SKILLs Act

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, a bill long in the making, 6 years in the making, a bill that has ultimately passed the House, not passed the Senate, passed the House, passed the Senate, not gone to conference.

We tried in the closing hours of the 109th Congress to wrap this measure up, then-Chairman Don Young and I, working with our counterparts in the other body, attempting to reach an agreement, but it just proved insurmountable, too insurmountable an obstacle to get there.

In this 110th Congress, we resumed on the base of the legislation that has built up over 6 years, over three Congresses, and working with the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we spent a great deal of time together thinking through how to proceed with this legislation.

We agreed on basic principles that we would start with the bill that passed the House. There was no conference ever consummated in the 109th Congress. So we decided that the benchmark bill for this Congress would be only those measures that were in the bill of the 109th Congress, and we started from there. And then we have worked our way through myriad issues, Members who wanted new projects or amendments or additions to existing projects; and in all cases, we made very, very difficult, but I think honest and consistent, decisions about the legislation we bring before you today.

I want to assure Members that are concerned, that have issues that have arisen since the 109th Congress, that those issues that need to be addressed by projects of the Corps of Engineers will be addressed in subsequent legislation. As soon as we are able to move this bill through the House, through conference with the Senate, which I am confident can be done before the middle of June, maybe earlier if the other body will be able to free itself to work with us in conference, we can get this done very quickly, and then begin on the next round of water resources projects which I guarantee is not going to take 7 years.

We are going to deal with somebody, maybe in the next 7 or 8 months after the conclusion of this legislation. Again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for consistently working to move this critically important legislation.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is the proud inheritor of a long tradition of work, of investment in America's transportation needs, water resources, where the very first concerns of the new Nation in 1789 and the first act of the first Congress, 1789, was to authorize the establishment of a lighthouse, at the entry to Hampton Roads in Virginia.

Starting from that point, this committee continued the direction of the Constitution to build and maintain post roads. Well, not all roads were built just for the postal service; but, again, it was the spirit of the Constitution, the spirit of the new Nation that we needed mobility. The Nation was founded along the waterways, the salt water coasts, the inland waterways. It has been our task to assure mobility, movement of people and goods through waterways, and then the highways, later the railways, and then the airways.

Here we come with this massive bill, because the President, because Congress hasn't done its work; and the last time a President signed a Water Resources Development Act was in 2000. Well, we hope that the next one will be this year, which we fully expect.

There are many issues that have arisen in the intervening years, some that were weighing heavily upon us when we began this process in 2000 of crafting the current WRDA bill on the Great Lakes. Invasive species are threatening our native aquatic species, biota and flora, as well as a new issue called a deadly fish virus, a hemorrhagic virus that destroys the fisheries and is carried in ballast waters from one region of the Great Lakes to another.

We have language in this bill that will initiate an emergency program by the Corps of Engineers to protect the vital food supply and the quality of the waters.

Lake Superior, because of a drought in the Great Lakes watershed, has seen the water level drop 8 inches in the past 3 years and will drop another 2 inches this year with the beginning of the major shipping season. It will be at nearly its lowest level in history. That has meant that vessels carrying iron ore from the upper lakes to the lower lakes steel mills have gone out 7,500 tons light.

It means two or three extra voyages per vessel per season, raising the cost of iron ore, raising the cost of steel, affecting our competitiveness. We have legislation, we have language in this legislation that will direct the Corps to undertake an accelerated dredging program making up for the 15 years they haven't done the dredging because we have had high waters on the Great Lakes.

We authorize locks, improved extended locks on the Mississippi River system, seven extended locks to take the 600-foot locks to make them 1,200-foot locks. A barge tow leaving Clinton, Iowa, round-trip to New Orleans, back to Clinton, Iowa, takes 820 hours. New Orleans is the world's most important grain export facility.

We can cut 60 hours off that round-trip by extending the locks at 1,200 feet so the tows that are 1,200 feet don't have to be broken in half, sent through 600 feet at a time, lashed together, go through the next lock and do it all over again. We are in a world competitive market on which grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. Every time you have to spend those extra hours going through the locks, you are raising the cost of our commodities, which makes us less competitive with, say, Brazil, which is mounting a massive soybean export facility at Recife, which is 2,500 miles further out in the Atlantic Ocean than New Orleans is.

We have legislation here, language in this legislation to deal with the restoration of the Everglades, a matter of great interest to the gentleman from Florida, for which he has been an eloquent advocate. They are in a state of disrepair. The buffer to protect them from storms is weak because of our inaction, and we are going to deal with that issue, as well as the wetlands along the Gulf of Mexico from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, all the way on to Florida.

