but certainly she is moving onward and upward and we wish her the very best.

With that, I urge passage of this bill.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This legislation fulfills the commitment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to produce water resources legislation for the Nation on a biennial basis. Unfortunately, while the Committee produced a bill in the last Congress, it was not enacted into law.

We are now nearly 5 years since the last water resources bill was enacted. That is too long.

The Corps of Engineers has served the Nation well for 230 years. During those years it has established itself as the Nation's oldest, largest, and most experienced government organization in the area of water and related land engineering matters. From its early works during the Revolutionary War, to navigation improvements, to the unrivaled efforts to reduce the devastating floods in the Mississippi River valley, to the current efforts to save the Everglades from extinction, the Corps is the entity that the people call upon to solve the problems facing the Nation's vast water resources.

Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many responsibilities, had jurisdiction over Yellowstone National Park. The Corps managed Yellowstone Park for 30 years. Lieutenant Dan Kingman of the Corps, who would later become the chief of engineers, wrote:

The plan of development which I have submitted is given

upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be

preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it,

a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth

to no one.

A few years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said:

The best service in forest protection, almost the only

efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many

years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now

they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as

underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years,

the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on

Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and

every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.

Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That was Mark Twain.

Those statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers has done so admirably, and the great legacy they have left for all Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs, and, of immense importance to me, protecting the great resource of the Great Lakes--one fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth.

The bill before us today includes as great a variety of projects as have ever been included in water resources legislation. The scope of this bill includes projects and programs for the Nation's inland navigation system, flood protection, shoreline protection, and environmental protection and enhancement.

This bill both builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It will allow us to expand international trade through projects to improve our coastal ports and inland navigation system. Flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction measures will help meet critical needs to protect lives and property.

This legislation includes 30 projects for which the Chief of Engineers has submitted a report to Congress.

In addition, the bill contains over 100 project modifications of existing or on-going projects, over 100 requests for Corps of Engineers' studies for future projects, and an equal number of requests for the Corps to carry out projects consistent with the primary missions of the Corps of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration.

All told, the bill, including additions adopted at Subcommittee, contains roughly $10 billion in new and modified project authorizations. This number should come as no surprise to those familiar with the Corps process, because this bill represents approximately 5\1/2\ years of requests since the last Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

I am pleased that this legislation includes the legislative proposal developed in the previous Congress to address programmatic issues in the Corps program that have become collectively known as ``Corps Reform.'' This bi-partisan agreement calling for independent review of larger and more controversial projects will address many of the concerns raised by stakeholders, and outside academics, and will improve the process of moving project proposals from study to completion.

There should be no doubt that I am a strong supporter of the Corps and the valuable work that it does for this country. This Nation needs the Corps of Engineers, but the Corps also needs to be free from outside criticisms. That is why I believe Congress must act to implement a few common sense revisions to the process by which the Corps develops and implements projects.

Nothing in this bill hampers the ability of the Corps to study and recommend new projects. To the contrary, the Corps study process is improved by ensuring that completed studies can withstand outside scrutiny or challenge.

This bill represents a fair effort to address the varied water resources needs of the Nation. It is worthy of bipartisan support, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I support the bipartisan managers' amendment offered on behalf of the Committee.

This amendment addresses several issues that were brought to the attention of the committee following the committee markup of a technical or clarifying nature. It also adds six new projects contingent upon the completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers by December 31, 2005, These contingent authorizations are consistent with the criteria used by the committee in developing water resources legislation over the past several Congresses.

The managers' amendment also reflects a failure of the current administration and the Congress to address the water and wastewater infrastructure needs of communities across the Nation.

The amendment includes authorization for 73 new projects totaling $1.6 billion for water and wastewater related infrastructure. These are the types of projects that for many years had been financed through the Construction Grants and State Revolving Loan programs of the Environmental Protection Agency, the grant and loan programs of the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal financial assistance programs.

Unfortunately for communities, this administration continues to put forward budget requests that cut these vital programs, and this House continues to accede to those cuts.

Just last month, this House approved funding for EPA's State revolving loan fund grants at $850 million. This compares to EPA funding 18 years ago of nearly $2.4 billion. This 65 percent cut in funding, is actually 80 percent when adjusted for inflation. The needs of communities have not declined, just the willingness of the Republican majority to help them.

