Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report on H.R. 1495.

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

At the very outset, I want to, on this historic day and historic occasion, express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Mica, for the time that he has devoted and the close cooperation that we've enjoyed in crafting this legislation.

We reached an agreement at the very outset of this session that we would take up the work of the last 6, really 7 years on three previous Congresses on the Water Resources Development Act and limit action in this Congress to only those measures that were in the previous three Congresses and not take up new measures, not take up new initiatives by Members, not even adjusting the cost of previously approved projects on which cost escalation may have occurred, and limit the scope of the legislation to the work of three previous Congresses, and also to comply with the rules of the House in getting sign-offs from Members on both sides as the ethics rules require.

We crafted our sign-off sheet in advance of that done by any other committee in the House, got it approved by the Ethics Committee and by the Parliamentarian. We went through all these sign-off sheets, did everything according to the book, and in roughly 6 weeks from the beginning of the session, we were ready to go to the floor in March with the House version of the Water Resources Development Act.

Regrettably, it took quite some time thereafter for the other body, because of the difference in procedures and rules in their body from those in ours, for them to get to this point, but they eventually moved through committee and through the other body their version of WRDA.

We've concluded a conference, and I have to say, in 6 years, this is a very extraordinary, historic accomplishment, and I'm very grateful for the cooperation we've had and the participation every step of the way on the Republican side on this committee in the historic tradition of our committee, a very bipartisan approach.

I express great appreciation to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources. She devoted an enormous amount of her time in working through all of the 900-plus projects that come to the floor in this conference report, the 600-plus projects that were in the original House bill; and to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who equally devoted an enormous amount of his time to the subject matter before us.

It's that kind of time and effort and consideration that brought us to the point where we have a bill that I expect will pass with an overwhelming vote.

I will make a further observation, and that is, for me, as I said at the

opening meeting of our committee on January 17, a very historic and nostalgic moment. I started in this body 44 years ago as clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, and now I'm chairman of the full committee. That's not happened before in the House nor the other body, and I feel very privileged, very honored, very deeply moved to be here at this moment to see passage of this impressive legislation that will make significant changes in Corps policy and programs, review of Corps projects that will deal with the restoration of the wetlands in the gulf from Texas through Louisiana and Mississippi; restoration of the Everglades, one of the Nation's greatest water resource treasures; will deal with locks and dams on the Mississippi River to expedite passage of our agricultural commodities and international trade in which grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel.

It now takes 820 hours round trip for a barge tow to move from Clinton, Iowa, to New Orleans, the world's most important grain export facility. We can take 60-plus hours of time off that transit and make our agriculture commodities more competitive in the international marketplace.

We can restore the efficiency of commerce on the Great Lakes by accelerating the dredging of the Great Lakes during this period of drought where we have harbor depths that are down 58 inches in Cleveland, 18 inches in St. Mary's Canal, 54 inches in Ashtebula Harbor, preventing the movement of iron ore to the steel mills, coal to the power plants at competitive prices. We're having to make two, three, four more voyages per vessel in the Great Lakes because the Corps has not been doing the dredging it needs to do. It will do that under the provisions of this legislation.

We address the issues of invasive species in the Great Lakes, and the east and the west coast and the gulf coast parts are now being invaded by species brought in from waters foreign to our lands. Mr. Ehlers, for whom I have a great admiration and respect, has been such a strong advocate.

There's much, much more in this legislation. We need not be exhaustive in discussing it. I just say I'm very grateful to all our colleagues on the committee for this very special moment, and especially to the committee staff on both sides who have worked so diligently. And in particular, I want to express my great admiration for Ryan Seiger, for he has steered the ship of state for us on this matter; John Anderson on the minority side who was has been diligent and forthright and helpful with his years of experience.

great lakes navigation

The conference report includes language to address the backlog of maintenance dredging needs in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and ensure the long-term viability of the lakes for the movement of goods and services.

The Great Lakes region is home to 25 of the Nation's top 100 ports, when measured on the basis of tons of cargo, as well as many smaller and rural ports. Unfortunately, over the past few years, declining water levels in the lakes and a lack of adequate maintenance dredging has hindered the overall efficiency of the Great Lakes system, and has made the movement of goods through the Great Lakes more difficult, with ports throughout the lakes being between 18 and 84 inches below their authorized depths.

These shallow depths have caused three out of every four vessels loaded in the Great Lakes over the last 5 years to have been forced to ``light load'' to safely travel through the reduced depths of the Great Lakes and navigation channels. ``Light loading'' forces shippers to take on less cargo, and reduces the overall efficiencies and cost- savings related to the movement of goods by ship--increasing the overall cost of goods.

Section 5014(a) provides authority for the Corps of Engineers, ``Corps'', using available appropriations, to address these emergency dredging needs. The Corps should immediately begin work on addressing this dredging backlog, and restore the authorized depths for the Great Lakes and connecting channels to sustain commercial navigation throughout the lakes.

Second Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Mi

The conference report also ensures that the Corps will finally build the second lock at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. The Soo locks are situated on the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. The St. Marys River, a water bridge connecting Lake Superior with Lake Huron, is a critical link in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system.