We are insistent on addressing the needs of the Everglades, the needs of the Louisiana coastal region and in Louisiana, New Orleans area, the Mississippi River gulf outlet, which allowed salt water intrusion to come up from the gulf, kill the wetlands. It allowed the overtopping of St. Bernard Parish. We have got to restore that wetland, and this legislation will do that at the request and insistence of the Louisiana delegation.

There are many other important features in this legislation. In all, 56 chiefs' reports, we had a request of over 1,500 projects. There are over 700 projects in this legislation. More than 300 Members of the House have a direct interest in the legislation. We welcome their interest in this participation. We bring to this body a very critical and supportable piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my great appreciation again to the gentleman from Florida for his thoughtful discussion. I join him in his statement on the administration's statement of policy. I think they have it wrong, and the gentleman stated it just right.

Over the past 6 years, if we had passed the water resources bill in a timely fashion, it would have been in the range of $2 billion a year. That is normal. So what we are dealing with is a huge, pent-up backlog.

Again, as the gentleman said, this is an investment in America, and Members of Congress representing their constituents, their businesses, their water resources, know what they need. They have come forward with thoughtful recommendations, and this bill reflects those recommendations.

We have served as a filter to weed out those in our best judgment that did not measure up on cost-benefit analysis. So we have set a standard for the future and we have, in accordance with the rules of the House, made all of the Member projects available, and will continue to do that.

I would like to acknowledge the splendid work of the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson. She has devoted years of her service in the Congress to consideration of water resources vital to her State of Texas. She has taken ownership of these issues and led the subcommittee hearings. Even this afternoon, she has hearings going on in our committee room while she is here to help manage the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Could the Chair advise the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. The question of the Fox River has been on the agenda of the committee for over 20 years.

And the gentleman has stated the issue very well: that 6-foot channel depth is simply not viable for today's barge traffic.

And there is also the issue of PCB contamination in the lower Fox River. The gentleman has shown real foresight in dealing with the issue both of navigation and of cleanup. So the Superfund really ought to deal with this problem. It is not going to. We are going to be vigilant on the matter. If there is an opportunity in conference to address the issue in an appropriate manner, we will do that. If not, we will do it in a subsequent water resources bill. And I look forward to coming to Green Bay to see the gentleman's district and the lower Fox River.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the distinguished ranking member, and we are committed to working together either in conference or subsequently in resolving this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), former ranking member of the subcommittee, who devoted an enormous amount of his time, along with Mr. Duncan, in shaping this bill in the previous Congress and now leads us on aviation as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

There is an old saying among seafarers: ``No helmsman is tested in fair water.'' The gentleman from Louisiana was tested in the aftermath of Katrina, and I saw him at the helm in Baton Rouge when our committee made a tour of the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina. I was impressed then and continue to be by his composure, his grasp of facts, grasp of the magnitude of the problem, and his willingness to address the issues in a coordinated and bipartisan manner. I salute him for his continued leadership and service not only to the State, but to the Nation.

Again, I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for similarly taking the helm in a time of turbulence when we had this work of 6 years thrust upon us, trying to sort it out, do the right thing and serve our Members, their districts, and our Nation at the same time and measure each project against the yardstick of balance that has historically guided the Corps of Engineers and guided the work of this committee, and I think we have come here with a good product.

And I especially appreciate, once again, the splendid work of the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, who is the Chair of the subcommittee and who has put her heart and soul into seeing this bill move forward.

Mr. Chairman, 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.

This is the so-called traditional manager's amendment that we have worked on for weeks in a bipartisan manner across the aisle within the committee to work out technical changes and modifications to the bill that came to the attention of the committee after consideration of the bill in March. A project of this magnitude always has some issues that we need to resolve, and we have done that quite well in this manager's amendment.

Among some of the highlights are a provision that is of great importance to the 35 million people who live along the Great Lakes. There is a provision to direct the Secretary of the Army, along with directors of other agencies and entities, to carry out an emergency project to control and prevent spreading a viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) virus in the Great Lakes and the connecting channels. I alluded to this issue at the outset of my remarks at the beginning of the legislation. It is an infectious viral disease of

fish and has caused fish kills throughout the lakes. It has been a problem in Europe, it is a problem in Japan, and now we have confirmed presence in Lake Ontario, Lake St. Clair, Erie, St. Lawrence River. It was discovered in Lake Huron. It is migrating up the lakes, killing fish in its wake caused by ballast water that is infected on vessels plying the Great Lakes.

It spreads rapidly. We don't really know how it spreads, but we need to attack this issue now. There is a multibillion dollar fishery industry throughout the Great Lakes, sport fish and commercial fishery, and this provision will help us deal with and hopefully find a way to contain this devastating virus.

