Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and the work going on here.

Mr. Chairman, earlier we had a flurry of activity, because this is a complex and controversial area. I appreciate my other friend from Illinois helping spotlight some of the potential problems that we have potentially of overreaching in terms of what we want to do dealing with export controls and dual-use technology.

This is an area that if we are not careful, if it is not carefully crafted, could potentially boomerang against American interests. It could actually undermine what we want and in fact encourage the flow of business away from the United States and actually encourage other countries to step in and accelerate their development.

I think there has been a lot of hard work done to sort of try and hit the sweet spot here, to try and deal with some very real concerns about proliferation of sensitive technology, but to also be sensitive to the needs of American technology-based industries.

We have had conversations in our committee in the past. Some of what we have done I think needs to catch up with where technology has gone.

There is probably more technology at home in the bedroom of Emily Ann in my house than the United States had when it developed the atomic bomb in terms of computer technology. We need to be I think sensitive to making sure that we do not put a stranglehold on American interests and that we are able to move forward to deal with our legitimate interests.

I hope that as we move forward with this, that there is an opportunity for us to have a broader conversation about dual-use applications, about export controls, and be able to move forward in the future with the sophistication that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Higher Education Sustainability Act of 2005,'' which would authorize $50 million for 25 Sustainability Education Programs across the country to develop and implement integrated environmental, economic, and social sustainability programs. Each Sustainability Program will focus on multidisciplinary research, education, and outreach at institutions of higher education.

Sustainable development practices are being advanced by hundreds of U.S. cities and companies and through a variety of international agencies including the United Nations and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. As population growth, urban development and extreme weather incidents place great stress on ecosystems around the globe, the need for developing innovative and successful sustainable development practices becomes critical to sustaining our economic competitiveness, improving our environmental health and creating more livable communities.

In my home State of Oregon, we have many great examples of sustainable development and livable communities. Portland State University, located in my hometown, provides an excellent example of how to incorporate sustainability throughout the curriculum. Faculty from the departments of social sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, humanities, as well as the professional schools have been working to incorporate sustainability principles in their coursework and research.

Portland State University's Sustainability Initiative has placed a high priority on Green Buildings on campus that use smart technology to improve operational performance and produce significant savings. The City of Portland awarded PSU's, Stephen Epler Residence Hall and Broadway Housing with the Businesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow award for sustainable stormwater management. The Epler buildings harvests rainwater from the roof for use in restrooms and features low-flow water fixtures for showers and toilets resulting in cost savings of $5,000 each year. The Broadway Housing features 20,000 square feet of an ``ecoroof,'' one of the largest in a dense urban environment. Faculty and students designed a monitoring program to measure impacts of the ecoroof and preliminary studies show a 21 percent reduction in runoff. This is an exemplary example of how faculty uses the buildings as real laboratories.

These innovations are just a few among many that are already underway in colleges and universities across the nation. This legislation will ensure that we can extend these innovations to institutions of higher learning across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to making our educational communities more sustainable and livable.

Mr. Speaker, today, we begin debate on the Water Resources Development Act, a serious effort by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) to start fixing a seriously broken system with almost $60 billion in construction backlog which includes projects which range from the good to the bad to the ugly and the obsolete.

Since the corps is overwhelmed with projects and labors under outmoded principles and guidelines which Congress and the corps have not updated in over 20 years, the process is inherently, intensely political.

The poster child for that is the upper Mississippi lock project, the most expensive navigation project in history, the dinosaur of these projects. An inspector general found that the Corps cooked the books and fired somebody trying to do his job telling the truth.

The Blumenauer-Flake amendment will provide a safety valve to ensure that the project will not go forward unless it is economically justified, and will speed the long overdue process of reforming the operation of the Army Corps of Engineers so it can be about the important water resources projects our country needs.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this Water Resources Development Act is an important start to change the way that we do business. I salute the hard work from our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson); and a special note of thanks to the vision and hard work of my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), to move forward with ways that we ought to be dealing with water resources.

