Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should increase basic pay for members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

My only parliamentary inquiry is, in fact, that we are now in fact taking up the WRDA veto override, and that debate will take up 1 hour, and the time has been equally divided.

Is that the correct parliamentary procedure or order of business?

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, I have supported President Bush on many occasions. In fact, I pulled a list of some 43 measures on which I supported the President in an attempt to sustain a veto.

But today, my colleagues, I must respectfully disagree with President Bush's veto of this important and long overdue Water Resources Development Act. I believe it's far too important for both our Nation and for my State of Florida and, again, for all the projects that are in the backlog. I'm disappointed the President and the White House have decided to veto this legislation that includes many critically

needed infrastructure and restoration projects.

For the first time, you've heard this since 2000, the year 2000, Congress will enact legislation authorizing, and this is authorizing, we are setting Congress's priorities for authorization. All of these projects in this bill must come back for approval for funding.

But this particular bill includes all of the water resource projects to restore our endangered ecosystems across the country, construct new levees, dams, rebuild our beaches, and work on other important water resources projects.

A significant portion of the bill, I might say, deals with Everglades restoration, something that we've been working on for years. And also another significant portion of this legislation deals with work and reconstruction of some of our water resources projects in the damaged gulf of the United States.

There's been, as you've heard, a water resources bill introduced in every Congress since 2000; however, controversies always dash the hopes of approving a measure.

After I assumed responsibility for ranking member of the House Republican leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I met with the new chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and I sat down and we tried to decide what were our priorities. And this is a great example of how this body should work. This is a bipartisan measure. Mr. Oberstar, this was one of his priorities. He worked on it for a number of years. I came new to my leadership position, but pledged to work with him; and we did work together on this.

Let me say also, ironically, I feel sad today that Mr. Oberstar is not joining us. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers are with him. He's recovering from surgery yesterday which he had scheduled some time in advance.

But he served this House for 32 years before he became the chairman of T & I. He made a commitment, a bipartisan commitment to work together, and we did that. And when you do that in this House, you can achieve anything. And in a few minutes we will achieve an override of the President's veto because we worked together in a bipartisan manner to rebuild our Nation's water resources.

Let me say also that earmarks, and this contains a number of projects, earmarks have gotten a somewhat tainted reputation and were criticized. But what we did, and what I tried to do on the Republican side, was make certain that this was a transparent process. Every Republican House project was publicly submitted, publicly available for review, and very carefully vetted. In fact, Mr. Oberstar and I cut more than 100 projects from the 2005 proposed House-passed WRDA proposal that did not pass.

The 2007 WRDA bill addresses what I believe are the important needs of our Nation. Again, I think this is a good bill that represents investment in America. These investments will improve trade, protect our homes, our businesses from flood damages, and from other ravages of Mother Nature we've seen. They'll enhance our quality of life by restoring aquatic ecosystems like in the State of Florida with the Everglades restoration.

This legislation ensures our ports and waterways remain viable in the international marketplace by authorizing critical navigational deepening projects. Maritime commerce is absolutely essential to the future of our economy. Congestion at an outdated port or waterway is becoming a national economic issue, and this bill addresses that economic problem. Products moving into our waterways aid our environment and lessen highway and rail congestion.

Efficient waterways must be, in fact, an integral part of America's intermodal transportation system, and this bill helps do that.

To maintain our place in the global economy, the United States must have modern ports and waterways. Our ports and waterways need to be improved to handle additional traffic. And what's coming are mega- ships, a new class of larger liners and freighters that are coming. We have almost no ports that can handle that type of traffic. This conference report addresses these needs in several ways, including improvements to waterways in my State of Florida, as well as in Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, and other areas.

In addition, this bill authorizes seven new locks and other navigational improvements on the upper Mississippi River.

The WRDA conference report authorizes critical projects to provide flood protection to millions of Americans. And we've all seen that if we neglect our waterway infrastructure or our water protection system, you've heard that adage, we pay now or we pay later. Well, I can tell you we'll pay much later if we don't protect ourselves from, again, reducing the potential flood damage that we've seen.