We also have authorizations for new projects in water and wastewater- related infrastructure. For years, these were traditionally practices of the Environmental Protection Agency, but they have run out of money, frankly. Even though we have passed the State Revolving Loan fund bill in this committee to deal with the matter, there still are huge needs. No one better than the Corps of Engineers is equipped to deal with the needs of environmental infrastructure. So in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service program, the State Revolving Loan fund of the EPA, Corps of Engineers will help communities rebuild their infrastructure and provide for public health and economic vitality of our towns all across America. The needs of communities have not gone away; the ability to deal with them has simply diminished.

The Corps can do this work; they have proven they can. And we have a very vigorous and I think constructive environmental infrastructure program in the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as she may wish to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, we have labored mightily to comply with the new rules of the House, to cut every one of the projects back with each of the Members, each of 300 Members who had a project in the last Congress that carried over to this Congress. We have worked very diligently to serve as a filter for Members, to filter out problems that they had, projects that really might not comply,

that should not be considered at this stage.

We bring forward to you a bill that has been on the Internet, that is fully vetted, and should pass with overwhelming support.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, though I am not in opposition to the amendment, to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. We have had a bipartisan agreement on this.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and our former colleague from Iowa, Mr. Leach, have long worked with the committee on this issue of Rathbun Lake. It is as much a tribute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) as to our former colleague, Mr. Leach. The gentleman has described the issue very well.

In initial consideration of this legislation, there was a PAYGO issue, and the gentleman from Iowa has worked with us on both sides of the aisle to resolve the matter. We no longer have an impact on direct Federal spending in the amendment. Therefore, it passes our committee standards.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment and appreciate the support of the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will yield time to the gentleman, of course.

In the preceding Congress, this amendment was offered on the floor during consideration of the WRDA bill, and it passed by voice vote; WRDA passed by 406 votes. It requires adequate budgeting by the administration for maintenance of small, low-use harbors. These are relatively smaller harbors; they may not handle thousands of containers or millions of tons of bulk commodities shipped on the Great Lakes, as we do in the Harbor of Duluth, but they are important projects and facilities that place lives and livelihoods at risk on the fierce storms of the Great Lakes, because these are also harbors of refuge. So I strongly support it.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his statement. I just wanted to point out that the Great Lakes have gone through 15 years, in the 1960s, into the 1970s, into the 1980s, nearly a 20-year period of abnormally high level. Now we are going

through a seventh year of low water drought in the watershed of the Great Lakes. The Corps of Engineers has avoided dredging costs all during those two decades of high water on the Great Lakes. It is time now to recoup, to do the dredging that is needed, especially for these small harbors, harbors of refuge, small commercial harbors. And the gentleman's amendment will ensure that this issue stays on the agenda of this and future administrations. So I urge support of the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I appreciate the concerns of the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee about time and cost. We certainly don't want to add any more time than Corps projects already take to evolve, nor do we want to foist additional costs on local governments.

The language of the amendment of the gentleman, though, is simply to take current practice that the Corps has in its principles and guidelines, but to make those principles and guidelines into current law. I have talked with the Corps representatives in the chief's office, and they say, well, we're looking for direction from Congress.

This language will not add time, will not create costs that are not already being incurred under our existing practice, and in that spirit, I think the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

And I do so to speak deliberately, carefully and thoughtfully so that the Speaker pro tempore can reach the House floor in order that the committee may rise and report the bill to the House with sundry amendments and that we can conclude action on the bill. I mean, let's be honest about what we're doing here in the spirit of transparency.

But the gentleman from Illinois speaks for himself and also the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) who shares this river with him and also our former Speaker, Mr. Hastert, whom I saw on the House floor just prior to consideration of the legislation. So he thought this would be a good idea because he would be able to do some walleye fishing on the river, and we are all for fishing walleyes, and the gentleman has had a very, very clear and narrowly drawn objective.

I am glad we have been able to work this out in a manner that suits his concerns and allays the fears and concerns of those in the Western States that thought this was going to be a major hindrance to hydroelectric projects.

So I thank the gentleman for tailoring the language of the amendment to the needs at hand and to allay the broader concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

I want to use this opportunity to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for the superb work she has done shaping the bill and bringing us to this point; and to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, whom I previously eulogized for his work in the gulf; and our full committee ranking member, Mr. Mica.

This has truly been an effort bringing this bill forward, and essential to this team have been the staff. I am always grateful for the staff because that is where I started in this body 44 years ago, as clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, the predecessor of the Committee on Public Works. It was the first committee of the Congress in the first Congress in 1789.

I want to thank Ryan Seiger of the majority staff; Ted Ilston, Beth Goldstein, Mike Brain, Rod Hall of Congresswoman Johnson's staff; Dave Heymsfeld of the full committee; John Anderson, a distinguished long- time professional on the minority side; Geoff Bowman, Tim Lundquist, Jim Coon of the full committee staff; and Charlie Ziegler, whom I have known for so many years, a friend of long-standing. I don't have old friends anymore, friends of long standing, when you get to my age.