Usually, in the past, Congress has produced just a collection of projects and, too often in the past, things that make the Corps of Engineers' job harder: Too little money to deal with a huge backlog that contains the good, the bad, the ugly, and the obsolete. We make the job of the Corps of Engineers even harder, since they are operating under outdated principles and guidelines that have not been updated since 1983. You would not go to a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon under that circumstance. The Corps of Engineers is facing an almost $60 billion backlog, and only $2 billion a year of construction money for these critical projects, and this makes it intensely political.

Well, this brings me to the dinosaur of the navigation projects that is in this bill which has been referenced by my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). The Upper Mississippi Lock Project is going to be the most expensive navigation project in history. Where I must take modest exception to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, we are not walking away. We have not walked away. He would not let us walk away from the problems of Mississippi navigation.

In fact, I think we have an $88 million renovation project that is occurring right now immediately adjacent to where there is going to be a massive new lock built. We have invested appropriately almost $1 billion, almost $1 billion in the last 25 years. So, any hint that we have walked away or that we do not care about the Mississippi sysem is wrong. Congress has proven that it does care, and it has invested. Have we invested everything that one would want in all of these locks? Look at your district and see if Congress has ever invested everything that you want and need. But given a $60 billion backlog, we have done a pretty good job dealing with this channel.

Now, I deeply, deeply respect the work the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) has done in the past. I do not know who is opposing this project on environmental grounds. Those words have not come from my mouth. I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman did earlier, I think that this is very important environmental restoration work, and it is work that is long overdue. We have treated the Mississippi River as a machine for well over a century; and the wildlife, the people who depend on it for recreation, for the environmental health, they need these environmental investments, they deserve it, and I hope it happens. But I think what we need to be focusing on is how we are going to deal with this massive project.

Now, I am not here today to say that it should be eliminated. I again take modest exception to the notion that you must pick studies, dueling studies. The independent studies from the National Academy of Science time and time and time again have documented that the economic justification is not there. In fact, we had the Inspector General find that the corps, under intense political pressure, cooked the books, two generals and a colonel lost their job. It was a scandal, and a whistleblower had to get protection because he was going to be fired for just telling the truth.

Well, what we have offered as an amendment is a safety valve that if the experts, the independent experts are wrong and barge traffic is going to go up, not decline, then the project goes ahead, because the corps cannot build this project for another 4 or 5 years anyway. It goes ahead, and we continue spending lots of money renovating the existing locks. But our amendment is a safety valve and a reality check.

Now, I think this bill is a good start. I hope our amendment is approved, because there is an effort here to accelerate the good work that the committee, past and present, has done. We are going to strongly urge that we make the transition to make sure that given the troubled history of this project, given the fact that it will impact every district across the country competing for scarce resources, we ought to have this safety valve and reality check.

I strongly urge approval of the bill and approval of the Flake- Blumenauer amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my admiration for the good work of the subcommittee. I have enjoyed my service, and I look

forward to working as it moves forward through the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak.

I wanted to just clarify something. I really appreciate the interaction that we are having here, but there is an element of confusion.

Some of the talking points that the opposition to our amendment in the upper Mississippi have been distributing contain the notion that we have ignored the upper Mississippi River, that the locks are ignored. They are antiquated. They are crumbling. We have not done anything. One of my colleagues from Illinois said that we had not touched them for 50 years.

Now, it may be in the talking points, but it is not true. Right now there is $88 million that is being spent on Lock 24 for important reconstruction. And I appreciated the anecdote that my friend from Missouri pointed out in terms of a problem that occurred when there was a visitation recently to the big 1,200-foot lock where there were seven bolts that were sheared off. That story he shared with me is exactly the point.

We need to spend money to maintain what we have in place right now. We have spent almost $1 billion. We are not adequately maintaining the current locks. My friends are confusing building elaborate expensive new construction, which may or may not happen in its entirety, with adequate

maintenance for what is there now. This is missing the point. I respectfully suggest that we not in the course of this debate confuse these points.

I take modest exception to the notion that just because we are moving forward with efforts to invest in America's infrastructure and trying to protect what we have, that we are somehow alleging that we have this vast river system that we are ignoring. We have not, we are not, and we will not ignore the river's needs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment, which I think demonstrates the work that has been done by our ranking member and our Chair and the staff to be able to work through some of these complex issues.