This bill includes many projects that protect our cities from floods and also from those coastal storms we've experienced.

The Corps of Engineers is the leader in planning and carrying out our environmental restoration projects. And this conference report that we will override a veto on in a few minutes is by far the greenest, most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act ever passed by Congress. This bill's major new focus is environmental restoration, and again, it contains the first work. In 2000 we authorized study of cleaning up the Everglades. This bill authorizes work on the Everglades.

Everglades restoration, as I said, has been talked about for years. And it is a national ecological treasure that must be protected for future generations of Americans.

I might say too that the restoration of the Everglades is in partnership with the State of Florida. And I have a message from a Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, was handed to me earlier: Greetings from Brazil, where he's now with 200 businessmen. And the Republican Governor of the State of Florida is urging that we override the President's veto, basically because of what I said about the Everglades and other critical water infrastructure projects in the State of Florida.

This bill does not, as I said, guarantee funding. Money will have to be appropriated to meet these authorization levels; but it represents a critical commitment by this Congress to restore, again, an ecological jewel in Florida and water resources projects throughout the United States.

Also addressed in the bill are policy issues that will improve how the Corps of Engineers actually conducts projects, and that's also important. There's a peer review process that I think is critical to monitoring and protecting whether the projects perform as designed.

I know the President is concerned that the conference report authorizes more projects than could actually be funded. All of those projects may not ultimately receive funding from Congress. They have to come back to Congress, even after this authorization. But it is important that we authorize, through this conference report, a good list of investments from which the Congress can later prioritize funding.

Finally, I know the White House has expressed concerns with this bill. However, again, the House bill in 2005 contained 784 projects. The House bill in 2007 that we worked to examine in a transparent manner the projects, contains 682. Over 100 projects were cut out of the previous House bill. Again, this was, I believe, an open and transparent and a bipartisan process that, hopefully, will restore some of the public's confidence in this process.

And, finally, we have to realize that this bill, since we haven't passed one since 2000, represents the equivalent of three WRDA bills. When we had a backup in 1986 we, in fact, funded $11 billion worth of projects back in 1986 because we hadn't passed a bill in a long time.

So while I wholeheartedly respect the President's veto, we, as Congress have a responsibility to provide for our Nation's resources and infrastructure, provide the leadership to get that job done. And I urge Members to support overriding the President's veto.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of the leaders in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another leader on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the true fiscal conservatives of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another fiscal watchdog in the House, a leader in the Republican Study Group, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the former immediate past chair of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect; he is also the ranking member of the Water Resources Committee, has done an excellent job on this bill working in a bipartisan effort. It is my honor to yield 5 minutes to our ranking member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to yield myself one-half minute for the purpose of an introduction, and then I am going to yield 3 minutes to the individual I want to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, it is now one of the greatest pleasures I have had to introduce a gentleman who I got to know for a brief period of time. He came into this House, and he has done an incredible job of representation in a difficult time for his State of Louisiana. I had the chance to go down with him and look at infrastructure projects after the damage. I think the people of Louisiana recognized, in an unprecedented historic fashion, his leadership, in electing him Governor in a tide that was historic in proportions.

So, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the gentleman and future Governor of the State of Louisiana, our colleague, Mr. Jindal, the gentleman from Louisiana, again, I recognize for 3 minutes.

I will continue to reserve until the last speaker.

Understanding that Ms. Johnson will close, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Now, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we come to the close of the debate on overriding the Presidential veto. Today, indeed, has been a strange day. That is the interesting thing about politics and government in the United States of America. Look at the people who have spoken here; a future Governor. We have heard people who have had their homes destroyed, their property. We had a strange day here today. My side of the aisle ended up voting not to end a particular debate on a possible impeachment resolution of the Vice President. Here I am, a staunch supporter of the President's effort to maintain fiscal responsibility, supporting override of his veto.