In the Legislative Counsel's Office, Curt Haensel and the ever- talented Dave Mendelsohn. All have worked together, pitched in to help us bring this bill to this point. We are ready now to conclude action on the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

First of all, we had a very clear agreement within the committee on the Democratic and Republican side not to take new items that were not in the 109th Congress Water Resources Development Act. We have vigorously adhered to that, kept a great many projects out.

This proposal is not only new, but it is massive, it is huge, it is not a study of potential effects. It has very clear declarative language: the Secretary shall inventory, develop and maintain all lands, properties, projects, meaning hydroelectric projects. The language at the very outset prohibits any action that may be proposed, as is being considered along the Snake River, to remove dams for environmental purposes, and by directing the Secretary to undertake this action, creates a PAYGO issue. There is a clear budgetary consequence in that language.

This motion goes well beyond the intent of the Water Resources Development Act. It goes beyond the bipartisan agreement we have in bringing this bill to the floor. It authorizes unlimited projects without consideration of environmental impacts or consideration of taxpayer expense.

It impacts legislation that we already have in this bill. It goes far beyond the scope that we intended in WRDA.

We can consider the gentleman's proposal in future authorizations of WRDA and in hearings that we will undertake, but this amendment has no place during floor consideration of this bill at this late hour when it clearly brings into play items well beyond the scope of the agreement between the Democrats and Republicans on the bill and well beyond the scope of the purpose of the legislation. It imposes vast, potential new expenditures and requirements upon the Secretary, some of which are not even well understood at this point.

So I oppose the motion, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I recognize a valued member of the committee, Mr. Brown, for 2 minutes.

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana who has worked tirelessly on assisting the people of the storm-stricken area, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize a Member who has expressed interest in this subject matter, Mr. Hulshof, for 2\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is a former chairman of the Water Resources Subcommittee and who put an enormous amount of work into the product on the House floor today, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 1 minute to Mrs. Biggert.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I claim the remainder of our time.

I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Johnson and of course my ranking member, Mr. Mica, for their very diligent and hard work; more specifically, for the time spent in the great State of Louisiana after the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. The committee has come down, Members often more than once, to observe for themselves the damage that has been caused by this unbelievable natural catastrophe.

The bill under consideration today will begin an enormous and monumental project for the restoration of coastal Louisiana. It is not just about keeping people with the ability to live on the water's edge; it is giving the ability to stop the storm surge coming inland and bringing about the type of devastation that we have painfully experienced again.

This legislation is a landmark, certainly for the traditional reasons. Many Members have interests in projects for economic development reasons, for control of public water systems, for enhancing water runoff and minimizing agricultural and other sources of contamination to our water systems. But this bill is really important for maintenance of life and quality of life in our State, and it will begin the meaningful restoration of what is a tremendous natural asset, coastal Louisiana.

I would emphasize what has already been stated repeatedly: this is a process resulting in over 600 projects which has come about over a 6- year period. And so it is my deepest hope that this House will this evening favorably adopt 1495, that the Senate will work expeditiously with us in moving forward, and that the administration will find a way to sign this important jobs bill into law.

$13.1 billion is a lot of money, and when coupled with the local matched dollars which are required, it will be a significant shot in the economic arm for the construction industry across this country. So I am most appreciative of the opportunity to have participated in this process.

I am grateful to my Democratic colleagues for their kind and hard work on this subject and listening to the people of Louisiana in their hour of need. For that we are and will always be most appreciative.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition and therefore ask unanimous consent to claim such time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak for a moment as to process and my appreciation for the manner in which the chairman handled this particular legislation. At the time of some of the subcommittee consideration, there were some Members who had not completed the necessary documents for submission of their projects in the required form, and the chairman made clear that should a Member provide the necessary information in a timely manner, that their projects would be included for consideration. And the manager's amendment reflects the closure of that verbal agreement in allowing many Members to complete the necessary documentation, therefore enabling the committee to include their projects of interest in the final mark before the House this evening. That is a model of how appropriate legislative consideration should be engaged, and I want to express appreciation to him.

I can verify for him if there is ever any question that there are a large number of Members who have a very deep and abiding interest in this subject matter, I have a list. And they also are appreciative of the willingness to give opportunity for appropriate consideration.

The manager's amendment is extraordinarily important in that it touches about a hundred projects which otherwise would not be included. I certainly hope that those present will support the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield such time as the gentleman may consume to my ranking member, Mr. Mica.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I certainly would be remiss if I did not comment on his effort to provide for transparency and disclosure of Members' requests. It was a new process. We had a lot of new paperwork to engage in. But at the end of the day, I think the public interest is well served and every Member is well served by having such disclosure made in a timely manner; and for his leadership in providing that counsel, I am most appreciative.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to compliment the gentleman on his amendment. We have reviewed it. We have no objection to its consideration and adoption.