I especially appreciate the work to incorporate planning language that will give more flexibility to the corps' planning process and starts the conversation about updating the principles and guidelines that are so desperately in need of revision.

I would also at this time, in addition to thanking our Chair and ranking member, acknowledge the hard work of our staff, Susan Bodine and Ken Kopocis, who have been putting long hours into producing what I think is very important legislation. I appreciate their cooperation and the progress that it represents.

Mr. Chairman, the previous colleague who was concerned about this said it was time to rebuild the locks. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the project is. The project is not about rebuilding the locks. We have been doing that over the last 25 years. In fact, there is an $88 million project going right now for Lock 24. This is a $1.8 billion addition, building new locks in addition to what we already have there.

In that regard, the proposal that the gentleman from Arizona and I have offered up, saying we do not do a new one unless it is justified, seems reasonable, modest and important.

Mr. Chairman, I would make two brief points. First, what is not being focused on is where the traffic is going in this corridor. Some products that previously had gone out the mouth of the Mississippi River are now going north to Canada by rail, south to Mexico by rail, they are going west for export, or they are being consumed domestically.

That is why, and it comes to the second point: traffic on the river is not going up as these studies have shown. It has been flat for the last 20 years. It has been going down for the last 3 years. What the gentleman from Arizona and I have offered is a modest compromise. If 3 years is not enough, take 4 years. But look at where the trend line is going and justify a project before you start new construction, $1.8 billion, for something that frankly does not appear to be warranted according to the independent estimates, CRS, three studies from the National Academy of Science, and we have already seen that the corps' process has been severely discredited according to an investigation by the Inspector General.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying. I think it is important to have this safety valve. Nobody is suggesting that we close the locks, stop the rehabilitation, and shove all this stuff on trucks. That is not what we are talking about. There is plenty of time, plenty of money that can be spent boosting the local economy by doing this right. But concentrate on the priorities. Make sure what we have got works, scale it to traffic, give it a fair test, see if the experts are right. If the experts are all wrong, then the project will go forward. If the experts are right, we will have saved $1.8 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier today that there is a need to have a massive investment in the lock system in the Mississippi River to avoid having product move up and down in trucks. That is not the issue.

The problem that we are facing now is that more and more of the grain and other agricultural product are being shipped by truck and rail because it needs to get to locations not served by the Mississippi River system. This has been shown by the Congressional Research Service and the National Academy of Science.

The bill that is coming before us for a vote next week would be the Nation's most expensive waterway project and would siphon off 10 to 15 percent of all core construction funding for years, perhaps decades, to come, for an area where the barge traffic is actually going down.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I are offering that would allow the project to go forward only if the minimum standards that make it economically viable are, in fact, met over the next 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy for yielding me this time, and I noticed with pride her reference to the Sacramento situation. We worked with Bob Matsui on that for years, and he provided great leadership. I appreciate the gentlewoman's continued efforts, and I am pleased this bill looks like it may help move that project forward. It is a priority for not only California, but also the Nation.

I am also pleased to serve under the leadership of the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan). I truly believe that the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is developing a path for a new direction for the Corps of Engineers and water resources.

This has been an arduous, difficult task in our Chamber and the other Body, dealing with a wide variety of issues and I salute him, our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and her predecessor, Mr. Costello, because I know they have spent long, hard hours bringing forth a product that will do much good for America.

I come today in support, however, of one amendment which I appreciate being made in order in this rule which will enable the Chamber to take a step back and look at the largest, most expensive navigation project in America's history. I think it is important that we take that careful look, because frankly, there are grave questions about this project.

Today, for instance, I note yet another in a flood, if I may use the term, of editorials from around the country. This from the Chicago Tribune entitled ``Reality on the River'' that calls into question the wisdom of this massive investment.

WRDA would authorize $1.8 billion to expand seven locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. This would be the most expensive project for navigation in our Nation's history. It will take 10 to 15 percent of the Corps construction funding for years, indeed decades.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) needs to be concerned about this if we are going to fund what she wants. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has water resource needs that are of significance to her constituents, which are at risk if we are going to make this massive investment.

