[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3566-H3568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1495, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 2007
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 319
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
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. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1495
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui) is recognized for 1 hour.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1030
Mr. Speaker, this rule permits the House to consider the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007.
The structured rule makes in order six amendments. As yesterday's
debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both sides of
the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and onto the
President's desk, and this rule reflects that consensus.
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 a President.
The bill made in order under this rule authorizes nearly $14 billion
for the construction of more than 700 water resources 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 $3 billion.
Furthermore, the bill requires an external peer review for studies of
projects that would cost more than $50 million. The bill also
coordinates environmental analyses and other permit processes among
Federal and State agencies and authorizes environmental quality
initiatives. In short, this bill today moves our country forward.
In my district of 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 in this country for catastrophic flooding.
Located at the confluence of the great Sacramento and American Rivers,
the Sacramento floodplain contains over 165,000 homes, over 488,000
residents, 1,300 government facilities including the State capital, and
businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is the 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
cripple this economy, and cost upwards of $35 billion in direct
property damages and likely result in a significant loss of life.
Sacramento has had major floods throughout its history, the last
major floods being in 1986 and 1997. We live with a constant threat of
catastrophic flooding. In my district, we understand the need and
urgency for an overarching water resources policy to protect our homes,
businesses, and families. This bill, the projects and policies
[[Page H3567]]
it contains, goes a long way in addressing my district and 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 this 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. There is a strong
history of support and bipartisanship for WRDA bills. It is my hope
that this support continues and that we will move forward on this very
important work.
I also want to congratulate and thank Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee Chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and the full committee
chairman, Jim Oberstar, for their commitment to make this bill a
priority in the 110th Congress.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage
of the underlying Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in the 107th, 108th, and the
109th Congresses, the House considered and passed legislation to
provide for conservation and development of water and related
resources, and to authorize the construction of various projects in
order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States.
Unfortunately, differences could not be resolved with the other body,
and these bipartisan bills, therefore, did not become law. The
legislation before us today mirrors legislation that was approved by an
overwhelming bipartisan majority of the House in the last Congress, and
I am confident it will enjoy large bipartisan support today.
Mr. Speaker, 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 my area in the Pacific Northwest. Our region's major river, the
Columbia River and its tributaries, 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
transportation 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 careful attention.
The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Pacific
Northwest depend on these ports being navigable and appropriately
maintained.
Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions in the Water Resources
Development Act that are important to individuals and communities that
I represent in central Washington, and I would like to highlight those
provisions.
Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, I am
particularly pleased that the committee has included language in the
manager's amendment to permit Corps of Engineer employees working at
dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage surveys that are
conducted to determine their rate of pay. This important provision
would 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 is a matter of fair
and equal treatment, and I appreciate the committee agreeing with my
request on this matter.
This bill also includes language that would allow the Corps to
officially give credit to the Port of Sunnyside 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 river habitat in the Yakima River, and provide for
greater economic growth in the local community. This provision ensures
that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit for funds it invested 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 elimination
of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of this prime
riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of Pasco and the
Tri-Cities.
Mr. Speaker, we must keep our commitment to sustain and enhance our
Nation's water resource infrastructure, and that requires a regular
review and updating of congressional direction to the Corps of
Engineers to ensure that existing projects are maintained and that new
needs are met.
I am hopeful that this necessary legislation will soon become law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this rule and on this bill.
I further appreciate what this represents. It has been my privilege
to serve for the last 10 years on the Water Resources Subcommittee for
Transportation and Infrastructure. Over that period of time, I have
watched as we have focused legislation to deal with the amazing needs
that face water resources around the country.
Unfortunately, the legislation that we have passed through this House
with strong support in recent Congresses has never been able to find
its way into law. I think that with this legislation, we are able to
find a way to help break the impasse.
I would like to speak to one of the elements that was in that
legislation that has been made in order by the Rules Committee, an
amendment that I am offering along with my colleagues Peter Welch and
Tom Petri to help bring the Corps of Engineers into the 21st century by
updating the principles and guidelines under which it operates.