Reserving the right to object, if I may make an inquiry of the gentleman, we have a cosponsor on our side of the amendment. Will the gentleman be happy to yield?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly appreciative of the gentleman's interest and have worked with him closely on a number of matters through the course of the years. And just in this instance we have a matter of policy difference.

The P&G planning process utilized by the Corps does not begin with an idea that something must be done. It is not a process through which a commercial activity will automatically or inordinately be concluded must be implemented. The plan that is proposed must seek certain levels of justification; that is an iterative process where various parties are heard from over time.

As to the element of whether the P&G has been modified or not, I have done some work on the matter over the last days, knowing of the gentleman's interest in this amendment. And I can go back further over time, but on September 30 of 1999, the Corps issued Engineering Regulation 1165-2-501, which speaks directly to the gentleman's interest to encourage to the maximum extent practicable the restoration of aquatic ecosystems.

From the gentleman's amendment, the 1999 issuance speaks directly to a nonmonetary output compatible with P&G selection criteria; meaning, we should look at things broader than just dollars and cents.

On April 22, 2000, regulation 1105-2-200 recognized the national ecosystem restoration plan on a par with national economic development.

March 26, 2002, chief of engineers issues the environmental operating principles affirming sustainable development.

May 1, 2003: to provide for procedural guidance for formulating and evaluating projects consistent with environmental sustainability.

There was another on May 5, 2005. But to ensure the gentleman has time for his question, I will wrap up by saying, I have been assured by the Corps that they are working as diligently as one can work to accommodate environmental sensitivities while at the same time assuring that projects move forward in a timely manner.

The reason for my concern, as the gentleman knows, I am highly sensitized to our recovery from the Katrina-Rita days, and I know the gentleman's amendment is worded in such a fashion that, if it is authorized prior to the adoption of this language, it has no effect. But going forward, we are going to be doing this stuff for a very long time in our State.

The unintended consequences of these additional standards are going to be costly to local sponsors, and they are going to require significant additional programmatic time to achieve, not to ignore the gentleman's concerns that ecosystem restoration is a valuable and salutary goal that we should pursue.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Yes. We may have a dispute as to the meaning of the words that we have on the page, but I will be happy to provide the gentleman.

May 5, 2005: planning in a collaborative environment to build on modernized guidance, improve Corps projects through greater collaboration with all stakeholders. I am skipping a little bit here. Broaden project selection criteria to encompass net beneficial effects in all four P&G accounts; national economic development, regional development, economic development, environmental quality, and other social effects.

So it goes beyond even environmental aspects in their planning process.

All I can speak to from my knowledge is Corps-issued Engineering Circular 1105-2-409 on May 5, 2005.

The distinction between a statutory adoption and a circular being issued is managerial direction to people who are implementing the programmatic requirements. It may be a difference of no distinction to the gentleman; but my opinion is, after spending some time with the Corps individuals, they feel they are on top of and are trying as best they can within financial constraints to achieve the goals the gentleman is prescribing. My worry is this will now transfer a financial liability to the local sponsor which does not now exist and may well, because of the times outlined in the gentleman's amendment, protract the timely construction of worthwhile projects.

I, for example, am not sure whether this applies to aids to navigation. I don't know. I am not suggesting it does, but the way the amendment is constructed, I am worried about scope and reach. And please understand, I want to be helpful to the gentleman's interest. I am not at all averse to constructing projects in an environmentally safe and sound manner. I am just not sure that the goals the gentleman seeks are the results we would get out of the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 2 minutes for a total of 4 minutes for debate on this amendment only.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted to express a word of appreciation to the gentleman for revision of his amendment as it now appears before Members. He worked diligently with the staff in order to assure that some concerns that had been raised had been alleviated, and we find ourselves at a point where we have an amendment to which I do not believe there is objection.

At some point later in the evening I assume we will agree to adopt it and then later we will take up the underlying bill and pass that as well.

I assume that the gentleman has sufficiently consumed enough time to where the managerial matters of his earlier interests may have now been resolved, I hope.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I understand the amendment, it is to require a study, an inventory, and an assessment of our hydroelectric capacity that is under the Secretary's jurisdiction, further to examine the advisability of perhaps private ownership of those facilities for the public interest, or whether we should enhance the government-owned and - operated facilities.

So it is an examination of our energy resources to determine how we should best go forward, and the Congress does not require today the expenditure of any new money for such purpose other than that to accomplish the study.

I thank the gentleman. With that understanding, I would just express support for the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to urge all Members of the House on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1495, which is known as the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

As we have heard from the chairman, this bill authorizes and directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out various studies, projects and programs relating to navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, shoreline protection and recreation and environmental restoration and protection.