Where do these communities turn for help? To the Corps of Engineers, America's premier water resource agency. I know that the Corps is up to the task of addressing these pressing needs; I only hope that the administration and the Congress can find the will to adequately fund the Nation's infrastructure needs.

I urge approval of the managers' amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez to add the environmental restoration project in Liberty State Park, New Jersey to the list of projects that can proceed, contingent upon the completion of the Chief of Engineers report no later than December 31, 2005.

This is a non-controversial amendment, and would have been included in the Committee amendment had the Corps of Engineers acknowledged earlier that the report will be finished this year.

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez for his hard work and persistence to ensure that the study for this project stayed on track for completion this year. Without his efforts, we would not be able to include this authorization in this year's bill.

I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

The gentleman's amendment requires the administration to adequately budget for Federal maintenance of smaller or low-use harbors. It reflects the growing frustration of the Members of this House, and the people they represent with the Administration's continuing efforts to deny communities Federal support for navigation at smaller harbors.

When the administration submitted its budget request for fiscal year 2006, it once again sought to eliminate or reduce funding for maintenance activities at smaller, less busy harbors. By abandoning Federal maintenance of these harbors, the administration places lives and livelihoods at risk.

Lives are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve as harbors of refuge during inclement weather in many areas of the country, including the Great Lakes. Failure to adequately maintain harbors also creates unsafe navigation conditions, increasing the incidence of groundings and capsizing.

Livelihoods are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve an important economic role in moving cargo, commercial fishing, and recreational opportunities.

Smaller harbors may not move hundreds or thousands of containers or tons of bulk cargo, but such harbors can be vital to the local community they serve. I hope that the message of

the gentleman's amendment is heard by the administration, and that the budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2007 reflect this serious concern.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, in its current form.

While I congratulate the gentleman for seeking ways to enhance the availability of resources to address security and infrastructure needs, I believe that his proposal is too broad.

The proposal would amend the authority contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for ports to charge fees to recover a portion of their costs associated with port deepening projects. That authority was carefully crafted to ensure that the fees that were charged on a vessel were associated with improvements and activities at the port. This amendment allows for fees to finance activities well beyond the confines of the port.

The amendment specifically allows for the imposition of fees on containers and for those proceeds to be used for financing the cost of construction and operation and maintenance of infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor. This is simply too broad.

The amendment would allow for the imposition of container fees to finance highways or rail expansion, with the only requirement being that the project go to, from, or through the harbor. This could certainly benefit other transportation modes, but it would do so on the back of container traffic.

This proposal needs further review. We can look at the passenger facility charges currently used in the aviation program as a model. There, Congress working in collaboration with aviation interests developed a financing mechanism that has benefited airports, the airline industry, and air passengers. But, we did not allow these revenues to become the financing mechanism for a wide variety of infrastructure projects.

I would be pleased to work with the gentleman on his proposal, participate in hearings, and work with interested parties. But, in its current form, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

An efficient, modern, intermodal transportation system is vital to the economic well being of the Nation. Our inland waterways are a critical component of that system. This amendment sacrifices any hope of regaining a leadership role in world grain markets for Midwest producers.

I can appreciate the concerns of the gentlemen that offer this amendment. The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Study has been the costliest and most controversial study ever undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. It has had whistleblower complaints, an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an investigation by the Army Inspector General, three National Academy of Sciences reviews, Congressional hearings, and more newspaper articles and editorials

than one could imagine. Throughout all this, the Corps remained thorough, professional, and exemplary in its review of alternatives and its willingness to adapt to new information presented to it.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its predecessors, has consistently supported a diverse and efficient national transportation system. This includes ports, highways, rail, aviation, and the inland waterway system. Each of these modes contributes to the overall transportation system that fuels the world's leading economy.

In pursuing the national transportation system, we cannot stand still. We did not build the Interstate Highway System and then walk away. We continue to expand and modernize the system to meet evolving needs--the House/Senate conference intends to conclude its work on a reauthorization bill this month. The same is true for ports, rail and aviation. The inland waterway system is no different.

The Corps recommends the construction of five new locks on the Upper Mississippi River, and two new locks on the Illinois Waterway. At 1,200 feet, these locks will accommodate today's common 15-barge tows. Instead of having to break the tows into two sections to pass through the locks, a 1,200-foot lock allows passage as a single unit. This can save an hour or more of transit time, resulting in lower transportation costs, and grain exports that are more competitive on world markets.