Our amendment takes a step back from the politics and controversies
that have surrounded the Corps' activities over recent years. In fact,
there has been some finger-pointing at the Corps, but frankly, Congress
itself is part of the problem and can be part of a process that can
help move this forward.
These principles and guidelines are used for the formulation,
evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. The current
rules under which the Corps operates have not been updated since 1983.
It seems hard to believe, given how important water resources are and
how much we have learned about the science, about hydrology since 1983.
Think about it for a moment. In 1983, Ronald Reagan was President. We
were dealing with the movie ``Return of the Jedi.'' A year later, the
3.5-inch floppy disk was introduced, and IBM was soon to launch the
first portable computer which weighed 30 pounds. Half the people who
work for me in my congressional office weren't even born in 1983.
Every Member of the House is aware how much has changed since 1983 in
terms of technology, science, environmental policy, our national
priorities, and our understanding of water resources. Yet, the Corps of
Engineers and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work for
them have a planning process that has not kept up.
It was my privilege with the former head of the Corps, General
Flowers, to meet with representatives of all of the planning agencies
for the Corps across the country. They understand the problems; they
are striving to make some adjustments. We are still developing
projects, yet they are still working under an umbrella that was based
on principles and guidelines when James Watt was Secretary of the
Interior.
This amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretary of the Army
to update the principles and guidelines in consultation with all the
other Federal agencies that have a stake in the process, to work with
the public to deal with what we have learned over the last quarter of a
century.
[[Page H3568]]
This is a very important step on addressing criticisms from the
National Academy of Sciences, the OMB, the Government Accountability
Office, and others. It does not impact any project that currently is
approved or under way, none of the projects that are listed in the bill
we have before us, but it is going to help us change the process to get
at the root of a long-term problem.
Passing the amendment will not delay any projects or tie the hands of
the Corps in any way. In fact, I am convinced that it will break the
paralysis for projects in the future by making sure they are
structurally, fiscally, and environmentally sound.
There are some projects around the country that have been delayed in
recent years due not just to funding, although that is a serious issue,
but due to lawsuits and other controversy. The ones that I have looked
at that have met bumps in the road were in this situation in the main
because they weren't properly planned and ground-truthed, as they say;
and they have stirred up unnecessary controversy in some instances.
This amendment will make it easier to approve and construct good
projects in the future. This amendment will make it easier for the
House and the Senate, which in the past have been at loggerheads over
principles of Corps reform. I think this is an area of common ground
that will bring people together. This amendment represents a fresh
break. It won't solve all of the problems of the Corps, that will await
another day; but with this amendment, it gives us a chance at a new
beginning for Congress to be positively involved in these issues.
We start by equipping the Corps with the latest science and analytic
tools to bring them into the 21st century rather than tying their hands
with out-of-date policies.
I strongly urge that each of my colleagues join with me in supporting
our amendment, which is endorsed by Clean Water Action, Taxpayers for
Commonsense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National
Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, American Rivers, the National
Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation
Voters, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the people who are
charged with making these projects work.
I deeply appreciate the progress that this represents in bringing us
forward. I appreciate the Rules Committee making it in order, and look
forward to being able to carry this amendment to the floor, hopefully
for its approval, and being able to break the impasse surrounding water
resources projects.
In the aftermath of the tragedy we saw with Hurricane Katrina, with
the flooding that has occurred in the Northeast just in recent days,
this legislation is more important than ever.
{time} 1045
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for
time. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of
H.R. 1495 pursuant to House Resolution 319, amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 110-100 be modified by the modification I have placed at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 1 printed in House Report
110-100:
Strike the portion of the amendment proposing to insert section 5024.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object, I would just yield to my friend from California for an
explanation on this.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, there is a Washington, D.C. aqueduct project
that inadvertently violates PAYGO. This modification strikes the
provision from the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. So it takes that provision that violates
the PAYGO from the bill?
Ms. MATSUI. It inadvertently violates, so we struck it out.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is
accepted.
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, 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
bill, the sooner our communities across the country will be healthier
and safer.
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.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________