Over 80 million tons of commercial commodities pass through the Soo lock annually. The primary commodity group is iron ore and taconite, comprising more than 50 percent of the total annual tonnage. The Corps estimates that the water route provided by the Soo locks reduces transportation costs by an average of more than $4.90 per ton based on fourth quarter 1998 cost levels. Based on 1998 tonnage, this represents an annual transportation cost savings to the Nation of approximately $420 million. Of the four U.S. locks, only the Poe lock is capable of handling vessels with beams in excess of 76 feet. Any disruption of service at the Poe lock would result in delays to the system's largest vessels and could cause serious disruption to the industries and companies that rely on the Poe-restricted vessels for shipment of raw materials, especially iron ore and coal.

In 1985, the Corps studied the construction of a replacement lock at the sites of the Davis and Sabin locks, and recommended a replacement lock at 1,200 feet by 110 feet. The project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 authorizes the construction of the second lock funded at Federal expense. The revised cost of the project, in accordance with the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004, is $341,714,000. Section 3091 provides the Corps sufficient authority to carry out this project at the authorized dimensions. The Corps should budget for this project in the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request, and immediately proceed to construction of this project, without regard to administrative policy.

St. Lawrence Seaway

Currently, two independent studies are close to completion on the infrastructure needs of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system, specifically the engineering, economic, and environmental implications of those needs as they pertain to the marine transportation infrastructure on which commercial navigation depends. Both of these studies have identified huge capital needs for restoration, operation, and maintenance of the seaway. According to the seaway, approximately $135 million in unmet operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the existing Eisenhower and Snell lock related facilities and related navigational infrastructure is necessary to ensure the continued, long-term viability of the system. Over the past 50 years, since completion of the seaway, there is about $83 million in deferred maintenance costs that have left large portions of the infrastructure in poor condition and in immediate need of repair, replacement, or upgrading.

The conference report authorizes the Corps to assist the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation by carrying out projects to address the capital infrastructure and dredging maintenance needs of the seaway, either through appropriations of the Seaway Development Corporation or through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Funding for projects under this section should not come from the budget of the Corps.

Programmatic Changes

The conference agreement includes important programmatic changes that address concerns with the existing Corps' study, design, review, and mitigation processes.

Independent peer review

The Independent Peer Review requirements provide that project studies shall be subject to peer review by an independent panel of experts. The conference agreement is a combination of independent peer review proposals passed by the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. The conference agreement improves upon both the House and Senate proposals to create a strong, workable, and independent process for review of project studies carried out by the Corps. For example, the conference agreement authorizes the independent peer review to run concurrent with the project study period, and requires that the peer review panel remain beyond the release of the independent peer review report to allow the expertise gained during the review period to be utilized by the Corps up to the release of the draft report of the Chief of Engineers, ``Chief.''

There are two categories for independent peer review--project studies for which independent peer review is mandatory, and project studies for which such review is discretionary. The criteria for mandatory review of project studies includes an estimated total project cost of more than $45 million, project studies for which the Governor of an affected State requests an independent peer review, and project studies that the Chief determines are controversial.

The conference report also provides for discretionary independent peer review of project studies for which the head of a Federal or State agency charged with reviewing the project study determines that the proposed project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other natural resources under the jurisdiction of the

agency after implementation of the proposed mitigation plans.

The conference agreement also includes a. narrow provision for the Chief to exclude a very limited number of project studies from independent peer review. The expectation is that project studies that could be excluded from independent peer review are so limited in scope or impact, that they would not significantly benefit from an independent peer review. Project studies subject to independent peer review based on the request of the Governor of an affected State may not be excluded from review under any condition.

The conference agreement directs the Chief to contract with an external entity, such as the National Academy of Sciences or a similar independent scientific and technical advisory organization to establish the panel of independent experts. The bill ensures that independent experts with potential conflicts of interest in a project are excluded from serving on the peer review panel.

The conference report requires independent peer review to occur during the period beginning on the date of the signing of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement, and will be conducted concurrent with the development of the project study. Having the independent peer review carried out concurrently with the development of the project study will allow the independent peer review panel to receive relevant information from the Corps, on a timely basis, and allow the independent peer review panel to provide ongoing input into the development of the project study. The conference expects that this process will provide the independent peer review panel with sufficient information to conduct its review, as well as allow the peer review panel to recommend mid-course corrections to the ongoing project study, and avoid the potential for significant issues or delay to arise at the end of the project study period. As noted in the statement of managers, the managers recognize that the recommendations of the independent peer review panel are advisory; however, the managers expect the Corps to give full consideration to the findings of the independent peer review panel.

The independent peer review panel should conclude its peer review, and submit a report to the Chief, not more than 60 days after the close of the public comment period for the draft project study. The Chief may extend the period for the peer review panel to conclude its peer review if the Chief determines that additional time is necessary. The conference has included language to terminate the peer review panel on the date of the initiation of the State and agency review, which is conterminous with the release of the draft Report of the Chief of Engineers for the project, and which is after the issuance of the peer review report. Recognizing that the Corps intends to allow a member or members of the peer review panel to participate on the Civil Works Review Board, which requires District Commanders to present their final reports and recommendations for review, the bill requires the independent peer review to remain impaneled beyond the issuance of the peer review report and allows a member of the panel to participate on the Civil Works Review Board, and to be available as experts, if needed, for additional consultation on the project study.