For order of magnitude, Members are familiar with the ``Big Dig'' highway project in Massachusetts. This is an order of magnitude five times larger than the Big Dig when applied to water.

When the Corps is facing a $58 billion backlog of projects right now and a construction budget of less than $2 billion per year, we need to look at this very, very carefully; especially since the economic justification of this project is not just shaky, but frankly, it looks to be flawed.

Studies by the National Academy of Science and the Congressional Research Service, as well as the recent history of traffic on the Mississippi, shows that there is not an increase in barge traffic that would justify it. In fact, for the last 20 years, barge traffic has been flat, and for the last 13 years it has declined. It has declined more than a third from 1992. As barge traffic has declined, we have nonetheless spent almost a billion dollars rehabilitating the locks on the river. This has been controversial from the start. This project helped launch our Corps reform efforts. Members of this Chamber may remember in the year 2000, the Corps of Engineers fired the lead economist, Donald Sweeney, because he claimed Corps officials had ordered him to ``cook the books,'' to underestimate how much was going to be shipped.

Well, he applied for whistleblower protection. In fact, the Army's inspector general confirmed that the Corps had manipulated the documents. Unfortunately, the Corps has not adequately fixed the process.

Several studies from the National Academy of Science and the Congressional Research Service show that the model is still flawed. In fact, the most recent study from the National Academy of Science in 2004 points out that despite their efforts, ``The study contains flaws serious enough to limit its credibility and value within the policy- making process.''

Now, I want to make clear I am not here today to kill this project. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I are offering an amendment that simply says if this project is justified, then it goes forward. Our amendment just says that the minimum justification, 35 million tons of barge traffic, is the lowest justification that would make this economically viable. They have 3 more years to hit the target. Maybe there has been an aberration in the last 20 years, so they have 3 more years. If in the course of the next 3 years there still is no increase, then certainly we should not be spending almost $2 billion.

This amendment does not delay the project. Testimony before our committee indicated it will take 4 to 5 years even with optimal funding for planning for this to move forward.

Not only would the amendment not delay the project at all, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I recommend that there be immediate activities in the basin to be able to move barges more efficiently. Under our amendment, people who ship will get help immediately. It will make it easier for barge traffic to go up and down. It will make it easier to hit their projections. It would seem we are doing them a favor.

Bear in mind that this is a time of great change in the upper Midwest. Their products are going north to Canada on rail, south to Mexico on rail under NAFTA. They are actually exporting less because they are using product for the domestic market for things like ethanol and for food for animals. It is not likely that there is going to be a need for increased river capacity in the future. And it is not about shifting to trucks. This product is already moving on rail, going north and south, going west; and we are not taking away the barges in the Mississippi River. They will still be there.

I strongly urge my friends to look at this, the largest project for navigation in our history, to do things now under our amendment that will help the barge traffic, that are cheaper and more cost effective. Every Member has a stake in this, and I urge your consideration.

[From the Chicago Tribune, July 13, 2005]

Reality on the River

Congress is poised to approve the most expensive water

navigation and restoration project in U.S. history, despite

glaring evidence that the project is a multibillion-dollar

boondoggle.

The proposed $1.8 billion project would enlarge and

modernize the 80-year-old system of locks along the

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers so barges carrying corn,

soybeans and other goods to Gulf of Mexico ports can travel

more quickly. Advocates say the project is needed for

Midwestern agribusiness to stay ahead of rising competitors

such as Brazil. The mighty Mississippi remains a cheap

shipping route, but congestion and other delays sometime hold

up barges for hours.

The 10-year-old project, though, has faced constant

questions about wasteful spending and inflated expectations.

The Army Corps of Engineers has predicted river traffic could

increase as much as 30 percent over the next 20 years. But a

Congressional Research Service report and studies by the

National Academy of Sciences have found little to back up

that rosy projection and have questioned whether the real

economic benefits will be worth the cost.

Congress has one chance to protect taxpayers on this. The

House is scheduled to vote as early as Wednesday on a measure

that would cut off the project's funds before construction

begins if river traffic fails to grow as much as the Army

Corps projects it will over the next five years. That measure

deserves strong support.