There are the small-scale structural and non-structural measures that should be pursued immediately. Initially, the Corps plans to implement mooring facilities and switchboats over the next 15 years. The Corps should also continue to explore options to improve the utilization of existing facilities through improved scheduling techniques and river traffic management. The Nation constantly explores improvements in managing air traffic congestion; the inland transportation sector could benefit from lessons learned in aviation traffic management. After all, the Corps will have to aggressively pursue nonstructural traffic management techniques during any construction period. It is never too early to explore what works.

While the Corps is implementing the small-scale structural and nonstructural changes, the Corps should continue its efforts in planning the construction of the new locks. These are the large-scale improvements calling for the construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks. These components should stay on track. The Nation's grain producers, the transportation industry, and our export customers need to have a stable, reliable economic environment in which to grow and develop. In the meantime, the Corps and the Congress will have the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the small-scale measures, monitor grain trade patterns, and proceed with the most current and accurate information available.

The amendment before the Committee would simply add delay for no benefit. A contributing cause of stagnant traffic patterns is the very congestion that these locks would alleviate. By requiring traffic to grow before the locks can proceed will forever doom the locks. The proponents of the amendment fail to acknowledge that these new locks are desperately needed to allow traffic to grow.

Grain sales occur in world markets based on extremely small variations in price. I recall instances when as little as one-eighth of a cent per bushel was enough to be the deciding factor. By reducing congestion and lowering transportation costs, we can do our part to ensure that U.S. grain products can successfully compete on world markets. Requiring more traffic, more congestion, and higher prices before the locks can proceed will only further harm the Midwest agricultural economy.

The small-scale and large-scale construction components will require significant mitigation components. Let me be clear to the Corps and the other Federal agencies involved that the Corps must adhere to the requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and ensure that all required mitigation is undertaken either in advance, or concurrent with the construction. Too often, mitigation becomes the orphan of the project and the environment suffers. That cannot be the case here, or elsewhere in the Corps program.

The remaining critical element of the proposal is the recommendation for a large-scale ecosystem restoration program for the area. While the total $5.3 billion cost is large, the value to the United States of the Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation system justifies the costs.

Since 1940, the Nation has benefited from the efficient and safe transportation of goods by barge. Waterborne transportation remains the most fuel-efficient way to transfer bulk commodities. Yet, this highly efficient system has exacted a price on the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.

This ecosystem comprises 2.6 million acres in parts of five States. It includes hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forest, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands. The region supports 270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and amphibians, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50 species of mussels. More than 40 percent of North America's migratory waterfowl and shorebirds depend on the resources, shelter, and habitat that the region provides. We must do our part to restore this precious resource.

Mr. Chairman, I support the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers to enhance the Nation's inland waterway transportation system, and to restore the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.

I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr. Blumenauer, and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the navigation project for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway proceeds in tandem with the environmental restoration program that this bill simultaneously authorizes. It also calls for the budgetary process to be adjusted to accomplish this goal.

I believe that this amendment reflects the original intent of the interested parties and the Corps of Engineers. When the environmental component was added to the navigation study, it was in recognition that the two programs needed to complement each other.

The Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway are a multi-purpose system. They serve important navigation needs yet are a vital part of the Nation's environmental ecosystem. The Mississippi River, its sidechannels, and tributaries constitute the central flyway for millions of migrating waterfowl. It also serves as the home for a variety of fish and shellfish.

I support the twin goals of improving navigation on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway and conducting environmental restoration. This amendment is consistent with these goals. I support the amendment.

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

First, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our chairman and ranking member, and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly.

Today, we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5 years, to enact a Water Resources Development Act.

I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program. It is critical to maintain a 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps projects.

A biennial 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. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil works program. It includes major flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and other water resources projects. This legislation represents roughly 5\1/2\ years of project requests and modifications, as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers carries out its business.

As in the past, projects included in this bill were included not on the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be.

Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld solely for partisan reasons. Again, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for working with me and with individual Members on both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects like this, the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions worsen.

I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who cannot be here because he is attending the funeral of his mother-in-law, but he certainly has interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues.

I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues vote in favor of final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I agree to work with this change in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). This amendment is a bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was considered at markup time.