The conference agreement applies the review process to project studies initiated in the two years prior to enactment and for any study initiated in the seven years following enactment. The two-year look back applies to projects where the array of alternatives has not been identified. In including this language, it was our intent that ``array of alternatives'' be interpreted as when the alternatives are identified for public comment in a draft feasibility report. This should be quite late in the study process, resulting in the maximum number of ongoing studies being subject to the independent review process.

In the prospective application of the independent review process, all established independent review panels will not end after seven years. If a project study is initiated any time during the next seven years, the entire study process is subject to independent review, no matter how long it takes to complete the study.

Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses

Typically, Corps' projects impact more wetlands than any other agency or entity in the country. Various organizations, including the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have raised concerns with the mitigation conducted by the Corps related to their projects. This legislation ensures that potential impacts from Corps' projects are provided timely and adequate mitigation. In addition to mitigating the impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, the conference agreement amendment to section 906( d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 intends for the Corps to mitigate for any potential loss of flood damage reduction capabilities for activities impacted waters, including wetlands.

The conference agreement specifically amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to specify the elements that must be identified in a mitigation plan required under that section. Mitigation requirements now require mitigating losses to fish and wildlife, and mitigation must now include losses to flood damage reduction capabilities of the project area. The specific mitigation plan must provide a description of the physical action to be undertaken. The plan also must include a description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a determination that such lands are available. The conference agreement requires the mitigation plan to identify the quantity and type of lands needed, and include a determination that lands of such quantity and type are available for acquisition. The plan also must include the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat to be restored. The plan must include success criteria based on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics. Finally, if monitoring is necessary to determine success of the mitigation, the plan must include a monitoring plan and to the extent practicable, identification of the entities responsible for monitoring. As monitoring is part of operation and maintenance of a project, in most cases the entity responsible for any monitoring will be the non-Federal sponsor. Such person must be identified no later than entering into partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest.

The conference agreement supports more specificity in Corps reporting documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. This section also directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the status of mitigation concurrent with the submission of reports on the status of project construction, as part of the President's budget submission.

The conference agreement also directs the Secretary, when carrying out water resources projects, to first consider the use of a mitigation bank if the bank has sufficient and appropriate (including ecologically appropriate) credit to offset the impact, and the mitigation bank meets certain criteria. To the maximum extent practicable, the service area of the mitigation bank shall be in the same watershed as the project activity for which mitigation is required. The intent term ``watershed'' is to be the immediate, localized watershed in which the impact occurs and not the much larger watershed or watersheds that might be included in the service area of a mitigation bank. This is especially critical to address potential impacts in higher order streams, including headwater streams, where the mitigation activities should be proximate to the impacted areas.

Principles and guidelines

The conference agreement also directs the Secretary of the Army to undertake a review and revise the principles and guidelines used by the Corps for formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects.

The current principles and guidelines focuses predominantly on the national economic development (``NED'') benefits of Corps projects, requiring a project to achieve a positive economic benefit cost ratio before projects are recommended. In many cases, however, the Corps has struggled with utilizing a traditional NED analysis in the evaluation of projects within environmental restoration mission of the Corps. The NED analysis works well on traditional Corps projects such as navigation and flood damage reduction, but is not always appropriate in the development of benefit cost analyses for environmental restoration products. The Corps demonstrated its awareness of this issue through the issuance of regulatory guidance materials that encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the inclusion of the national ecosystem restoration (``NER'') benefits for ecosystem restoration projects.

The conference agreement directs the Corps to revise its existing principles and guidelines to incorporate the unique needs for evaluating environmental restoration projects into its current master planning guidance. This is intended to enable the Corps to build better projects. As is evident in this legislation, many of the recent Reports of the Chief of Engineers recommend multipurpose projects that appropriately address multiple concerns in a single project. A revised principles and guidelines should enable the Corps to better weigh the values of the different components of a multipurpose project.

Earmark Disclosure

In the preparation of the table of Congressional earmarks that accompanies the Statement of Managers for the conference report, a limited number of earmark disclosures were inadvertently deleted from the table. The following Members of Congress have provided the Committee with earmark disclosure forms for the following projects:

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD) for section 5158(253) Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Zeibach Counties) and Perkins and Meade Counties, South Dakota.

Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08) for section 5003(a)(12) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.

Representative Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) for section 3150 Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.

Representative Charles W. Dent (PA-15) for section 5003(a)(14) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

Representative Barbara Lee (CA-09) for section 3182(b) Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, California.

Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.

Representative Rush D. Holt (NJ-12) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.

The following Member of Congress was inadvertently listed in the earmark disclosure report for the Statement on Managers for the conference report:

Representative Robert Andrews (NJ-01) for section 1001(34) South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida for his splendid cooperation, his heartfelt earnestness on getting this legislation through and understanding the great significance it represents for all of us.

I want to emphasize once again, we exercise great discipline in this body in shaping the legislation, keeping the costs within containment, within the previous 6, almost 7 years of projects that had already been vetted through the House, passed by this body and yet, unfortunately, didn't make it through the Senate.

I read with heavy heart the administration statement of veto. I think that it's a misunderstanding on their part. We will do our part, we will do our role, and the other body will do its part. Then we will see whether, in fact, a veto comes forward. If it does, we will deal with it just straightforwardly, without rancor, without discussion. These are the right investments for America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and thank her once again for the splendid work.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Railroad Subcommittee, Ms. Brown from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes, and ask if the gentleman would yield?