There's good reason to question the projections.

Mississippi River traffic is close to where it was back in

1980 and has declined sharply through the five major locks

since 1990, partly because Midwestern growers have been

shipping more goods by rail and selling more corn to nearby

ethanol plants.

The locks improvement project ground to a halt in early

2000 after a whistle-blower accused the Army Corps of

inflating the project's economic benefits. An investigation

by the Army's inspector general later cited a built-in bias

at the Corps in favor of costly construction projects.

Yet a coalition of barge operators, agricultural producers

and Midwestern lawmakers is pushing the House to approve the

project before the August recess.

It may be too late to head off that approval. But an

amendment sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona

Republican, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat,

would make the first phase of construction money dependent

upon river traffic increasing enough to justify it.

If traffic fails to reach the 16 percent growth that the

Army Corps projects by 2010, funds to the expansion project

would be denied. Taxpayers would have paid only $13.7

million, which was approved last year for research and

design.

The Army Corps of Engineers has an unfortunate reputation

for underestimating costs and exaggerating benefits of some

of its projects. Tying its construction budget to its own

predictions would create a powerful incentive for the Corps

and other government agencies to ground their grand plans in

realistic expectations.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Members of the House of Representatives will have a chance to keep faith with the American taxpayers and the interests of our each and every district. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I will offer an amendment to assure that the most expensive project in the history of the Corps of Engineers, the Upper Mississippi River Navigation expansion, is in fact justified.

This $1.8 billion project will take up 10 to 15 percent of the entire Corps construction budget for years, perhaps decades to come, impacting projects in every congressional district. That is because the Corps' current backlog of construction is about $58 billion and the construction budget is less than $2 billion a year. We need to make sure that we are using our limited funding for worthwhile projects.

Now, while I have deep reservations about this project, I respect the hard work of our chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and particularly of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), who, for years has worked hard in the committee and behind the scenes to make this a better project.

Out of respect for their hard work, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I have come up with a compromise, not to eliminate the project, but simply to make sure that we are preserving the integrity of the Corps' project and the fiscal responsibility of Congress.

The amendment we will offer will authorize the project to proceed if the minimum economic justification that has been offered for the project is met. The planning is such that this project is going to be in a planning stage for the next 5 years. So our amendment will not in any way interfere with the planning process itself. It will simply require that over the course of the next 3 years that the projections for barge traffic at the minimum level are met.

Now, this is the key justification because barge traffic is cited in scenarios put forward by the Corps to show the need for this massive project because they claim that barge traffic on the Mississippi River system is going up. But according to the Corps' own data, barge traffic has declined 23 percent from 1992 to 2003. Last year it dropped by 19 percent.

While it seems the Corps' traffic scenarios are wildly overoptimistic, and that barge traffic is likely to continue its decline, our amendment will allow the Corps to go forward with its planning project if, over the next 3 years, they meet the lowest scenario that makes this project economically justified.

Why is this special attention so important? Well, I have already pointed out it is the largest project in the history of the Corps and is going to impact projects all across the country that are worthy and much more important. But we ought to consider the troubled history of this project, for this project is, for many people, the project that launched the Corps Reform movement. In 2000, the Corps economist, Donald Sweeney, claimed that the Corps officials ordered him to cook the books in order to economically justify this project. After a whistle blower investigation, the Army Inspector General agreed, and two generals and a colonel lost their jobs.

This project epitomizes the need for reform and modernization of the Corps of Engineers. It is an example of how the Corps' planning system has a bias towards large structural projects. The National Association of Science has concluded that the Corps has ignored nonstructural alternatives such as congestion fees, scheduling and switch boats, that will enable the system to work better. And we do not yet have a good system of independent review, which, if it had been required of this project, we would not be arguing about it today.

Several National Academy of Science reports have examined the project. In 2001, the panel concluded the Corps had relied on over optimistic projections. In December of 2003 a second panel renewed their objections, concluding it was not possible to evaluate the benefits of lock expansion until an efficient system for managing the waterway was implemented. Last year an additional report concluded that despite the Corps' efforts, ``the study contains flaws serious enough to limit its credibility and value in the policymaking program.''