Our subcommittee, led by Mr. Baker of Louisiana, held two days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during the development of this legislation. After a careful review, the committee was able to approve the authorization of more than 50 projects with the chiefs' reports relating to flood damage reduction, navigation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration.

We also have in this legislation, navigation and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Mississippi River. Illinois waterway system, and Everglades restoration project, which I would like to talk about in just a moment, and conserving and restoring the Louisiana coastal area.

We have in the bill a provision for streamlining and expediting the Corps of Engineers' project delivery and permits system. We have provisions for improvement of the Corps of Engineers' planning and project development process, including independent peer review of larger and more controversial studies. We also have authorization of a number of smaller project modifications, investigations, related to our civil works programs of the Corps of Engineers. I think all in all we have a good piece of legislation that we have worked on in a bipartisan fashion, and you see the product before us today.

Now, I know the administration has issued a position opposing this legislation. However, I want to talk to a couple of points that they have raised. They do have a responsibility to be good trustees of the public monies and

the difficult situation we find ourselves in financially.

But in this legislation between 3 and $4 billion would be typically spent during a WRDA cycle or authorization process on this type of legislation. We have not had a bill since the year 2000. So actually if you do simple math on that, you can see that the total cost of this bill in Federal dollars, $13.1 billion, is reasonable. The total cost with the State participation is $17.8 billion. But we do, indeed, have a backlog of projects over what would amount to at least three cycles. So this WRDA bill, this authorization legislation, in fact, combines the equivalent of all of those years of backlog of projects. The price tag, in fact, is consistent with that assumption.

While this bill is considered costly by some, the 2005 WRDA legislation contained almost 900 projects. That is another complaint of the administration, too many projects. This bill contains 682 project provisions. Not that Mr. Oberstar, myself, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Baker haven't had Members throughout the Congress come to us and beg and plead to have additional projects that are critical to their district included in this legislation. I think we, too, have been good custodians and responsible in crafting this legislation.

Let me say that the administration also raised some questions about cost benefits. We have gone through this. Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. Baker, Ms. Johnson, we have looked at cost benefits. We have done our very best to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars again are well spent and there is a good return for the investment that is being made here by the Federal taxpayer.

So those are the reasons that I disagree with my administration on this. I actively support this. I think we have done this in a very good fashion.

Finally, I want to talk to some of the measures that are in the bill. You have heard the chairman talk about some of the measures that are in this bill. This bill is important to me, not only as a Member of Congress, and I don't represent the Everglades, but I do represent the State of Florida. It is interesting how it takes time to undo some of the damage that mankind has done to our natural resources and national treasures.

I have a copy of the Palm Beach Post, which I kept in a file, from Sunday, April 11, 1993, irony, same month a number of years ago, talking about the Everglades, reversing man's mistakes. I started working on that along with the Clinton administration, Secretary Babbitt. Hear is an article from July 4, 1994, about a $465 million government industry agreement to start cleaning up the Everglades, which had been damaged by man's abuse.

Here is another article I pulled from the news journal Daytona Beach News-Journal that says: ``Representative John Mica and the other Members of central Florida's House delegation are in a fortunate position to finish the work the Senate started.'' This is the year 2000. Here we are in 2007.

Now, in 2000 we authorized a study. What is important about this bill is we authorize for the first time projects that actually do construction and work in restoring our precious national treasure, and Florida's national environmental treasure, the Everglades.

So that is one reason why I am excited about this piece of legislation. It does take a long time and a lot of money.

Finally, I do want to also cite that I just inherited the responsibility of the Transportation leader on the Republican side, and I never realized how important these projects are to individual Members. For example, not on our side of the aisle, but Ms. Matsui, a Democrat Member, she has a project in here that would provide a 100- year level of flood protection for the city of Sacramento. Almost a million Americans live in the capital of California, more than twice the population of the pre-Katrina New Orleans that today has only an 80-year level of flood protection. No other community in America of this size has this little flood protection. This is a project important to Ms. Matsui.

There are not Republican projects, there are not Democrat projects; there are projects for the people that are important to their survival. And we have seen the mistakes and the errors of our ways in Katrina. Mr. Baker can speak to what he has gone through in Louisiana. We need not repeat those errors.

So here we have in this legislation an opportunity to help her and 299 other districts. I wish it was 435. So it has been put together in a bipartisan way.

And finally, on my effort, I tried to do it in a transparent way. All of the Republican projects have been on file, open to the public, and any of the earmarks, open to public and press scrutiny. So I have tried to do it in a manner that restores public faith, because I would rather have elected Members of Congress make those decisions, fight for them, and have it done and conducted in a transparent fashion rather than have some bureaucrat down there decide where the taxpayer money, which they just paid in in huge amounts over the past week to Washington, get expended. That is our responsibility, it is elected officials' responsibility, not appointed bureaucrats who don't have the responsibility we have under the Constitution.

