[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 132 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8683-H8684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H8683]]
EXTENSION OF FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6316) to extend through December 31, 2008, the
authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing
of permits.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 6316
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836;
119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2006'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6316, to authorize the
extension of the Army Corps of Engineers' section 214 program.
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 allows the
Army Corps of Engineers to accept and expend funds provided by non-
Federal public entities to hire additional personnel to process
regulatory permits.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6316 is urgently needed since authority for this
program expires on December 31 of this calendar year. If this program
expires, the Corps will have to fire some regulatory personnel,
reducing its ability to process permits in a timely manner.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has heard from
Members on both sides of the aisle supporting the section 214 program.
H.R. 6316 is nearly identical to section 2003 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2005, which passed the House on July 14, 2005 by a
vote of 406-14. Since the authority for the section 214 program is
expiring, it is necessary to move this piece separately.
I thank Representative Baird and our colleagues from the western
United States for introducing this bill. I urge all Members to vote in
favor of H.R. 6316.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I support the passage of H.R. 6316. This bill extends through
December 31, 2008, the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept
and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to process
permits under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbor Act of
1899.
The current authority for this program expires on December 31 of this
year. The program is popular and well-received, particularly in the
northwest part of the country.
I congratulate my committee colleague Mr. Baird for his attention to
this issue and for securing today's consideration of this bill. I can
think of no other Member who has served his local or regional issues
with more enthusiasm and effectiveness.
The language in H.R. 6316 is similar to the two previous extensions
of this program which passed the House September 20, 2005, and March
14, 2006. Both of these votes to extend the program received strong
support from the House.
The language in this legislation is modeled after the language
contained in H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005,
which passed this House on July 14, 2005, by an overwhelming vote of
406-14.
While my preference would be to address the extension of this program
through passage of the broader Water Resources Development Act, at this
later hour in the session it seems increasingly unlikely that work can
be completed on the larger bill.
This really is unfortunate because it only further delays the
opportunity for the Corps of Engineers to provide essential flood
control, navigation and ecosystem restoration projects to our Nation
and vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents.
We are now just one week shy of 6 years since the last water
resources bill was enacted, and this is really far too long.
I am certain that there will be questions as to why Congress was
unable to enact a water resources bill in the 109th Congress,
especially since this is the first time since 2000 that both the House
and Senate Chambers were able to approve legislation for the other body
to consider.
However, in spite of this significant achievement and roughly 5
months of staff negotiations towards a conference agreement, the fact
remains that no agreement has been reached, and we are days away from
the adjournment and facing one more year without a water resources
bill.
Mr. Speaker, the current administration has no commitment to the
Nation's premier water-related infrastructure agencies. This
administration fails to understand the importance of the Corps of
Engineers and the vital work that this agency does for the American
people.
{time} 1100
The administration's lack of support for a comprehensive Water
Resources Development Act has only made Congress's work more difficult.
During the consideration in both the House and Senate, the
administration released two statements of administration policy that
were highly critical of the Congress's efforts, especially of the
administration's concern with the overall cost of two bills. However,
what the administration fails to recognize is that the roughly $10
billion project authorizations contained in this House-passed version
and the $12 billion in the Senate-passed version reflect 6 years of
requests since the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Should
Congress fail to approve this Water Resources Development Act this
year, we should expect that next year's bill will cost more than both
the House and Senate versions, perhaps as much as $15 billion. However,
the Department of Transportation predicted it would be $19 billion this
year.
These numbers are consistent with the historical costs of past water
resources bills, and further delay only results in making these vital
projects more expensive over time. Yet Congress must also share the
blame for its failure to deliver a comprehensive water resources bill
this year. With both the House and Senate and the White House under
Republican control, it would seem that passage of this legislation
would have been achievable. In spite of these significant efforts of
both the chairman of the conference committee and my chairman, Mr.
Young, the House and Senate has been unable to reach agreement on a
final package. I am confident that our committee, under the leadership
of our incoming chairman, Mr. Oberstar, will make the passage and
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act a number one priority
in 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill and reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the lady from Texas,
her comments about the water resources bill. We passed it three times
over to the other side of the aisle, and for three times they punted.
And I think they have been kicking at the wrong goal, because we have
not been able to finish this program.
This is a badly needed piece of legislation. The total bill itself
has to be passed sooner or later, and it should be passed sooner; but
it is not going to be. I expect to work with Mr. Oberstar and the
chairman of the subcommittee; we were really thinking we would probably
pass the bill that we have in conference today and go immediately to
conference to get this done, and I will tell you that I will do
everything in my power to work with the majority as the minority leader
in trying to get this legislation passed. And, by the way, there are no
dollars in the bill's authorization, but in the meantime we have things
such as this bill we are talking about today that should have been
passed previously that is going to expire.