While I believe we have gone a long way in modernizing many of the Corps activities, I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the committee for the work that WRDA has done. It is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment, and I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, the single most important vote of the week and one of the most important of the year is buried in the massive Water Resources Development Act coming before Congress this week: the Upper Mississippi Lock project. This is the ``Big Dig'' of water projects. Actually, it is like five or six big digs, since 10 percent of all water resources for years to come will be spent on this single project.

I urge my colleagues to look closely at the amendment that I will be offering with my colleague, the gentleman

from Arizona (Mr. Flake), which will require that before this project moves from planning to construction in 5 years, that the minimum justification for the demand for barge traffic, the rationale for the project, is justified. Taxpayers deserve no less for the largest water resources project in America's history.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and the leadership of our friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who, as was mentioned along with our colleague, the former Member, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), will ironically will be in Washington D.C. this week.

I cannot think of a better gift for Mr. Bereuter, a recognition for his long service to this House and to the people of Nebraska and the country, to do this important clarification. I could not agree more with my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) how important it is to clarify the intent of this legislation.

The whole thrust of it was to, in some cases, eliminate potential abuse of the program. But more than an isolated case of abuse here and there, there were a number of people who were trapped in a pattern of flood and having to repair and did not know how to get out of it.

And the bill was designed, as my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), pointed out, in cooperation with environmental groups, with taxpayer groups, with industry, the insurance industry, home building industry, financial institutions, to try and make sure that we did the right job for both the taxpayer and people who are in flood-prone areas.

The National Flood Insurance Program is critical to the lives of over 4 million policyholders. And many of the people eligible for flood- mitigation assistance under the flood insurance program were caught in this cycle of flooding and rebuilding and flooding again that could be ended with mitigation assistance.

Now, I support strongly this legislation to remove a disincentive for people living in flood-prone areas to accept the mitigation grant that will help prepare them for floods before they happen, reduce damage for future floods, and save lives for future disasters. Everybody wins if this program works right.

The policyholders win because, as we pointed out, as the legislation was moving forward, when we have the legislation, only 1 percent of the property owners were responsible for 25 percent of the flood-loss dollars.

By reducing the magnitude of this repetitive flood loss program, we were able to make a huge difference to a wide range of people. The Association of State Flood Plain Managers estimates that avoiding just one 10 percent increase will save the 4.4 million policyholders about $175 million each year.

Taxpayers will win if the mitigation program works right, because the flood insurance payments are the tip of the iceberg. Because there are many, many people in harm's way, who get part of their relief from flood insurance, but we have disaster plains on the Federal Government that far exceed them.

By making this program work right, we will save taxpayers money time and time again. I appreciate the hard work the Financial Services Committee has done in trying to fine-tune the flood insurance program, continuing hearings to make sure that it works right, and here, clearing up any ambiguity to make sure that we take any disincentive for using the mitigation grants and solve that problem to make sure that people take advantage of moving out of harm's way, saving money, enhancing the environment.

Mr. Chairman, it is rare that I find myself in opposition to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut. But I thought that we had settled this the last time around. And this is an example of why it is so difficult to legislate tax matters on an appropriations bill.

The company in question did not flee the United States and create an elaborate tax structure. I went back and checked this because it came up prior. And the fact is, my research indicated this company had never been incorporated in the United States. It is international in scope, although it employs tens of thousands of Americans, and the information I put in the record last time indicated that their tax rate was actually above the effective corporate tax rate at that time. And I looked at more recent information. But the point is, they are paying taxes. They have never been incorporated in the United States. We want to make sure that we are sending the right signals at the right time. And I could not agree with the gentleman from Virginia more.

I am going back at the break to Oregon. I am setting up meetings with Oregon companies that are practiced in sustainable development, in land use planning, in environmental technology. I am working with them so that they can be more effective marketing their goods around the world, in China, in India, in Japan, in Singapore.

And for us to sit here and say we are not going to permit opportunities for people who are incorporated in targeted companies is undercutting a message I am taking back home. But as I say, I really think we have solved this before and I have not heard anything new that makes me think that this amendment is good policy.