The manager's amendment also contains a few new items, including the contingent authorization of five additional large-scale projects, provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed by the end of 2005.

These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa; a project of navigation for the Port Iberia, Louisiana; a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Union Beach, New Jersey; a project for environmental restoration along the Hocking River, Ohio; and a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Pawley's Island, South Carolina.

Among the additional new items in the manager's amendment are authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection projects in New York State, the authorization of a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana, three additional Corps of Engineers' studies, and the authorization for the corps to participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and which was defeated by a vote of 65 to 359.

The arguments against this amendment are the same, and unfortunately the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this amendment was offered.

I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting additional investment in our Nation's ports and harbor infrastructure, but I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal.

Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the services they provide, as provided by section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and decisions of the Supreme Court.

These fees can be used for services provided, and the construction, and operation and maintenance of, or emergency response services for navigation projects for a harbor.

The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available for ports and 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 airport project associated with the harbor.

It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system.

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.

While I support the efforts of our Nation's port facilities to provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and rail systems that move goods to their final destinations, I believe that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation modes.

In addition, this amendment is described as a way to pay for much- needed security enhancements at our Nation's ports.

However, in effect, the revenue raised by this amendment would be limited to only those in conjunction with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure, and would cease to exist once these projects were complete.

It would not provide a long-term solution to reducing the vulnerability of our Nation's ports.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

This amendment would prohibit the construction of new locks for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project unless the volume of cargo moving along the system increases at a pre- determined rate.

I understand the concerns of the authors of this amendment.

The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project has a history of being the longest, the most costly, and the most controversial study by the Corps of Engineers that anyone can recall.

During the formulation of the navigation and ecosystem restoration components of this project, numerous outside groups, including the National Research Council, expressed concern with the economic justification for the project, including the predicted increases in grain shipments and other commodities that will utilize the new locks called for in the report of the Chief of Engineers.

However, the way to address these concerns is not to restrict the Corps' capability to carry out its mission, but to commit to the necessary congressional oversight on this project as each component proceeds towards implementation.

As with every major project carried out by the Corps, including the restoration of the Florida Everglades, the restoration of Coastal Louisiana, and the construction of the new locks on the Upper Mississippi River, it is the Congress that must ensure that Federal dollars are wisely spent.

As keepers of the Federal purse, we must commit to careful oversight of these major projects over the coming decades to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to keep careful watch over this project, as well as other programs of the Corps of Engineers.

For this reason, I must oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the strong bipartisanship that is the hallmark of this bill, and I especially acknowledge the bipartisanship of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), subcommittee chairman; and the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), committee chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member.

This bill demonstrates the kind of cooperation that too often is lacking in this House. We on the Democratic side do not agree with everything that is in this bill. We might have written it differently had we written it alone. I am sure that any colleagues on the Republican side feel the same way. But working together, listening to each other, we developed a bill that I am sure will have broad bipartisan support in this House when the vote is taken in just a few minutes.

I also take this time to acknowledge the highly professional and skilled work of Susan Bodine, the Republican staff director and counsel for the subcommittee. This will be her last water resources bill. She has been nominated to become the assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency, and I am sure that she will soon be confirmed and will do a wonderful job. She has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in this House with the knowledge, professionalism, advocacy and pragmatism that exemplifies the best of the legislative process.

On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we congratulate Ms. Bodine and wish her every success in her new position.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which, among other things, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.

The navigation and ecosystem sustainability in title VIII of the bill is the product of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation feasibility study, which has had, unfortunately, a long and controversial history.

As many will remember, a respected Army Corps economist filed a whistleblower complaint about the Corps' use of faulty data to justify lock and dam expansion. Partly in response to that incident, I introduced legislation to revamp the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The goals of my bill were to increase transparency and accountability; ensure fiscal responsibility; balance economic and environmental interests; and allow greater stakeholder involvement in proposed projects.

Many elements of my reform measures are in this bill, though not to the degree I believe is still needed. For example, I believe the Corps' outdated principles and guidelines should be updated to reflect current laws and public values, and much more should be done to strengthen the peer review provisions--section 2030--to create a truly independent and effective review process. It is my hope the other body will include the full scope of these sensible reform measures in their version of this important bill.

