[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15779-15783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2864, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 
                              ACT OF 2005

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 346 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 346

       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. 2864) 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. 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. 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. 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.


[[Page 15780]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui); 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 346 is a structured rule that allows 
for debate on H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. 
The rule makes in order seven amendments to the bill, five offered by 
Democrats, one offered by a Republican, and one bipartisan amendment.
  The underlying bill is a solidly bipartisan piece of legislation 
introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the chairman and ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.
  I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan); and the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for working 
together to produce an outstanding piece of legislation.
  The Water Resources Development Act renews the commitment of this 
Congress to dealing with our Nation's water infrastructure. From clean 
drinking water and wastewater treatment to transportation on our 
rivers, it is crucial to invest in our water infrastructure.
  H.R. 2864 authorizes or modifies 102 projects and studies related to 
navigation, improving our country's ability to ship goods and improve 
our economy.
  The bill includes 225 flood disaster reduction projects and studies. 
West Virginia, my home State, has been hit by several devastating 
floods in the past few years. I appreciate that this bill includes 
authorization for a watershed drainage assessment of the lower Kanawha 
River Basin in Kanawha, Putnam, Mason, Jackson, and Roane counties in 
my district.
  H.R. 2864 also reauthorizes important corps projects across the 
country to bring water and sewer lines to rural communities. These 
water and sewer projects bring jobs and economic development to areas 
that need business investment. This legislation is a jobs bill because 
it provides for the infrastructure needs of our communities and allows 
for better movement of goods across our waterways.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported the Water 
Resources Development Act in a bipartisan manner, and I trust that the 
full House will adopt the bill today in the same manner. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and strongly support the 
underlying measure, H.R. 2864, that would provide for the water 
infrastructure needs of our Nation.
  The Water Resources Development Act before us today reflects a shared 
commitment to the larger goal of developing our national water 
resources to address economic, environmental, and also public safety 
needs.
  H.R. 2864 is a comprehensive bill. It does more than just authorize 
nearly $10 billion for the construction of nearly 700 water resource 
development projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers. It 
seeks to improve the corps' implementation of projects.
  From working with the corps year after year, we know there are better 
ways to implement projects. This bill includes provisions to ensure 
that corps projects are managed in a coordinated and efficient manner, 
with improved financial management.
  To improve the planning and execution of ongoing projects, the 
committee is asking that the corps submit yearly financial reports, 
including anticipated spending needs for future years.

                              {time}  1300

  The measure also streamlines the project review process for 
environmental reports and analyses.
  Further, it would also allow for better coordination between the 
Federal review and State agencies affected by the project. And these 
are just a few examples of the many provisions this bill includes to 
encourage better management and coordination of U.S. Army Corps 
projects. These improvements are common sense. They will not only 
facilitate better economic and environmental benefits of the projects, 
but they will also allow projects to reach completion faster.
  With a number of ongoing water projects in my district of Sacramento, 
California, these provisions will translate into real and tangible 
results. Sacramento has a long history intertwined with floods.
  When the city endured a near catastrophic flood in 1986, the 
community quickly realized it did not have nearly the level of flood 
protection necessary to fully safeguard the region. After the city 
again faced more floods in 1997, the community redoubled its efforts to 
achieve 200-year flood protection. However, until that day arrives, 
flooding remains a very constant and genuine threat. And continued 
Federal assistance plays an important role in obtaining that goal.
  Despite years of effort, Sacramento still remains one of the most 
flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in comparison 
to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities.
  Thanks to the leadership of this committee, much has been done to 
address the flood control needs of the region. Indeed, several project 
authorizations already in place that, once completed, will provide in 
excess of 200-year flood protection for much of the area. With the 
continued support of Congress, Sacramento has already made incremental 
progress toward our initial goal of achieving 100-year flood protection 
for the region, and ultimately moving as quickly as possible towards 
200-year flood protection.
  Fortunately, as a result of lengthy bipartisan negotiations, Congress 
has authorized a suite of projects that will achieve 200-year flood 
protection. Upon completion of the authorized projects to improve area 
levees, modify the outlets of Folsom Dam and raise Folsom Dam by 7 
feet, Sacramento will obtain its long-term flood control goal.
  I deeply appreciate the years of support of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has provided to ensure these projects 
continue to move forward, providing Sacramento the level of flood 
protection that it both needs and deserves.
  In this bill, the committee embraced a project which seemed to be 
bogged down and hopeless, but because of a little bit of innovation and 
a strong commitment to finding success, it will be authorized today.
  After the Corps of Engineers recommended a flood control project at 
Magpie Creek in Sacramento, the project faced an unavoidable redesign 
that nearly doubled the total cost of the project. The cost increase 
put the project out of reach of local affordability, and the project 
seemed to be stalled indefinitely. Taking the initiative, the local 
sponsor, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, developed a revised 
plan that is not only less costly, but also has less of an 
environmental impact.
  What is significant is the cooperation between the local 
stakeholders, the Corps and Congress to work together to find a 
solution. Because of this cooperation, Sacramento now has a more 
efficient project which will better protect us.
  Just as thought went into this project's plan, it is apparent that 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee put great deliberation 
into this bill. I would like to offer my deep gratitude for the hours 
of work that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman

[[Page 15781]]

Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the 
ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) have put into this 
bill. Their long negotiations have produced a bill that will save 
lives, homes and businesses from devastation of floodwaters and improve 
the quality of life.
  These are stakes Sacramento knows well. My district is located at the 
confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers. Sacramento is the hub 
of a 6-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 
million people. A major flood along the American River will cripple 
this economy, and cost between $7 billion and $16 billion in direct 
property damages and likely result in significant loss of life.
  The risk of serious flooding poses an unacceptable threat to the 
safety and economic well-being of Sacramento and to California's State 
capitol. It is because of the bipartisan commitment in the Sacramento 
region and the bipartisan commitment of these committee members that 
Sacramento is slowly reducing its risk of flooding. We are on a path, 
and I thank the committee for forging ahead with my community, to bring 
Sacramento the long-awaited flood protection it needs and deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, or WRDA.
  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 river system is a great resource, a resource 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 rail 
systems. The dams allow for the control of floods, should that be 
necessary.
  The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products 
also need careful attention. They are the gateways to overseas markets. 
The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the Northwest 
depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately maintained.
  I want to highlight several provisions of this bill that are of 
importance to the communities and individuals that I represent in 
central Washington.
  Like the WRDA bill passed by the House in the last Congress, this 
bill includes direction to the Corps of Engineers to allow workers at 
northwest dams to participate in wage surveys. This is a simple matter 
of equity as workers' participation in wage survey is afforded to other 
Federal workers doing similar jobs, especially at other facilities in 
the northwest. I have worked with the United Power trade organization 
on this effort, and I am pleased it once again will pass the House.
  This bill also includes language that will 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 waste 
water 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 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 elimination 
of these flowage easements will allow beneficial use of this prime 
riverfront property to move forward to the betterment of Pasco and the 
Tri-Cities, of which Pasco is one of the three 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.
  This is the purpose of the WRDA bill and why it is important that it 
pass the House and the Senate act on it this year to ensure that this 
measure and the benefits it provides will become law.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying WRDA bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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

[[Page 15782]]

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.

                              {time}  1315

  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.

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Water Resources and the Environment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
for yielding me this time and for her hard work on this bill. I rise in 
strong support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 2864, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2005. This is a good rule and a good bill. 
There are, as all of us know, very few amendments; and I think that is 
in large part because the committee has worked hard over a long period 
of time to address Members' needs in the bill and in the manager's 
amendment.
  I think that our subcommittee does not have a better member than the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumen-
auer), and I will speak more to his amendment during general debate. 
But I can tell you that I certainly sympathize with the thrust of his 
amendment because I think every water project in the country should be 
looked at very closely and should be done in the most cost-effective 
way possible. I will say just simply at this point that the project of 
which he has spoken and to which his amendment is addressed is the 
number one priority of the Inland Waterway Users Board representing the 
taxpayers who pay into the inland waterway trust fund and that pays 
one-half of the project cost. As I said, I will speak in more detail 
about the general provisions of the bill during general debate.
  Right now, let me just say that H.R. 2864 is the product of several 
years of bipartisan work by the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumen-
auer) mentioned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) who was the 
ranking member and with whom I worked so closely on this bill in the 
last Congress.
  Basically, this bill in the last Congress is really the product or 
was the forerunner and is very, very similar to this bill and that bill 
passed the last Congress by a vote of 412-8. Basically, we have the 
same bill here today. By working together, the committee is presenting 
to the House a bill that is supported by over 200 organizations, 
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stated that they plan 
to score the vote on this bill when they issue their annual ``How They 
Voted'' ratings.
  I certainly would not want to run through the more than 200 of those

[[Page 15783]]

groups, but just let me give you a short list of some groups supporting 
this bill, and you will see some of the wide variety: The Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the American Shore and Beach Preservation 
Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the National Association of 
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, the International 
Longshoremen's Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the 
American Association of Port Authorities, the Laborers International 
Union, the National Mining Association, the Agricultural Retailers 
Association, American Waterways Operators, National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association, the American Shipbuilding Association, the 
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.
  I could go and on. But you see that we have business groups 
supporting this bill, labor groups supporting this bill, governmental 
organizations supporting this bill; and so I think this is a bill that 
deserves bipartisan support. It is a very fiscally conservative bill.
  But I think perhaps even more importantly, we have passed WRDA bills 
and water resource development bills usually every 2 years for many 
years. No WRDA bill in the history of this Congress has done more to be 
environmentally friendly, none has done more for environmental 
infrastructure projects, none has gone further in setting up peer 
review procedures for our major projects; and so I think this is a bill 
that will receive and will deserve the support of a very large number 
of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee for their help and 
assistance and cooperation, and I urge passage of this rule and passage 
of the underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I encourage Members to support the rule. I look forward to the debate 
and hopeful passage of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this fair rule and the bipartisan 
underlying legislation which provides critical funding to improve our 
Nation's water infrastructure. From clean drinking water and wastewater 
treatment to transportation on our rivers, it is crucial to invest in 
our water infrastructure.
  This is a jobs bill that will spur economic growth and development in 
communities across our Nation. I believe all Members should be able to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  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.

                          ____________________