But this is a very difficult job. It is a difficult job for me. It is a difficult job for the President. I think we like to do everything we can. I think it is in the heart of the other side of the aisle, and I know in the heart of my fellow Republican Members to do as good a job

as we can in representing people. I know the President has had to make some difficult choices coming into office with the events of September 11 and the terrorist threat that we face and the line drawn in the sand by al Qaeda and Iraq. And national security is our primary responsibility, but we also have responsibility to our infrastructure.

So we have tried to sort out those priorities in this process. We do need an investment in our infrastructure.

The President is right in, probably, his stance. I think we are right in our stance. This is an authorization bill. This is not a spending bill. It does prioritize for the Congress bills that have been carefully considered and projects that have been considered by Members, and Members make very sincere requests based on the conditions of their particular districts.

It is a great system and it does work. I understand the President's commitment to fiscal responsibility, and I think we have tried to act in a responsible and good-steward fashion.

In closing, I again want to thank Mr. Oberstar. Unfortunately, he is not with us today, on this day that he worked so hard for. I thank Ms. Johnson. I want to thank Mr. Baker, our ranking member, and all of those who have worked, particularly the staff: Jim Coon, our staff director; David Heymsfeld on the Democrat staff side; John Anderson and Ryan Seiger; all of the staff, those named and others, who have worked to bring this bill together, all with the same intent, to improve the lives, the resources and the condition of our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the matter under consideration.

I will.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a little over 2 years ago that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita tore through the gulf coast leaving a trail of tragedy and despair in their wake.

Endless news reports documented the disaster, the catastrophe, the misfortune and the heartbreak of the affected communities. Even some of our colleagues lost their homes. Many wondered how they could help these victims, whose homes, families and livelihoods were destroyed in a matter of hours.

Washington may be geographically far from Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and Texas, but it gives us no excuse to dismiss the travails of those States. We cannot merely look at these events through protective glass, ruling on the fates of these communities from far away. We must be on the ground, planning recovery and reconstruction to ensure the devastation experienced never happens again.

Most of us have traveled to New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina to try and understand what needs to be done to help the region prepare for the future.

I have seen firsthand the devastation faced by the citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding region.

On September 15, 2005, President Bush stood in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the dark of the night and stated, ``Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.''

How is vetoing the Water Resources Development Act consistent with this pledge? We need to change how we deal with these events.

Our Federal emergency planning should not consist of after-the-fact recovery. We must institute prevention. We cannot simply wait for tragedy after tragedy and then hastily truck in meals ready to eat or trucks of bottles of water. We need to truck in reform now.

Prior to the hurricanes, the gulf coast had but a patchwork of protection. The wetlands had disappeared. The buffer that could have reduced the wrath of the winds and storm surge of Katrina and Rita had been vanishing. This legislation authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to begin to replenish the water coastline.

WRDA 2007 also closes the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, commonly known as ``Mr. Go,'' taking a proactive step to help the people and the businesses of Louisiana, Mississippi and the entire Gulf Coast States. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was authorized to provide a shorter shipping channel from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans; yet the projected traffic for this corridor never materialized. Unfortunately, the outlet may have substantially contributed to the severe flooding of the City of New Orleans and the lower Ninth Ward during Hurricane Katrina.

WRDA 2007 is also essential to fulfill the President's commitment to rebuild New Orleans even better and stronger than before the storm. Unfortunately, by vetoing this legislation, the President is turning his back on the commitment to rebuild this great city, vetoing the authorization for the Corps to raise enhanced flood protection levees surrounding the City of New Orleans and to achieve a 100-year level of protection.

Some may think that investment in our Nation's infrastructure should have a cost ceiling. We will never be able to contain this cost until we do some of the work. That investment in our Nation's future should only cost so much. Well, for those who make this argument concerning this bill, I urge them to study the recent past of this legislative body.

This bill is not new. As many times as we don't finish it, cost goes up. WRDA 2007 contains water resource projects that have been pending in the halls of this Chamber for far too long. Water resources legislation is most effective when authorized every 2 years. Even the executive branch department indicated that we need $19 billion every other year to bring this, all the infrastructure, up to par. This hasn't happened.