Mr. Chairman, I was heartened by the way Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to produce an appropriations bill that truly reflects the will of Congress. While initially deeply flawed, the House was able to work together and pass amendments that restore funding to essential transportation and housing programs.

I was particularly pleased by the passage of an amendment offered by Representatives LaTourette and Oberstar that restored Amtrak funding to approximately $1.2 billion. Public support of transportation modes is both necessary and desirable. Our past investments have made our country stronger and more secure.

I was also happy to see the passage of amendments that restored funding to important housing programs that aid in community and economic development and provide housing opportunities for the least well off in our society. I was particularly pleased to see the restoration of HOPE VI funding. A 2001 HOPE VI revitalization grant is enabling the Housing Authority of Portland to revitalize Columbia Villa, a dilapidated World War II era housing cluster, into a vibrant, mixed use, mixed income neighborhood, improving the livability of the surrounding region.

I am hopeful that the improvements that were adopted by the House during floor consideration of the bill will be preserved throughout the appropriations process and will not be swept under the rug during conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. There are a number of things in here that I have no objection to, that I think we should do in terms of preserving our national security.

But what is striking about H. Res. 344 is that it basically misses the point. It is inadequate. It talks about only a little bit of the equation.

The problem that we have now is first, we have a reckless fiscal policy in this country aided and abetted by this Congress. We are as addicted to the Chinese loans, to their credit to us, as we are to Saudi oil. Nothing in this resolution talks about getting our fiscal house in order. What would happen if instead of using their money that we have given them to purchase this oil company, what if they purchased something in another area or if they start

dumping our bonds. What would happen to interest rates and the problems in this country?

It is also interesting that the resolution talks about the Chinese oil supply being stagnant in terms of their domestic production. Our supply in the U.S. is not just stagnant; it is going down. Even if you suck the entire oil supply out of the Arctic wildlife refuge and threaten our offshore areas with drilling, we are still in decline.

This resolution does not talk about energy independence for the United States. In fact, the Republican majority's energy bill, according to the Department of Energy, is going to increase our dependence on foreign imported oil by 75 percent. Interesting. We have gone from a one-third in the 70s, 56 percent imported today, it will be 68 percent in 2025; yet the best that my friends in the majority can do is bash China a little bit and not do anything about our oil addiction, not do anything about diversifying our sources of energy, not do anything about the reckless fiscal policy that puts us at their mercy.

As my colleague from Virginia pointed out, 44 percent of our debt is foreign owned, an increasing percentage from China. Our addiction to things from Wal-Mart means that it is going to be more the case in the future.

What are the Chinese doing? They are diversifying their supply. They are taking some of the money we have given them to invest. They are increasing the energy efficiency of their cars, something that, sadly, the Republican energy bill does not allow in any meaningful way.

I would suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that you can examine the national security implications of dual-use technology. That is fine. But what really has us at risk is that we are addicted to imported oil, wasting energy and a reckless fiscal policy. This resolution is completely beside the point on these critcial factors.

Mr. Speaker, last week, we were told that Big Bird was a billionaire and did not need Federal support. Not true on either account.

The Sesame Street Workshop, the nonprofit educational organization, supports children's activities in 120 countries around the world for less than $100 million a year. Yet, Sesame Street, now in its 36th season, gets only $17.5 million, about 10 percent of that, from Federal sources.

The Federal money helped make it possible for stations to operate and to buy the programming.

The bottom line is, Big Bird is not a billionaire, and taking away the Federal money, he would still be here, but it would diminish the program and make it harder or impossible for kids to watch him on local, free, noncommercial public television, especially in small cities and rural communities.

I urge my colleagues to visit their local stations during the summer break and find out the truth about Big Bird.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy.

This is the sixth time that we are approaching a shutdown, but it is not any failure of Amtrak. It is a failure of Congress.

There are people here who have a theological zeal that somehow Amtrak should be self-supporting, but they sit back as we lavish subsidies on the airline industry, which has not shown a profit in its passenger service for 75 years, despite $14 billion in airport subsidies, $11 billion in air traffic control. After 9/11, we gave them $15 billion in loans and grants. In fact, Amtrak and its operation helps keep down airline ticket prices because it provides some competition.