So, again, I recognize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Baker. I also want to thank Mr. Costello, who is no longer the Chair or the ranking member, and Mr. Duncan, who was the Chair because this is an inherited work. Again, several bills are combined that are long overdue. So I urge their passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

First of all, I know, Mrs. Bono, that you have worked tirelessly on behalf of restoration of the Salton Sea project. Only through a technicality in our agreement for moving forward with this legislation has your Bono Salton Sea restoration provision been left from this bill. But you have my assurance that you will have top priority for consideration for the conference on something you have worked year after year and so hard for. So before this gets to the President's desk, you have my assurance that it will be part of the President's bill, if we have a bill.

Might I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. Mr. Oberstar, after the election, became the Chair, I became the ranking member of the Transportation Committee. And we inherited, indeed, a huge backlog of projects. We also inherited a bill that required earmarking because they are Members' projects, and everyone knows the problems that we have had with earmarks in the past. So I can assure the Members that on both sides of the aisle we have done everything possible to vet these projects. I am also sorry that we can't put even more projects in.

We just had Mrs. Bono here, and her heart and soul in her work in Congress, which is something she inherited, actually the work, too, of her late husband, Sonny Bono, a good friend and colleague.

She wanted that so badly in this, and it is so important, the restoration of the Salton Sea, for her district. You can see how important these projects are to Members and their districts. So we have a good work product.

Let me make one point I did not make in opposition to the administration's position on this piece of legislation in that it cost too much. If you look at 2000 when we started these projects, maybe they did cost $5 million. I can tell you that just with inflation and the cost of doing construction projects, having been in the development business, that every day we delay will cost us more; and that is why these projects cost us more, and that is why I am in opposition to the administration's point there.

We have evenly divided the projects. I don't think we could have had a fairer distribution. They are Republican, they are not Democrat, but they are of national and district importance, and I think we have done as good a job as you can. I am sure you can find something wrong or questionable, if anyone seeks to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to move and urge the passage of this bill, not only through the House but through the other body and conference, so that we can do a better job for the people that we represent in these important environmental and water resources projects.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am proud of the time that I was able to work with you for 10 years on this subcommittee.

I rise in support of the bill. As was referenced by the Chair of the committee and the subcommittee, this is an important and complex bill with 682 projects. They are important economically. They are important environmentally. We found out less than 2 years ago how critical they are to the Nation. Hurricane Katrina revealed it can literally be a matter of life or death.

This legislation has been hung up since the year 2000, in part because of disagreements about the reform agenda with the Corps of Engineers. I am pleased that we have signaled an effort to try and move forward, to be able to break that impasse with this legislation, the provisions in it and others that will follow.

I am also pleased to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to update the principles and guidelines that would help the Corps move even closer to developing environmentally, fiscally, and structurally sound projects.

Let me be clear. The amendment will not impact any project currently under way or anything covered in this legislation. It would simply tell the Corps of Engineers to update their own principles and guidelines, the playbook for developing water resources projects that are over 25 years old. The National Academy of Sciences has said they are woefully out of date. And the Corps and the Congress' inability to update these principles and guidelines is one of the reasons why the Corps has drawn criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the OMB, along with internal Pentagon reviews.

It is one of the reasons why we have had trouble passing WRDA in the last 6 years and reconciling it with the Senate which has similar provisions. It does not affect anything in the bill currently; and I think it will be an opportunity for us not just passing the bill, but it would be a reason for the President to sign it, given the problems they have had.

I appreciate the hard work that has been done. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the bill, and look forward to having support for the amendment for updating the principles and guidelines later in the afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Army to update the principles and guidelines used by the Army Corps of Engineers in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource projects. As I said on the floor earlier today, they have not been updated since 1983. It is embarrassing that the Corps is operating under guidance a quarter century old.

We have learned a lot in the last 25 months, as I look to my colleague from Louisiana, about Katrina and others in

terms of the Corps. Imagine how things have changed in the last 25 years.

Under this amendment, the Army Secretary would incorporate the latest scientific and economic knowledge, eliminate biases and disincentives, would be required to consult with the public and other Federal agencies while updating the principles and guidelines.

I want to be clear about what it would not do. It would not impact any project already underway or impact any project that is in the bill that has been created here today. It would not prevent the Corps from doing structural projects and would not delay any projects at all. It is why it is supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the professionals who actually do the work, taxpayer organizations, and environmental groups.

The National Academy of Sciences in a report from the year 2000 pointed out that the current principles and guidelines were state-of- the-art thinking when it was written, and some of the concepts and paradigms that underpin it are relevant today. However, in over 20 years since it has been updated and revised, it needs to be revised to reflect contemporary management paradigms; analytical methods; legislative directives; social, economic, and political realities.