The last bill was signed in 2000 by President Clinton. This bill clears a 7-year logjam. A larger bill is necessary to carry a larger load.

When President Bush states that this bill is too costly, he is not considering the time lag. This debate is not about whether this legislation could cost $14 billion or $15 billion, but about whether this legislation authorizes projects that reinvest in the Nation's crumbling infrastructure.

We do right by this country when we invest in its infrastructure. Regrettably, we are falling miserably behind. China spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure. India spends 3.5 percent and the U.S. spends a meager .93 percent. We must do better.

We don't want a situation where our beaches remain contaminated with open sewage or other contaminants. We passed this particular conference report on August 1, 2007, the same day that the highway bridge I-35 collapsed in Minnesota. We stood on this floor considering investment in infrastructure at the same time that emergency personnel were working the wreckage of a structure that unexpectedly is unstable. Our country cannot continue to put an arbitrary cost ceiling on investment in our public works.

If we do this on a regular basis, we won't have to do that.

Simply put, this legislation is about meeting our commitments to the Nation on protecting lives and livelihoods, ensuring economic competitiveness in the global marketplace, and restoring the Nation's ecological treasures.

For example, WRDA 2007 authorizes the first three projects in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the Picayune Strand, Indian River Lagoon, and the Site 1 Impoundment Project.

Since 2000, all 15 components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan have been delayed. Costs have decreased, and even in my paper this weekend, there was an article on how the Everglades were disappearing.

Florida's Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park continue to be listed in the directories of our country's most endangered parks. As the population of the State of Florida has boomed, land management has not kept pace. This bill begins the journey to a better Florida.

If safety and human protection are not good enough reasons to secure the passage of this legislation, I urge the President to consider our industry. WRDA 2007 seeks to improve our waters for our industry and our environment. This bill authorizes seven locks and dams in the Upper Mississippi River, as well as the ecosystem restoration projects in the Midwest region.

This bill doesn't just address large water resources projects. Many smaller projects are contained within this legislation, seeking to improve cities and small towns across the Nation. We'd like very much for drinking bottled water to continue to be a selection and a choice, rather than a necessity.

These projects do not make national headlines, but they make a difference in the quality of life for those who live in these vicinities. Without these projects, many communities would be without necessary flood control, ecosystem restoration, and economic and public health necessities.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the flood control needs of my district in Dallas. The Dallas Floodway accepts 1,600 square miles of Trinity River watershed runoff and safely moves the flood waters through the City of Dallas by virtue of levees that form both sides of the 2,000 foot-wide floodway. The flooding has been projected to flood the downtown area where all of the basis of our economy is. The floodway levees protect the downtown Dallas vicinity from a potential flood damage loss to property and infrastructure of $8 billion or more.

The 23 miles of levees for the Dallas Floodway were originally constructed by local interests in 1932 and reconstructed by the Corps in 1960. Since 1960, the upstream watershed has experienced the exploding population growth, which has significantly increased run-off, overwhelmed our antiquated interior drainage pumps, and greatly reduced the flood protection afforded by the levee system.

My district's flood control needs are great; and like other communities across the Nation, they are anxiously anticipating the resumption of a predictable, consistent and 2-year WRDA cycle.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this Congress send a message to the American people today that we intend to make our Nation's infrastructure a priority.

I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote ``yes'' in making our infrastructure a priority, vote ``yes'' for your districts, and vote ``yes'' to override the ill-advised veto.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), senior member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to our majority leader from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior member of the committee from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mrs. Tubbs Jones from the State of Ohio.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I rise to close.

I would like to thank Mr. Oberstar for his tremendous leadership, Mr. Young, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Baker, and, of course, Mr. Mica. We have worked together for the last 6 years, actually, a little longer, 7 years, on a bill to try to address these infrastructure problems throughout our Nation. This is the first opportunity that we have really had to begin to address the many massive problems that we do have.