I compliment the gentleman on his statement and his recognition of underscoring the importance of the Mississippi River- Illinois-Ohio River system as the water highway for our midcontinent grain producers.

If you look at a map of the north and south hemisphere, the furthest point of Brazil sticks out of the South Atlantic Ocean, and that is Recife. From that port are exported soybeans. That is 2,500 miles further out in the Atlantic than New Orleans. They market to the same destinations that we do for soybeans, we in the great Midwest, to east and west Africa, and to the Pacific rim. They have a 5-day or 6-day sail advantage.

If we don't do the modernization on the locks, we continue to lose market share in the world marketplace. As I said earlier, grain moves on as little as an eighth of a cent a bushel.

So we have to do this, and it is going to be done. It has waited far too long.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney). And I thank the gentleman from Texas for his kind remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), whose district I mentioned earlier on the transportation bill had a terrible tragedy this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

I thank the gentleman very much for his kind words, for his prayers and his thoughts about our fellow Minnesotans and the tragedy that's occurred this evening; and I join my prayers with his and those of my colleagues who spoke earlier this evening on that bridge collapse. We certainly keep the members, the family members and the victims in our prayers as we go forth this evening.

We reach a milestone this evening with this legislation. I said at the outset and I say it again, this is a historic moment. We have accomplished in 7 months what it has taken 7 years to put together, but it is a good bill, and it is evidence that this body can and does work together constructively for the common good, for the purpose of building a better Nation, for moving people and goods efficiently and effectively in the domestic economy.

Getting us to this point was not easy. The staff had to put in long hours, as the gentleman from Florida already expressed.

I want to specifically mention Ryan Seiger, Beth Goldstein, Ted Illston and Mike Brain on the Democratic side; John Anderson, Geoff Bowman, William Collum and Tracy Mosebey on the Republican side; Rod Hall, Chairwoman Johnson's staff member; Stewart Crigler, staffer for Ranking Member Baker.

From the Office of Legislative Counsel: David Mendelsohn, Curt Haensel, Heather Arpin over in the Senate, and Rosemary Gallagher.

And from the Senate staff: Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushford, Angie Giancarlo, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Quiello and Let Mon Lee.

All worked very closely together to craft this legislation, spending enormous amounts of time, weekends. While Members were back home in their respective districts, staff were here in this oppressive heat of Washington, although, I think, comforted by air conditioning at least, but putting in extraordinarily long hours to craft this bill, bridge the gaps, reach agreements, report back to Members so that we could be here this evening.

It is a significant moment for America, for this Congress to have this comprehensive water resources bill together. And, again, I express great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the time that he has spent and the cooperation that we have had; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for the time that she has devoted, for her care, concern, and energy; and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who put his heart and soul into this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

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

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

Well, first of all, I can't begin this debate on this water resources legislation without congratulating Mr. Oberstar. As you heard Mr. Oberstar say that some 44 years ago he was a staffer for Chairman Blatnik, I think his name was, at that time and tonight he chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I'm pleased to be the Republican ranking member to have worked with him to bring forth a bill that is very important, not only to Mr. Oberstar, and his efforts and others in trying to bring a bill forward.

You know, we have not passed a water resources infrastructure bill since the year 2000. Normally, we pass it every 2 years in a cycle legislation that sets forth the projects and the policy and the priorities for building the Nation's infrastructure, and we haven't done that.

Now, one of the problems that we've had is that we've had a bad name given to earmarks, and this bill contains some 950 projects, almost all of them earmarks. There are a very significant number of earmarks in this bill.

From the time I assumed responsibility for the T&I Committee on the Republican side and in my discussions with Mr. Oberstar, I said we've got to make certain this process is open, this process is transparent and that we restore faith in this process. The choice is that we could pass a bill tonight for $20 billion and authorizing projects and not name those projects but let some bureaucrats down the street that are unelected make the decisions, but that's not way this process works.

The people sent us here, they send us here to renew the contract every 2 years to decide what the priorities are for our districts, and that's what this legislation is about.

There are 950 projects in this legislation, again a very high number, and the bill is a very high number, probably $20 billion when you total up all those projects in authorization. Now, all of them won't get funded, but we have a responsibility to set the priorities, and the people are setting the priorities through their elected representative, not some appointed bureaucrat.

I tried to make this a transparent process from the beginning. These are all of the Republican Water Resource Development Act of 2007 requests. These have been on file. These have been open to the public. The press has been in. They have been carefully vetted. Mr. Oberstar and I attempted to vet every single project on the House side, and the staff and others have been working to make certain that we vetted the Senate and all the projects in this bill. And I think we've done about as good a job and opened the process up to sunshine, to again a fair and open honest process and hopefully restored some of the faith in this process.

Now, I did receive today a communication notifying me that the White House will probably veto this legislation. That's unfortunate, and I've talked to the White House. We've tried to keep the dollars number down, but I tell the White House and anyone else, and I will support Mr. Oberstar and others if we have to override that veto. We need to do that. Our job is to make certain that we build the infrastructure of this country and we do it in a responsible manner.

We haven't had a bill since 2000. All you have to do is do the math. The math is simple. The bills in the past have been about $6 billion, 6X3 is 18, and you add a few billion dollars more for inflation, and this is the number we're at and the number of projects we're at. I've told this to the President's advisers, and I regret that we're in this situation, but we'll have to do what we have to do. The President's going to have to do what he has to do.