I deeply appreciate the work with the committee's staff, the Chair and subcommittee Chair in getting this to this point.

I want to be clear that what you just stated that our goals, the things that you just cited, have never been incorporated into the principles and guidelines, have they?

And my question was, Is it not true that the Corps has not adopted those things into the principles and guidelines?

Engineering Circular that has not been incorporated into their principles and guidelines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our distinguished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Then I will close.

I deeply appreciate the words of support that have been offered here by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); from my distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar; and from the former ranking member of the Water Resources Committee, Mr. Costello.

I want to be clear that what was offered up by my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, in no way undermines what I said. These principles and guidelines have not been updated. There are procedures and circulars discussed by the gentlemen from LA. They have not been incorporated into an updated, revised principle and guideline for the Corps of Engineers.

That is why the National Academy of Public Administration, one of the many scientific organizations to recommend updating the principles and guidelines, they released their recommendation after the circular that the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned. His information simply is not current in terms of how the Corps is operating and all the independent bodies, the Science Board, the public administrators, why the American Engineering Association, as well as taxpayers and environmental groups say it is past time to fix this situation.

For those of you who care about getting something actually through Congress, you ought to support this amendment. One of the hang-ups between the House and the Senate has been this issue of reform. The Senate has stronger language than this. I think it will help bridge the gap. I urge its adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise to support H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

This bill authorizes water resources projects and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy and programmatic changes that our Congress has failed to consider for far too long.

Water resources legislation is most effective when it is considered biennially. I support this 2-year cycle, as it provides stability to the program and assurance to the non-Federal sponsors who support Corps projects.

When we let them go, they get to be more costly. And, unfortunately, no water resources bill has been enacted since 2000, the entire term of our current administration. This is a result, in part, of a failure of the current administration to engage in this important legislation, as well as a failure of the Congress to reach agreement.

Last year, we came very close to resolving our differences with the other body in conference. However, we ultimately ran out of time. I hope this legislation that we consider today can take us to that point and further, releasing this backlog of authorizations to fix our existing infrastructure and

to authorize new flood control, navigation and environmental restoration projects.

We are trying very hard to move a little ahead of the next flooding. We must do that. And they are not going to kick out Democrats or Republicans for flooding, it is going to be whoever is in the way. It is purposeful that we have brought this bill to the floor as early as we have in this session.

The authorizations in the language are time sensitive, and there should be no surprise that this bill contains a substantial number of provisions. Many of these authorizations have been waiting for action more than 6 years.

Within the 110th Congress, the committee intends to move two water resources bill. This first one contains a logjam of more than 6 years of issues. The second bill will consider new projects and policy changes that we were not able to add to this legislation, that we will consider today. This approach may not be traditional, but it is necessary.

Since Congress last passed a Water Resources Development Act, we have seen Hurricanes Katrina and Rita tear up the gulf coast and my home State of Texas, flooding cities, damaging economies and businesses, and threatening public health.

The Florida Everglades continue to need attention and restoration to save the unique treasures it brings to the State and our country.

This bill also contains smaller projects that may be less publicized but just as vital to communities that rely on various water resources for their livelihood.

As in the past, these projects were not considered on a partisan basis, but on individual merit. Their approval should not be considered solely on whether they are Democratic projects or Republican projects; these are human projects. They should be considered on their contributions to public safety and economics.

H.R. 1495 authorizes programmatic changes to the Corps of Engineers that previously have passed the House, but have stalled in the failed conference negotiations. During the 109th Congress we came close to resolving these differences with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to once again support these provisions. Everybody who has been here more than 6 years ought to know what everything is in this bill because they have seen it over and over and over again. We must engage the other body and together produce the best package for Corps reform.

I would like to acknowledge Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and eloquence in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the interest and expertise that he shares on water resources issues.

I also would like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Mica, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Baker, for their knowledge and effort and partnership with me, and for their support.

I strongly support this legislation. I hope and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its final passage. The time is now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I support the manager's amendment on this water resources bill.

The manager's amendment reflects project and policy revisions that have come to the attention of the subcommittee that I chair, and the subcommittee of Water Resources Environment.

Since the bill was passed out of committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure, in March, the amendment contains authorizations that are by no means inequitable to those that were contained in the bill that passed out of committee. Likewise, the projects in the manager's amendment were not considered on a partisan basis but on a need basis and merit. And this has been a long tradition in our committee, and I hope we will always have that.

I support the amendment. And I want to express my appreciation to the persons who did do all of the certifications and all the new paperwork we have to do. And I want to thank the ranking member on the subcommittee as well as the full committee and our general chairman. Thank you so very much.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Boswell.

Congressman Boswell has been working with the Committee to resolve scoring issues related to modifications for the Rathbun Lake, Iowa project that had surfaced since the project was last included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2005.

It is my understanding that these issues have now been settled.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.