And I would like to compliment Mr. Baird especially for his
insistence on getting this bill on the floor, because it is crucial in
the areas where we can continue and work is being done without the
funding that should have been in the water bill that has passed by
using a private donor or other sources of income to get the job done.
[[Page H8684]]
So I agree with the gentlewoman, and I do compliment Mr. Baird on his
insistence of the legislation
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time
as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee from Alaska, for
his insight and leadership in bringing this to the floor.
As has been said, this legislation would extend section 214 of the
Water Resources Development Act until December 31, 2008. It is a
commonsense bill. It will save jobs, protect the environment, and
promote economic growth.
Section 214 was enacted in WRDA 2000 to permit non-Federal public
entities to contribute funds to the Army Corps to help expedite the
processing of Corps permits. This is especially important in regions
such as my own where we have endangered species listed and the
permitting load has grown exponentially in recent years. This
permission has allowed municipalities and ports to move forward with
vital infrastructure projects, and these entities that provide funding
are given no partiality by the Corps in their review of the project.
However, by funding additional staff to work on specific time-
intensive permits, the staff and the Corps budget is freed up to work
on their permit backlog. In fact, in utilizing this authority, the Army
Corps of Seattle District has seen their total average review time per
project reduced from 804 days to just 69 days in the first 3 years of
implementation. And the City of Seattle alone estimates the cost
savings at over $5 million, again from a piece of legislation that does
not cost the Federal Government a penny.
Additionally, due to urgent construction needs, thousands of Corps
staff have volunteered to serve in the Katrina area as well as
reconstruction areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again turning to the
Seattle Corps as an example, they have deployed a total of 233 civilian
and military staff, approximately 29 percent of their staff, to these
areas. First, we appreciate the service of those staff members and
their courageous work in those combat areas. At the same time, however,
their departure has left a limited number of staff remaining to handle
the needs of the regional area. The deployments of the soldiers and men
and women serving overseas can range from 30 days to a year or more,
again leaving a substantial gap. It is during such times of increased
deployments and increased demand for permits that we need expedited
processes such as 214, and they are vital in continuing regional growth
and economic need.
This section, as was mentioned, was enacted last year unanimously as
H.R. 4826, and currently is unfortunately set to expire on December 31.
What we are seeking is simply an extension until the committee finishes
their work on WRDA before the end of the 110th, and I share my
colleague's frustration that in spite of the House, as my good friend
from Alaska said, we passed it across the aisle. We are with you across
the aisle; it is across the Capitol that we have got the problem with
the other body, as we say.
This provision is absolutely vital to Corps activities. Although this
authority exists for all regions in the country, it has been
particularly utilized in the Pacific Northwest by the City of Seattle,
Ports of Tacoma and Long Beach, as well as the City of San Diego and
public entities in Florida as well and around Sacramento. In the
Northwest we have seen the backlog in the past had grown to 1,000
permits per year, but we have been able to lower that thanks to this
legislation.
I am pleased to have support of all Washington State House Members as
cosponsors of the bills, as well as Members representing Oregon, Idaho,
and California. Again, I would thank the chairman, Mr. Young, Ranking
Member Oberstar, Water Resource Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and
Ranking Member Johnson, as well as their staff; and I look forward to
working with them. Finally, let me give special thanks to my staff
member Katie Stephens who is leaving my office this year but has worked
diligently on this piece of legislation and has worked for me for
several years and prior to that for Cal Dooley. I wish her all the best
and I am grateful for her service
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
6316, and I am glad the House will be approving this bill today.
The bill extends the Army Corps of Engineers authority to accept and
expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the
processing of permits. If the House and Senate had been able to agree
to the Water Resources Development Act, this authority would have been
extended, but unfortunately the two bodies have been unable to pass
WRDA yet again.
H.R. 6316 helps to address an increasingly important problem in areas
that are experiencing significant growth in environmentally sensitive
areas. In the Sacramento, CA region, for example, much of the land
includes wetlands and endangered or threatened species, meaning that
any construction projects require permits from the Corps of Engineers
to proceed.
At current staffing levels, the Corps of Engineers cannot process the
large number of permits in a timely manner. The authority granted by
this bill allows the Corps to accept outside funds to support
additional staff to work on the processing of these permits.
I would prefer that in the future we can address this problem
permanently, either by giving the Corps of Engineers sufficient funding
to do its job or by granting permanent authority similar to that in
this bill; but in the interim, I am happy that we will be passing H.R.
6316 and I commend Representative Baird for pushing this bill forward.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no other
requests for time, and I yield the balance of the time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have no other requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6316.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds of those voting having
responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________