But let me tell you now, and Katrina should be a lesson to us all, you either pay now or you will pay later.

These are projects that will determine whether dams break, whether levees are secure, whether water resources for this Nation are available, whether we do important environmental restoration that's been left behind.

Again, I repeat that this is authorization, not funding. But we have a responsibility to pick and set those priorities as the people's elected representatives.

Let me tell you also again critical needs in this bill. I have had Members literally come to me with tears in their eyes and say that, in fact, a project is so important that people's homes, lives and properties may be destroyed if we don't move forward with authorizing their projects.

In my own State of Florida, I am pleased tonight, and there are ironies tonight, I remember working with Senator Dole when we tried to do the Everglades restoration. That was talked about for years, even when I was in the legislature back in Florida in the 1970s.

Tonight, in this bill is the authorization for the first construction money to restore Florida's Everglades, a national environmental treasure that, unfortunately, man and sometimes the Corps of Engineers in some unwise policies have nearly ruined. But we have a chance now to restore that through this legislation.

In 2000, we authorized study money. This is the actual work money, the first work money for that. In my own community, and I close on this, I have A1A, scenic and national highway designation A1A, through Flagler County, which is literally falling into the ocean. The beach has eroded. We have no more beach there. We need to restore that. Those are the kinds of projects that are in this bill, even for me as a ranking member.

I strongly support this measure. I think it's responsible. I don't want to get into a contest with the White House, but, again, I thank the staff; Mr. Baker, I will yield to in a few minutes; Ms. Johnson; Mr. Duncan, the former chairman of the water resources; and all others who have worked on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to introduce the gentleman from Louisiana.

Sometimes in this business you have the opportunity to decide who is going to work with you on different projects. I had that opportunity in January, and I chose Richard Baker.

If you don't know Richard Baker, let me tell you, the good Lord sent Richard Baker to us at the right time, because there is probably nobody in the Congress that could have been a better steward or done a better job in handling the Water Resources Committee responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), just an absolutely outstanding representative, who has done a good job on this great bill that is so important to Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to one of the very distinguished members of the Missouri delegation, Mr. Hulshof.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to an outstanding member of the T&I Committee on the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Poe) for 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time; and I'll be pleased, if the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) needs additional time, to yield to him in light of the tragedy that has struck his State.

Mr. Speaker, again, my heartfelt sympathies are expressed to any of the Members from Minnesota as they deal with this very difficult tragedy and also to the families who've lost loved ones in the collapse of the span of Interstate 35 West, which I understand connects Minneapolis and St. Paul.

The information I have is that some of the sections were under construction, and the span was closed last night for construction and reopened this morning and scheduled to be closed again tonight. But, unfortunately, we have seen from news accounts a very significant disaster and loss of life in the failure of that infrastructure.

I, too, would pledge my support in working with Chairman Oberstar, with the Minnesota delegation and working with this administration and the Congress to bring whatever resources to reopen that span and try to repair that infrastructure.

While we can replace the infrastructure, we can't replace the lives; and, again, our sympathy goes to those who mourn their loved ones tonight.

As we conclude debate on this water resources infrastructure bill, once again we're reminded of the importance of infrastructure, whether it's bridges, dams, the highways that are along our beaches, the natural reserves we have in this country that depend on Congress to protect them and protect that water resource infrastructure.

I yielded earlier to our ranking member and thank him again, Mr. Baker; and I said the Good Lord sent us Mr. Baker to lead the Republican side of the Water Resources Committee. And again, we have the example of the failure of water resource infrastructure, the levees and some of the infrastructure in New Orleans and Louisiana. No one is more knowledgeable, has a better firsthand experience than Mr. Baker. And this bill also contains a considerable amount of authorization for projects in Louisiana and New Orleans.

Finally, I want to thank, again, Ms. Johnson. Next week, I'll get to travel to her district. Under her leadership they bring together all the transportation leaders in the State of Texas for probably one of the country's largest, it's grown to the country's largest infrastructure conferences, and they've asked me to come down and speak and be with them as they plan Texas' policy and transportation projects for the future. I look forward to that opportunity of being with her, and I thank her again for her distinguished leadership and working in a bipartisan fashion to craft this long-overdue legislation.

So again, I thank all of those. I have John Anderson, Mr. Speaker, with me, who represents all of the staff on the Republican side; and I thank the staff on the majority side for their hard work in trying to make this bill a reality.

And, again, I thought of one of the most important projects, as the gentleman from Florida, other gentleman from Florida pointed out tonight, that restoration, the first work on the Everglades being in this bill, important not only to Florida and our districts in Florida but also to the Nation because of the environmental treasure that we're trying to preserve. We do make positive steps towards its restoration and preservation for future generations.

So it's a good bill. I know the President's probably going to veto it. It'll be back here. We're going to, unfortunately, have to override that veto to make this a reality.

But, as I said earlier, the President has to do what he has to do, Congress has to do what the Congress has to do, and we will work together again to make certain that the infrastructure of this country and water resources are preserved for the future.

For the first time since 2000, the Congress is on the verge of passing a major bill authorizing projects, studies, policies, and programs related to the Army Corps of Engineers.