It gives no one pleasure to override any President because I was always taught to listen to both sides. This time, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's a necessity. We simply must begin to address these many, many problems that we are facing. If we had done what the executive branch had recommended, we would have had at least $19 billion in 2001; another $19 billion in 2003; and another $19 billion in 2005; then the $19 billion due this year. As it is, $23 billion is short $55 billion.

So we are not addressing every problem, but we are trying our best to prioritize; and hopefully we can get back on schedule and address these problems every 2 years so that we won't have to deal with more floods like Katrina and Rita; we won't have to do without our Everglades as they begin to disappear.

So thank you very much to the staff, to all of the Members, both minority and majority, because we have all been one or the other. We have been majority and we have been minority. We still work together. This bill hasn't changed that much, no matter who was in the majority or no matter who was in the minority, because we know that problems of this sort are really simply not Democrat or Republican; these are people's problems and we simply have the responsibility to address them.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask everyone to vote to override this veto.

Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of the Water Resources Development Act was pointless and unnecessary.

This legislation, which authorizes project authorizations, modifications, and studies for the breadth of authorities for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and for the entirety of the United States, represents a culmination of seven years of bipartisan, bicameral consensus to invest in our nation's future.

The Water Resources Development Act is vital for our nation's economic growth.

It is essential to maintaining the nation's competitiveness in the international marketplace.

It is necessary for the lives of our families, our neighbors, and our nation through the authorization of flood control structures, and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects throughout the country-- but most notably for those living in the Gulf Coast region.

It is necessary for crucial navigation projects and studies, including the modernization of a portion of the largest inland waterway system in the United States--the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.

It is prudent for sustaining economic growth in our nation's industries--such as the revitalized iron ore and steel industries of the Great Lakes.

Finally, it is critical for the long-term, environmental health of the nation's ecosystems, including fulfilling our commitment to restore the Florida Everglades.

Enactment of the Water Resources Development Act is also significant because it represents the culmination of many years of debate on programmatic changes to the economic and environmental policies of the Corps of Engineers.

These changes, which have colloquially been referred to as ``Corps reform'', are noteworthy because they signify what can be accomplished when industry and the environmental community sit down, talk through their concerns, and mutually agree upon a set of changes to the way the Corps of Engineers formulates and carries out projects and studies within its missions. These programmatic changes will result in better studies, better projects, and hopefully, less controversy over the final recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. Speaker, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was approved by both bodies of Congress--the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate--with overwhelming, bipartisan consensus. How can this legislation merit a Presidential veto?

For six years, this administration has done nothing to assist in the passage of a water resources bill.

For six years, there have been no draft administration proposals for a water resources bill.

For six years, this administration has done nothing to advance of the cause of investment

in our nation's water related infrastructure--its navigation projects, its flood damage reduction projects, and its environmental restoration projects.

For six years, this administration has been entirely disengaged from the water resources development process. Yet, at this late hour, and espoused to a newfound, self-ordained fiscal conservatism, the President comes to Congress to veto this legislation? This veto is an affront to the needs of the American people.

During the years of consensus building in Congress, there has been no participation by this administration to craft legislation to address the water resources needs of the nation.

The President says ``[This] bill lacks fiscal discipline.'' Yet, the administration will have an opportunity to influence future funding of projects and studies contained in this legislation through the annual President's budget request to Congress.

The President says ``[This] bill does not set priorities.'' Yet, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1495 authorizes several, high- priority projects for investment and restoration of the nation's water resources needs.

First, for farmers and other agricultural industries, internationally disadvantaged by aging and inferior locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, this legislation authorizes the construction of seven new, 1,200-foot locks and other navigational improvements that will help move grains and other agricultural commodities to market faster and at a reduced cost.

For the environment, this legislation realizes the decades-long dream of restoring the Florida Everglades ecosystem by taking the first steps toward undoing the mistakes of the past and ensuring the vitality of this internationally recognized environmental treasure for generations to come.

For the communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this legislation is essential to fulfilling the President's commitment to rebuild the Gulf Coast communities ``even better and stronger than before the storm.'' The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorizes the reconstruction of the flood walls and improvements to the interior drainage of the City of New Orleans, the closure of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (``MRGO''), and the initial steps to restore the coastal wetlands surrounding the Gulf Coast region.