In addition, in the wake of the whistleblower scandal, my colleagues and I in the Army Corps reform caucus called for the scientific, nonpartisan, national research council to review the Corps' final recommended plan. Regrettably the NRC's report concluded there remained some questions about the Corps' commercial traffic predictions on the Mississippi--but expressed support for the Corps' inclusion of adaptive management ecosystem restoration components in their plan.

While I remain troubled by the Corps' inability to fully justify the Model they used for their commercial traffic predictions, America clearly has an aging lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi. Most of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River system are over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. For the past 19 years, the Corps has been undertaking major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical to ensuring navigation reliability and safety.

Furthermore, I represent a rural district where agriculture plays an important role in the economy and the life of many of its citizens. Updating this vital water transportation system by modernizing these aging locks will mean greater export opportunities for our farmers, and will create and sustain jobs throughout rural america which has been hit hard by the sluggish economy.

Finally, the ecological health of the Mississippi River and its economic importance to the many people that make their living or seek their recreation is based on a healthy river system. Scientists studying the river agree that without significant efforts to restore habitat, this vital national resource will continue to decline. A strong and consistent Federal role for ecosystem restoration is necessary for the entire basin, both because of the large acreage of Federal lands, including the upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (the longest river refuge in the continental U.S.), as well as its major importance as a continental and international flyway for migratory birds, and as a habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species.

We must ensure Federal resources are balanced between lock construction and ecosystem needs. That is why I offered an amendment to this bill that seeks to do two things: First, it adds a new provision requiring the secretary to make an annual report to congress specifically on whether the lock and dam construction and ecosystem restoration projects are being carried out at comparable rates. In addition, the amendment makes it clear that congress intends to share the authority with the secretary in determining if the projects are moving forward at a comparable rate and adjust the annual funding accordingly. Mississippi lock and dam modernization and ecosystem restoration are an expensive provision of this bill and the American taxpayer deserves to know it is being done right.

Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River is one of America's national treasures. People come from all over the U.S., and all over the world come to its banks to see the natural splendor captured so well by authors like Mark Twain.

As founder and co-chair of the upper Mississippi River Congressional task force, I have long sought to preserve the river's health and historical multiple uses, including as a natural waterway and a home to wildlife, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. While this is not a perfect bill, if implemented appropriately, I believe it will benefit both rural economies and the wildlife that depend on a healthy Mississippi River.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think it is a very positive step forward and a very balanced approach.

The amendment I am offering is a friendly amendment. It is not an amendment that is calling for a retraction or cutback of any programs. It is not an amendment asking for more money or less money for any project. It is not an amendment that changes the definition of anything in the bill. It is an amendment that appreciates the approach in regards to the management of the Upper Mississippi River basin, especially under title VIII.

Title VIII contains two major features: One, as the previous amendment spoke to, is the modernization of the lock and dam system for a certain number of locks in the middle part of the Mississippi and along the Illinois River. But the other component of all that, that really has not received that much attention, is the ecosystem restoration plan that was also a part of the navigation study and one that has been put forward with us today.

In the underlying bill, I think the authors of the legislation, those in support of it, understand the use of the Mississippi River. Yes, there is commercial navigation on it, and there will be tomorrow. It is an important feature of economic development and for our regional economy in the Midwest area. But it is also a river that is used for recreational purposes and tourism purposes. And what is being proposed in the ecosystem restoration portion of the bill is one of the most major investments in the ecosystem of the Mississippi River Basin. And the language actually asks for a comparable rate of progress being made in both the modernization of the lock and dam system along with the investment in the ecosystem restoration, an adaptive management approach that the Corps of Engineers along with other outside experts have recommended in regards to the management of the river system.

My amendment does two very simple things. One is, the Secretary of Army, under the current bill, is required every 4 years to submit a report to Congress showing the progress being made in both the ecosystem restoration and lock and dam modernization. My amendment asks for an annual report by the Secretary to do that so that the taxpayers can determine whether or not the investment is being well spent, so we can determine here in Congress whether the comparable rate of progress is being met, and so that there is that continuing underlying justification that the authors of the previous amendment were alluding to previously.

But my amendment also just clarifies that Congress also has a role in regards to making sure that we do have a comparable rate of progress being made in both the ecosystem portion of the underlying bill and the lock and dam modernization.