There has been a WRDA introduced in every Congress since 2000, however, controversy always seemed to arise that dashed our hopes for a new authorization bill. Over the years we have worked to bridge the gaps created by those controversies and have arrived at the point where we now have a product that the Congress can approve and send to the President.

This bill has been under development for many years. It is the result of much debate and much compromise. This is not the bill that

any of us in the room would have written, if we were writing a bill by ourselves. However, it is a bill that all of us can support because it addresses important needs of our Nation.

This is a good bill that represents investments in America. These investments will improve trade, protect our homes and businesses from flood damages, and enhance our quality of life by restoring aquatic ecosystems. This legislation ensures our ports and waterways remain viable in the international marketplace by authorizing critical navigation deepening projects. Without these projects shippers will go to other foreign ports like those in Canada and Central America.

For some goods, as much as 50% of the ultimate price paid by the consumer is attributable to transportation costs. Keeping these costs low not only benefits consumers here in the United States, it also makes products produced in the United States more competitive on the world market. Congestion at an outdated lock on a waterway can result in increased costs that rob the farmer of his or her profit. Delay and its associated costs also can rob a farmer of his or her market. This is not a speculative concern.

Recently, improved transportation systems in South America have allowed farmers there to keep their costs low enough to underbid United States grain farmers for customers located in the United States! America's farmers, like the rest of the United States economy, depend on modern and efficient waterways as an integral part of the intermodal transportation system.

Trade builds wealth. But to realize the economic benefits of trade, we must have a modern transportation system. To maintain our place in the global economy, the United States must have modern ports and waterways that can bring the world's goods to our door and make America's products competitive on the world market. Our ports and waterways need to be improved to handle the additional traffic and larger class of ships that we know are coming. This Conference Report addresses these needs in several ways including authorizing improvements to waterways in my home State of Florida, as well as in Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia. In addition, it authorizes 7 new locks and other navigation improvements on the upper Mississippi River.

The WRDA Conference Report authorizes critical projects to provide flood protection to millions of Americans. Flood damage reduction projects save Federal dollars by reducing the probability that disaster relief will have to be used in the future. This bill includes a multitude of projects that protect our cities from floods and coastal storms.

As our Nation has become more environmentally conscious, and sought ways to improve aquatic ecosystems, the Corps of Engineers has become a leader in planning and carrying our environmental restoration projects. This Conference Report is by far the ``greenest'', most environmentally-friendly Water Resources Development Act ever. The most frequent purpose of new Corps of Engineers project authorizations in this bill is environmental restoration.

This Conference Report contains critical provisions to restore the Everglades. Everglades restoration has been talked about for years, but with the projects authorized in this bill, actual work and construction of projects can begin. Not only is the Everglades vital to the economy, environment and people of Florida, it is a national treasure that must be cared for and protected for future generations of Americans.

These projects have been brought forward by the Corps in partnership with the State of Florida. The State of Florida has stepped up with their share of funds for these projects. Now that we have these first authorizations, Congress should be supportive of funding this important effort to save a national treasure. These are just the first of what will be many projects over the next several decades to clean up, store, and redirect water for the Everglades.

This bill does not provide guaranteed funding--money will have to be appropriated to meet these authorization levels, but it represents a critical commitment by the Congress to restore an ecological jewel of the United States. This legislation will help ensure a revitalized Everglades for generations to come.

Also addressed in this bill are policy issues that improve how the Corps of Engineers does projects. We have instituted an Independent Peer Review into the Corps' planning process to enhance the agency's credibility. We are improving project monitoring to determine if the projects are performing as designed.

I know that some are not happy with the size of this bill; however, we must remember that the Conference Report represents the pent-up demand of 3 WRDA bills. This legislation is overdue by 5 years. And if we wait any longer it will just be a bigger bill, because the Nation's needs are not going away by themselves. We must address them like we are doing here today.

I want to thank Don Young, the former chairman of this Committee, who worked for many years to resolve the difficult issues surrounding this bill; and also Jimmy Duncan who chaired our Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for 6 years and worked closely with the Ranking Members Jerry Costello and Peter DeFazio to create many of the compromises that made this Conference Report possible.

I certainly want to thank you, Chairman Oberstar, for your leadership over the years both as Ranking Member and now as Chairman of the Full Committee. It has been very rewarding to work with you on this bill and it shows what we can accomplish when we work together in a bipartisan way to address the Nation's needs.

Under the leadership of Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the Senate passed a bill that included many of the same projects addressed in the House bill. I think it is appropriate that the package before us today represents a compromise of the House and Senate bills into a good product that both chambers can proudly support.

Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the Full Committee, Jim Coon, Amy Steinmann, Charlie Ziegler, and Jason Rosa. I also want to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, John Anderson, Geoff Bowman, and William Collum for their dedication in finishing the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

And on Mr. Oberstar's staff, I want to thank David Heymsfeld and Ward McCarragher of the Full Committee, and especially the Subcommittee staff of Ryan Seiger, Ted Illston, Beth Goldstein, and Mike Brain.

I urge all Members to support the Conference Report.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

I congratulate Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Mr. Baker, for your work on reaching this agreement in the vital infrastructure investment bill for the Nation's water resources needs.

I especially express my appreciation to the staff, to Congressman Young,

Congressman Duncan, and Congressman Costello and other distinguished members of this committee, because we have all worked together in a bipartisan manner.