What is the problem? Well, first of all, our Republican leadership friends will not allow us to bring to the floor our bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize Amtrak. If we would do that, Amtrak would have stability rather than playing hand-to-mouth. Investing in Amtrak is the cheapest way to buy airport capacity and road capacity.

Amtrak is not refusing. To the contrary, David Gunn and the management there are a breath of fresh air. They are being very cooperative with the Congress that changes signals, makes unrealistic demands, will not let it manage, and yet ignores subsidies in other areas and pretends that we should be the only Nation in the world with unsubsidized rail passenger service, a test that Congress will not apply to the airline industry. Well, they do not apply it to the airline industry because they should not. We should have balanced transportation.

Last but not least, this starvation of Amtrak ignores the huge shutdown costs that will mean for years to come we will still be paying more but more so that Amtrak can't operate. Approve the amendment, reauthorize Amtrak, and we will make sure that we have a balanced transportation system for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the House Water Resources Development Act is on its way to the floor this week, perhaps as early as Thursday. In that bill, there is authorized a $1.8 billion expansion of lock work on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, despite three National Academy of Science reports concluding that realistic projections of the traffic that it is meant to

deal with do not justify it. This project epitomizes the need for reform and modernization of the Corps and for Congress to exercise its oversight role.

In the year 2000, Corps economist Donald Sweeney filed for whistleblower protection after Corps leaders fired him when he claimed that Corps officials had ordered him to underestimate how much grain would be shipped to alternatives on the river. Two generals and a colonel ultimately lost their jobs after the Army Inspector General concluded that the Corps had indeed ``cooked the books''. Yet we have the project before us here today, an example still of the continuing problems of the Corps planning system where nonstructural alternatives such as congestion fees, scheduling and switch boats are ignored. This project demonstrates the need for independent review of huge Corps projects. If outside independent review had been applied in the beginning, we would have saved millions of dollars and decades on studies and we would not be arguing about it today.

Make no mistake, every Member of Congress has a stake in this argument, because if we pass this project, it will take up 10 to 15 percent of the entire Corps construction project for years to come. It will delay or eliminate funding for many worthwhile projects around the country when we currently have a $58 billion backlog of unfinished Corps projects and less than $2 billion a year to construct them.

Each Member of Congress should ask, Is there a demand for this project? Is it worth the money? Are there cheaper alternatives?

That demand issue is particularly important because this is a project to reduce river congestion on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. But according to the Corps' own data, barge traffic has declined 23 percent from 1992 to 2003. Last year it dropped 19 percent. Lock delays have significantly declined as well in recent years.

The cost justification according to three National Academy of Sciences studies over the last 4 years and the Office of Management and Budget have questioned the methodology used in this project. In 2001, an NAS panel concluded the Corps had relied on overly optimistic barge forecasts for traffic. In December 2003, a second NAS panel reviewed the revised study and renewed their objections. Yet another NAS report came out in 2004 and concluded that, and I quote, the Corps has made substantial progress on the study in the past 3 years but the study contains serious flaws, serious enough to limit its credibility and value within the policymaking process.

There are, in fact, cheaper alternatives. The National Academy of Science concluded in its 2004 report that nonstructural approaches for managing waterway traffic appear not to have been considered at all. Why should we go forward with a project on this scale until we have examined all the inexpensive, small scale congestion management measures that could be just as effective and make a much greater difference much quicker?

Last but not least, it should be pointed out that we have been pouring money into the area for years. Over the last 15 years, the Corps has rehabilitated many of the locks they now plan to replace. They have spent over $900 million extending the productive lives of the existing locks and dams.

People ought to take a very close look at this before it comes to the floor. As I mentioned, every Member has a stake in it. When you compare this to our overall water construction projects, it is actually five or six times larger than the ``Big Dig'' road project in Boston compared to our highway system.

I plan to offer amendments with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to make sure that if we go forward, that we do so with the proper assessment. We should not have political decisions take the place of economic analysis. We have to make sure we are funding legitimate projects, not politicizing the Corps.