Those who grew up on the Mississippi, as I did, and I would probably call myself a river rat, having grown up in western Wisconsin and spent my youth on the river and now enjoy it immensely with my own family and two little boys, understand the importance of maintaining the balance of this vitally important national treasure that we have called the Mississippi River Basin. That area has been the key to the fertile lands that we now call the bread basket of America. It is now a multi- billion dollar industry, the agricultural production that occurs in the upper Midwest. But it is also a multi-billion dollar industry in regards to the recreational and tourism use of the upper Mississippi area. In fact, the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, the largest refuge in the Nation, has more visitors to it than Yellowstone National Park every year. This river basin is the primary drinking source of over 33 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory route. Forty percent of water foul species, and any person who loves to duck hunt, as I do, will tell Members how vitally important that Mississippi River corridor is to the duck populations in the North American continent. And it is a tremendous economic value to our regional economies, not just the commercial navigation that is vital but also the recreational and the tourism value that it brings to the region.

So all we are asking in this amendment is having an annual report by the Secretary of the Army so we can track the progress being made on both fronts and also this clarification that Congress is going to play a role in making sure that we do maintain balance in regards to lock and dam modernization but also the important investment that has to go into ecosystem restoration.

Both components are expensive, and that is why we need to come back, I think, on a much more frequent basis to review the progress that is being made and be able to justify this to the American taxpayer.

My friend from Arizona is exactly right. We are running budget deficits. These are expensive projects. We should be held accountable. And I think having an annual report to do that is a step forward in that direction.

I just want to conclude by commending and thanking the work that the committee has done in putting together, I think, a very fair and balanced bill; the work that the staff has put in to try to reach consensus. Obviously, it is not without controversy. The NAFF study is something that has been around for over 10 years. It has cost us close to $100 million to conclude before the Corps of Engineers submitted their final report to Congress for our consideration. And my guess is, we are probably going to have to continue working on lock and modernization and the ecosystem portion of the river in years to come.

But I think it is an important first step. I think my amendment does add some value to the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to speak in favor of this long overdue Water Resources Development Act and to applaud the chairman and ranking member for bringing it to the floor, but specifically to speak strongly in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi River that protect the fertile farm land in southeast Missouri and delivered grain from our family's farm to barge terminals; and those extra cents per bushel have helped keep food on our table and keep that family farm within our family.

I am presently privileged to represent Missouri's ninth district which includes about 120 miles of the Mississippi, four of the locks in question, several important environmental projects, including mitigation and habitat restoration. Let me echo what the gentleman who just spoke, my friend from Arkansas, said, that it is a little bit frustrating for those of us who know and understand and appreciate the character and the many facets of the Mississippi River to deal with an amendment that has been offered by those whose personal knowledge of locks and dams is a seat on a plane 30,000 feet above these very structures which maintain the navigable waterway of the Mississippi River.

When the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was a signatory to a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) back in March of 2004 urging a line item appropriation to dredge the Columbia River channel from 40 to 43 feet, I did not object because the gentleman should know his own district and how it affects his infrastructure in his area.

Let me just address some of the concerns that have been raised by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). First of all, I have been hearing that this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is a compromise.

The underlying bill is a compromise. There are 29 locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River. We are talking about modernizing five of those locks on the upper Mississippi along with two on the Illinois River.

We have heard the discussion about this being a costly boondoggle, that the cost-benefit analysis does not justify modernization of locks and dams. Here are some facts. First of all, I did not hear from the gentleman offering the amendment that we should have a cost-benefit analysis for the environmental restoration portion of the bill. Secondly, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, $900 million, half of the cost of modernizing the locks and dams, is already being borne by the barge owners and operators with this 20-cent-per- fuel excise tax that is now going into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.

What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 40 percent of the funds in that trust fund have been placed there by the upper Mississippi barge owners and operators, and yet only about 15 percent of the trust fund is used on projects that help those operators on the upper Mississippi.

It is not the first time those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize infrastructure across the country. Highway 89 that cuts through the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) district, those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize the maintenance of that highway.

Just as the light rail project the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has pushed for, about 48 cents out of a dollar is borne by the passengers of the light rail system. We pick up the rest of the cost. I think that is appropriate just as the users of the upper Mississippi are paying for half the cost.

Let me say on the issue of traffic decreasing, because the gentleman talked about the $900 million that has been invested in modernization already. Even with those investments, these 1930s facilities, we are losing 10 percent a year and have for the last 10 years, 10 percent reliability. And so the fact is if a project is broken, it is time to fix it. You do not wait to see if it gets better.

Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterway system everywhere except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of these locks and dams. It is time we modernize them.

I urge a vote for the water bill and a strong vote ``no'' against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.

I thank the gentleman for bringing forth a WRDA bill that balances all needs. I also want to thank both Chairman Young and Chairman Duncan for honoring my request and including the modernization of seven locks on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in this legislation.

I urge all members to support the modernization of these locks and oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment that would ensure that the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers remain gravel roads in a world filled with interstates.

No one would say that our Nation's trucks should transport materials on roads built in the 1930s. But we are forcing the barges on the Mississippi River to use locks built in that far-gone era. Doing so limits our access to export markets and increases the load on our already over-burdened road and rail system.

Today we will hear supporters of this amendment say that river traffic has decreased; this is true but is very misleading. Barge traffic has decreased only in the section of river that contains these woefully outdated and undersized locks. When you look at stretches of the river that are unencumbered by 1930's technology, barge traffic is increasing.

Why? Because this section is plagued by delays and unscheduled maintenance closures, in fact, the capacity of the system is decreasing by 10 percent per year because of these closures. Thus, shippers are forced to stay away from this section of the river and

must use road or rail to transport their crops. Doing so increases transportation costs by almost 30 percent.

When something is broke you don't wait to see if it will get better on its own, you fix it before the problem gets worse. Yet Congressmen Flake and Blumenauer publicly say they want to wait and see if the situation improves. In reality they are using these costly lock delays and the shippers' regrettable but understandable lack of confidence in 1930's technology to achieve their goal of eliminating this project, saying, ``If they come we might build it.''

Additionally, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment contains no exceptions for droughts, floods or other factors outside of anyone's control that could impact the amount of cargo transported during their three-year window. Quite frankly, acts of God should not preclude us from helping farmers secure export markets.

Nor should we be forced to justify this project during a very small window of time; we need to look long term. The long-term effects of inaction more than justify the project. If we allow the delays at our outdated locks to continue, farmers will lose $562 million per year, the Nation would lose more than 20,000 jobs and our trade deficit will increase by $264 million. Moreover, corn exports will be decreased by 68 million bushels per year, soybean exports by 10 million per year, all before the year 2020.

And every day we delay is a day where more cargo is taken off of the river and put on trucks and rails. These are dangerous options for all Americans, dangerous to the driving public because every tow and barge that is taken off the river is replaced by 870 trucks on our highways, increasing the likelihood of accidents by 5,967 percent. And dangerous for the shipper because every barge is replaced by 225 rail cars that even the rail industry says it does not have, creating a situation where farmers will be able to grow crops and even sell crops but never be able to ship these crops.

If you support trade, providing farmers access to as many markets as possible and oppose adding 4 million semi trucks to our overcrowded roads, come join me and the American Farm Bureau, the Carpenters Union, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the National Corn Growers, and the American Soybean Association--to name a few--in our opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Oregon I would personally invite him to come out and view these. Some of these locks, built, again, Mr. Chairman, in the 1930s, are standing just out of habit, with bailing wire and duct tape. And the Corps of Engineers has done a magnificent job.

Here is the reason, which I did not get to address earlier as far as the trigger that is in the gentleman's amendment. The trigger, the tonnage requirement the gentleman has in his amendment, does not take into account, for instance, the weather. A year ago, because of high water, the river was shut down as far as barge navigation. In low-water years, barges can only fill halfway, for instance.

So by putting this trigger mechanism in place, it does not take into account the many variables like weather, like the failure of one of the locks, which I did share with the gentleman, a bad harvest year, fluctuating market prices that may mean farmers choose to store their grain rather than ship their grain.

Again, I certainly acknowledge the intent with which the gentleman is bringing this amendment; but, again, because of the age of these locks and dams, it is time for modernization.

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

In the remaining time, first of all, to my friend from Arizona, this is an authorization, not an appropriation. Half of the cost is going to be borne by those that use it, $900 million from the inland waterway trust fund. To my friend from Oregon, the trends on the inland waterway system have gone up except in this area where the locks and dams are crumbling because we are losing the reliability of these antiquated structures that were built in the 1930s with a 50-year useful life. And would they put the same sort of requirement on our national highway system?

The fact is that the Inland Waterway Structure and these locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi do have national significance. That is why we must modernize them and reject this amendment.