All of us assembled here this evening understand the magnitude of this moment. The clock is working against the infrastructure of our country. The 7 years we have waited to enact a water resources development bill have led to significant increases in cost to adequately address the Nation's deteriorating water resources and flood control infrastructure.

As such, I am delighted that we as conferees have come to an agreement on the issues independent of review, environmental issues, environmental infrastructure and individual projects that have, up until now, prevented us from crafting a final conference report.

We do right and good by this country when we invest in its infrastructure. I agree with the chairman that enactment of a water resources bill this year is critical to economic prosperity, job creation, protection of the environment and public safety.

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

No water resources bill has been enacted since the year 2000, the entire term of this current administration. While I am fully aware of the veto threat that this administration has issued on the conference report, I want to remind my colleagues that since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003, nearly $42 billion has been appropriated at the request of the administration for Iraqi reconstruction, one-third of which, or $14 billion, is going towards Iraqi economic infrastructure.

I would daresay that if this level of attention is adequate for Iraqi water and road infrastructure, my State, as well as my constituents, who are constantly beleaguered by outdated flood protection, are as equally deserving of the attention afforded by H.R. 1495. I deeply regret that the administration has decided to turn its back on a bill that would put Americans to work with good-paying jobs, protect lives and property and bolster our Nation's infrastructure.

A recent report by the Texas Section of Civil Engineers assessed my State's infrastructure and rendered a dismal cumulative grade of below average. The assessment of the State's flood control fared even worse, with the State receiving a failing grade of D minus.

Over the past decade, Texas has experienced 15 federally declared disasters, most involving flooding. Moreover, Texas leads the Nation in terms of dollars paid for flood claims, second only to the State of Louisiana.

The population of Texas is expected to double in the next 30 to 40 years. Development in and near flood plains can be expected to increase, as developers continue to build near the State's rivers, lakes and coastlines.

In my district, the Dallas Floodway accepts 1,600 square miles of Trinity River watershed runoff and safely moves the floodwaters through the City of Dallas by virtue of levees that form both sides of the 2,000-foot-wide Floodway. The Floodway levees protect the downtown vicinity from a potential flood damage loss to properties and infrastructure at a price of $8 billion or more. This is a major economic area.

The 23 miles of levees for the Dallas Floodway were originally constructed by local interests in 1932 and reconstructed by the Corps in 1960. But, since 1960, the upstream watershed has experienced exploding population growth, and that was not expected, which has significantly increased runoff, overwhelmed our antiquated drainage pumps, and greatly reduced the flood protection afforded by the Dallas Floodway levees.

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

I am glad our work here today brings us one step closer to this reality. The product before us authorizes a number of studies and projects, particularly for the restoration of coastal Louisiana, the restoration of Florida Everglades and the restoration of the upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterway System.

Again, we do right by this country when we invest in its infrastructure. Communities across the country have been waiting 7 long years to begin their noteworthy flood control and water infrastructure projects. I am pleased that we have been able to put our heads together and once and for all advance this vitally important and long-overdue legislation for the American people.

I want to extend my thanks again to the bipartisan committee leadership of both Chambers and, most especially, the efforts of our dedicated staff persons who have spent countless hours in crafting the conference report.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this conference report to H.R. 1495. The time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

submit into the Record a letter from E.G. Pittman, Chairman of the Texas Water Development Board, strongly supporting the passage of this conference report.

The State of Texas has recently completed a nationally recognized comprehensive water plan. Provisions in H.R. 1495 would greatly assist the State in addressing changes in the population, water availability and quality, technological improvements, and promotes increased collaboration with the Corps of Engineers.

Texas Water Development Board,

Austin, TX, August 1, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Washington, DC.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Washington, DC.

Dear House Leaders: The Texas Water Development Board

(TWDB) strongly supports the passage of H.R. 1495 by the end

of this week. The conference report on the Water Resources

Development Act (WRDA) embodies seven years of deliberations

on this important and urgent issue. Further delays are

incomprehensible after such protracted discussions have

finally resulted in a bill that is a crucial step towards

addressing the nation's water resources needs, which have

accumulated since the last WRDA was enacted.

The Nation can no longer wait for passage of this important

piece of legislation. We are faced with numerous water

resources challenges that over time have increased and

continue to increase in cost and urgency. We cannot afford to

neglect this flood of needs because they will only grow and

not dissipate.

WRDA's time is now. I appreciate your leadership in

acknowledging the importance of H.R. 1495, and I look forward

to a successful House vote on the bill this week. If you or

your staffs would like to further discuss this issue, please

do not hesitate to contact me, or Dave Mitamura of my staff.

Respectfully,

E. G. Rod Pittman,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference report that provides for the conservation and development of water and related resources and authorizes the construction of various projects in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States.

Our Nation's water resource infrastructure is critical to our economy, transportation system, power generation, flood control, and environmental protection and restoration. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's river system is a great resource, one that must be well managed and protected.

Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low-cost, renewable power. These facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which reduces congestion on our highways and our rail systems.

The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products are the gateways to overseas markets and also need very careful attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Northwest depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained.