For the Great Lakes region, this legislation is crucial to sustain and improve the movement of ores from the Iron Range of Minnesota through the Great Lakes to international markets. In addition, this legislation authorizes the construction of two barriers to halt the northward movement of the Asian Carp--one at the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the other at Lock and Dam 11 on the Upper Mississippi River System. These two barriers will help control the movements of this voracious fish, and sustain the fisheries of the Great Lakes communities.

This legislation also creates a rapid response authority for the Corps and other Federal agencies to control and prevent further spreading of viral hemorrhagic septicemia, or the VHS virus in the Great Lakes. VHS is an infectious viral disease of fish that has been linked to a multiplicity of fish kills. The virus has been a prolonged problem in Europe and Japan, and has now been confirmed in Lake Ontario, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and the St. Lawrence River. Just this past January, it was detected in Lake Huron. With four different strains, the VHS virus spreads rapidly. However, it is unclear exactly how it spreads. We must study and attack this threat immediately, or else we face fish kills in the Great Lakes, a decline in the fishing industry, and economic repercussions.

Mr. Speaker, there are many national priorities in this legislation, as well as countless priorities for our local towns, communities, and constituents. Yet, why has the President chosen to veto this bill?

I can only surmise that the President has so far distanced himself from the water resources needs of this nation that he fails to recognize the importance of this legislation to the American people.

I urge my colleagues to quickly vote in support of this legislation, notwithstanding the Presidential veto, so that we may fulfill the commitments that the Federal Government has made to so many, and ensure the economic, environmental, and public health of this nation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 162) expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should increase basic pay for members of the Armed Forces, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today for a simple yet important purpose. I rise alongside my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that we support a 3.5 percent pay increase for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker, when I was serving in Baghdad, I fought alongside Specialist Juan Arevalo, or ``RV'' to his friends and fellow paratroopers. RV is a quick-witted and fearless Texan who had the trust of everyone in our brigade and would say things to make us laugh or make us think, even during war.

We used to joke that RV signed up for active duty in the Army without even knowing that soldiers got paid. The joke was that he was so innocent, he thought the only compensation he received was training, housing, and three square meals a day. Serving in Iraq and making just over $15,000 a year, RV told everybody he was the richest man in Iraq.

Even though RV would have worked for free in our military, he shouldn't have to, and neither should the families who depend on their loved ones overseas.

More than 1.6 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them multiple times. These are the brave men and women whose pay we seek to raise today, a pay raise that is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, there are more than 3 million family members who count on someone serving on active duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we fight not just for those soldiers but for their families as well.

Our resolution points out that there is currently a 4 percent pay gap between members of the Armed Forces and those in civilian life. At a time when our Armed Forces are stretched so thin, we need to offer more comparable pay to the private sector to retain the most qualified service men and women. Our resolution also gives thanks for their valiant service to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense measure. But, unfortunately, our President has called this pay increase ``unnecessary.'' And yet 2 weeks ago President Bush said, ``America should do what it takes to support our troops.'' The President criticizes the spending priorities of this Congress but stands in the way of a pay increase for our troops.

I say the President should do what it takes to support our troops. This pay raise is long overdue and it is necessary, and President Bush's opposition to it is simply unconscionable.

Madam Speaker, with a 3.5 percent pay increase, we aren't talking about a lot of money. But for a private in Iraq making less than $16,000 a year in basic pay, that small increase would make all the difference in the world. For enlisted men with bills to pay and young children to support, several hundred dollars a year more is a big deal.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for his courageous support, Chairman Murtha, Chairman Obey, Chairman Snyder, as well as Chairwoman Davis and Chairman Skelton for their leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from New Hampshire. There is no greater advocate in the House of Representatives than Ms. Shea-Porter, a proud Member, and a fellow member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Madam Speaker, this is the last speaker on our side. And I now yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, a fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Joe Donnelly.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Walter Jones. I appreciate that. I appreciate the gentleman's service for the citizens of our country and the citizens in North Carolina.