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions of this conference report that are important to the communities and individuals that I represent in central Washington that I would like to highlight. Like the WRDA bill that passed the House in the last Congress and the one that passed in April of this year, I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes a provision to permit the Corps of Engineers employees working at the dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision will allow these employees the same participation allowed to similar employees at dams in the region operated by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This conference report also includes language that will allow the Corps to specifically give credit to the Port of Sunnyside in my district for funding it has invested to maintain progress on its wetland restoration and wastewater treatment project. This project is a creative initiative by the Port of Sunnyside to improve the river habitat and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for the funds it invests as it works with the Corps to make this project a reality.

Finally, this legislation lifts Corps restrictions on the development of several Port of Pasco properties. I am very hopeful that the elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of the city of Pasco and the Tri-Cities.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by a change in a law inserted into this final bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Army to approve removal of small dams under the Corps of Engineers Section 206 program.

The House is expected to consider a Democrat energy bill at some point this week, and I believe it doesn't bode well that we start off with making the removal of dams easier in this country. Dams provide power, drinking water, irrigation, transportation, and flood control. We need to value these benefits and recognize that hydropower dams are a clean and renewable energy resource.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides regular review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers and ensures that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are met.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Brown.

Will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman knows, because we're both from the Northwest, we have large dams that I alluded to in my remarks that provide hydroelectric power for all of the Northwest. And I know the provision in this bill does not apply to those dams. But, nevertheless, I think we in the Northwest need to be cognizant of the fact that, once you start these things, sometime in the future it may go up.

A point that I am simply making is that that is a major part, those dams on the Snake River and the Columbia River are major power sources for all of our electrical power and, therefore, for our economy. And I am just simply concerned because sometimes we don't look longer term enough. But if we look longer term enough and we start putting provisions in where it is a regular thing of takeout dams, then perhaps in the future, I hope not, I will do everything I can, but perhaps in the future that all of a sudden somebody will take a shot at those larger dams. I think that would be detrimental to our economy in the Northwest.

I yield back to my friend.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I appreciate the gentleman simply saying that this is intended to go after dams that probably need to be looked at for a variety of reasons. And, in that sense, I obviously don't have a problem. My problem is long term, as I suggested, but I appreciate the gentleman working with me.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the T&I Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Again, I am particularly sensitive, because of the nature of the dams that we are talking about on the Snake River and on the Columbia River in my State. But there's also larger dams throughout the Pacific Northwest. My understanding of this legislation, it was talking about dams, as the gentleman from Oregon described. I understand that. So I appreciate the chairman's consideration.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate that. I think it is something we need to look at. We have oversight nevertheless, anyway.

If the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 597 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 597 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and considers the conference report as read.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well-documented that our country has not had a WRDA bill in over 7 years. Seven years is perilously close to an entire generation passing without a national water resources policy being signed into law by the President. We are taking a big step in that direction today.

WRDA authorizes upwards of $20 billion for the construction of water resource development projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. Additionally, H.R. 1495 authorizes hurricane recovery activities along the gulf coast that would cost an estimated $2 billion. Furthermore, the bill requires an external peer review for studies and projects that would cost more than $45 million. The bill also coordinates environmental analyses and other permit processes among Federal and State agencies and authorizes environmental quality initiatives.

In my district in Sacramento, California, this WRDA bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will pass Congress this year. We have been waiting a long time for this bill. Sacramento is the most at-risk river city for catastrophic flooding. Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, the Sacramento floodplain contains: 165,000 homes; over 488,000 residents; 1,300 government facilities, including the State capitol; and businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is a hub of a six-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people.

A major flood along the American River or the Sacramento River would have catastrophic ripple effects regionally and nationally; cost upwards of $35 billion in direct property damages; and likely would result in significant loss of life to our families, friends, and neighbors. In my district we understand the need and urgency for an overarching water resources policy to protect our homes, businesses, and families. Sacramento needs this bill, but so

do countless other communities across the Nation.

This bill, the projects and policy it contains, goes a long way in addressing our country's flood vulnerabilities. Nationally, regions across the country are starving for a Federal partner in water resources policy. Our country is confronted with population growth, climate change, and growing demands on our water infrastructure. Our districts across the country need this bill, and the Members in this Chamber have repeatedly supported WRDA bills.

In the 108th Congress, WRDA passed the House by a vote of 412-8. In the 109th Congress, WRDA passed the House 406-14. In the 110th Congress, WRDA passed the House 394-25.

There is a strong history of support and bipartisanship for WRDA bills. It is my hope that this support continues and that we move forward on this very important work.

I also want to congratulate and thank Water Resources Environment Subcommittee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and full committee Chairman Jim Oberstar for their commitment to make this bill a priority in the 110th Congress.

Finally, I want to make a point that WRDA bills are traditionally intended to be 2-year authorization bills. It is important that we get our water policy back on track and address these ongoing challenges on a regular basis. It is my belief that the best protection that we can provide our communities is to be prepared. I look forward to passing this WRDA conference report and moving on to the next WRDA bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, who is our subcommittee Chair of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, as was said, this bill is long overdue. Our country needs a comprehensive water resources policy, and WRDA is the framework that can meet this need.

We have 7 years of backlogged water projects that must be addressed. There is a growing demand on our already overburdened water infrastructure. The sooner we move forward on this conference report, the sooner our communities across the country will be healthier and safer. This conference report has bipartisan support. In fact, every member of the conference signed off on it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.