We owe it to those protecting our Nation and fighting for our rights to make sure that we support them and their families who are waiting at home.

This pay raise may mean less than $1,000 for some enlisted men and women, but for those with bills to pay and young children to feed, several hundred dollars is a big deal.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this pay raise, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. By passing this bill, we tell our troops that we support them, and send a message to the President that this pay raise is not only necessary, it's our responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the words of my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), and I thank you for that because he, like the people that have not been affected by Katrina and Rita have been supportive of Louisiana.

Today I ask everyone to join in supporting one of the most critical bills for Louisiana's recovery in the future. The Water Resources and Development Act contains several critical authorizations for hurricane protections throughout south Louisiana. WRDA authorizes the closure of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet, also known as the hurricane corridor after Katrina, which funneled deadly waters into the heart of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish, destroying thousands upon thousands of homes and businesses.

Also authorized in WRDA is the comprehensive hurricane protection system known as Morganza to the Gulf, a 64-mile system of levees, locks, floodgates, and they are all planned to help the people of this region. Morganza would offer hurricane protection to about 120,000 people in south Louisiana who currently have no defense against storms and are like sitting ducks in the path of the next hurricane.

This hurricane protection system is so critical and the local communities have been taxing themselves for years to build this system. It is eminent that we get this bill passed. But they need the Federal Government to be a partner in this project and have anxiously followed the progress of WRDA for years, hoping for full authorization for Morganza.

WRDA also authorizes funding to bring the Federal levees in South Lafourche Levee District up to the 100-year protection level, creating better hurricane protection to residents in Lafourche Parish, which is home to one of the largest energy corridors in this country. This area has also been taxing itself for years.

In addition to these vital hurricane protection projects, WRDA includes a comprehensive coastal restoration plan that will authorize projects to rebuild protective wetlands along Louisiana's coast. When I travel across south Louisiana, I see with my own eyes how our rich marshes and wetlands are disappearing. Louisiana loses a football field-sized piece of land to the sea every 35 minutes. During hurricane season and Katrina and Rita, we lost over 200 miles. Our State is literally washing away into the Gulf of Mexico.

Let me close, because I have more, and I will put the words into the Record, but let me just close by saying that I am appreciative for everything that the Members of Congress who have supported our needs in south Louisiana and the gulf coast of the United States. I ask for one big favor today, and please vote to override the veto of this all- important piece of legislation.

In addition to these vital hurricane protection projects, WRDA includes a comprehensive coastal restoration plan that will authorize projects to rebuild the protective wetlands along Louisiana's coast.

When I travel across south Louisiana, I see with my own eyes how our rich marshes and wetlands are disappearing. Louisiana loses a football field-sized piece of land to the sea every 35 minutes. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we lost over 200 square miles of coastline. Our state is literally washing away into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) authorized by WRDA is a responsible plan that ensures the marshes and wetlands that buffer our coast from storms are protected, as well as the infrastructure that provides over 30% of the nation's oil and gas supply and the habitat for marine species that supplies 30% of the seafood consumed in the United States.

This Congress must override the President's veto today.

Every day WRDA is delayed is another day that 120,000 Americans in south Louisiana remain unprotected from storms because we haven't broken ground on Morganza-to-the-Gulf.

Every year that we don't pass a WRDA bill is another year that Louisiana's coastal wetlands wash away, even further, because we haven't begun work on the LCA (LA Coastal Area) comprehensive coastal restoration plan.

And every hurricane season that goes by without WRDA becoming law is another season that the citizens of St. Bernard/Plaquemines, Jefferson, New Orleans remain and all of S. LA remain more vulnerable to deadly storm surges.

We can't wait any longer.

Congress has come up short in finishing a WRDA bill for seven years now, and today we are so close we can't allow it to be stopped.

Louisiana's hurricane protection and coastal restoration needs must not be pushed aside any longer.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee members and staff for their steadfast dedication to this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the successful recovery of Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast by voting to override the President's veto and

passing WRDA with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.