[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22381-22385]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
 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 597 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 597

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  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, House Resolution 597 provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1495, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007. The rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report and its consideration and considers the 
conference report as read.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been well-documented that our country has not had 
a WRDA bill in over 7 years. Seven years is perilously close to an 
entire generation passing without a national water resources policy 
being signed into law by the President. We are taking a big step in 
that direction today.
  WRDA authorizes upwards of $20 billion for the construction of water 
resource development projects and studies by the Army Corps of 
Engineers for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. 
Additionally, H.R. 1495 authorizes hurricane recovery activities along 
the gulf coast that would cost an estimated $2 billion. Furthermore, 
the bill requires an external peer review for studies and projects that 
would cost more than $45 million. The bill also coordinates 
environmental analyses and other permit processes among Federal and 
State agencies and authorizes environmental quality initiatives.
  In my district in Sacramento, California, this WRDA bill is one of 
the most important pieces of legislation

[[Page 22382]]

that will pass Congress this year. We have been waiting a long time for 
this bill. Sacramento is the most at-risk river city for catastrophic 
flooding. Located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American 
Rivers, the Sacramento floodplain contains: 165,000 homes; over 488,000 
residents; 1,300 government facilities, including the State capitol; 
and businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is a hub of a six-county 
regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people.
  A major flood along the American River or the Sacramento River would 
have catastrophic ripple effects regionally and nationally; cost 
upwards of $35 billion in direct property damages; and likely would 
result in significant loss of life to our families, friends, and 
neighbors. In my district we understand the need and urgency for an 
overarching water resources policy to protect our homes, businesses, 
and families. Sacramento needs this bill, but so do countless other 
communities across the Nation.
  This bill, the projects and policy it contains, goes a long way in 
addressing our country's flood vulnerabilities. Nationally, regions 
across the country are starving for a Federal partner in water 
resources policy. Our country is confronted with population growth, 
climate change, and growing demands on our water infrastructure. Our 
districts across the country need this bill, and the Members in this 
Chamber have repeatedly supported WRDA bills.
  In the 108th Congress, WRDA passed the House by a vote of 412-8. In 
the 109th Congress, WRDA passed the House 406-14. In the 110th 
Congress, WRDA passed the House 394-25.
  There is a strong history of support and bipartisanship for WRDA 
bills. It is my hope that this support continues and that we move 
forward on this very important work.
  I also want to congratulate and thank Water Resources Environment 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and full committee 
Chairman Jim Oberstar for their commitment to make this bill a priority 
in the 110th Congress.
  Finally, I want to make a point that WRDA bills are traditionally 
intended to be 2-year authorization bills. It is important that we get 
our water policy back on track and address these ongoing challenges on 
a regular basis. It is my belief that the best protection that we can 
provide our communities is to be prepared. I look forward to passing 
this WRDA conference report and moving on to the next WRDA bill.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage 
of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1495, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. 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. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a conference 
report that provides for the conservation and development of water and 
related resources and authorizes the construction of various projects 
in order to improve rivers and harbors in the United States.
  Our Nation's water resource infrastructure is critical to our 
economy, transportation system, power generation, flood control, and 
environmental protection and restoration. This is especially true in 
the Pacific Northwest. Our region's river system is a great resource, 
one that must be well managed and protected.
  Hydroelectric dams provide clean, low-cost, renewable power. These 
facilities also provide a system of locks that allow for the efficient 
transport of tons of agricultural products to coastal ports, which 
reduces congestion on our highways and our rail systems.
  The coastal ports that receive the river-barged goods and products 
are the gateways to overseas markets and also need very careful 
attention. The success of farmers and manufacturers throughout the 
Northwest depend upon these ports being navigable and appropriately 
maintained.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions of this conference report 
that are important to the communities and individuals that I represent 
in central Washington that I would like to highlight. Like the WRDA 
bill that passed the House in the last Congress and the one that passed 
in April of this year, I am particularly pleased that the conference 
report includes a provision to permit the Corps of Engineers employees 
working at the dams in the Pacific Northwest to participate in wage 
surveys that are conducted to determine their rate of pay. This 
important provision will allow these employees the same participation 
allowed to similar employees at dams in the region operated by the 
Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation.
  This conference report also includes language that will allow the 
Corps to specifically give credit to the Port of Sunnyside in my 
district for funding it has invested to maintain progress on its 
wetland restoration and wastewater treatment project. This project is a 
creative initiative by the Port of Sunnyside to improve the river 
habitat and provide for greater economic growth in the local community. 
This provision ensures that the Port of Sunnyside gets proper credit 
for the funds it invests as it works with the Corps to make this 
project a reality.
  Finally, this legislation lifts Corps restrictions on the development 
of several Port of Pasco properties. I am very hopeful that the 
elimination of these flowage easements will allow beneficial uses of 
this prime riverfront property to move forward for the betterment of 
the city of Pasco and the Tri-Cities.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by a change in a law inserted into 
this final bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of the Army to 
approve removal of small dams under the Corps of Engineers Section 206 
program.
  The House is expected to consider a Democrat energy bill at some 
point this week, and I believe it doesn't bode well that we start off 
with making the removal of dams easier in this country. Dams provide 
power, drinking water, irrigation, transportation, and flood control. 
We need to value these benefits and recognize that hydropower dams are 
a clean and renewable energy resource.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides regular review and 
updating of congressional direction to the Corps of Engineers and 
ensures that existing projects are maintained and that new needs are 
met.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, who is our subcommittee Chair of the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules 
Committee leader, Congresswoman Matsui, for yielding.
  I am pleased to support the rule for the conference report for H.R. 
1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
  The bill authorizes water resources projects and U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers policy and programmatic changes that our Congress has failed 
to consider for far too long. Water resources legislation is most 
effective when it is considered every 2 years. I support this 2-year 
cycle as it provides stability to the program and assurance to the non-
Federal sponsors who support Corps projects.

                              {time}  2000

  Unfortunately, no Water Resources bill has been enacted since year 
2000, the entire term of the current administration.
  The authorizations in the language are time sensitive, and there 
should be no surprise that this bill contains a substantial number of 
provisions. Many of these authorizations have been waiting for action 
more than 6 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, as well as the 
underlying conference report, so that we may, once and for all, advance 
this vitally important legislation for the American people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from South

[[Page 22383]]

Carolina, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
Mr. Brown.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this critical 
legislation. While today is, unfortunately, a day several years 
overdue, it should not diminish the importance of this legislation.
  When I came to Congress in 2001, I was excited to be a part of the 
Water Resources Subcommittee as we began to work on the next Water 
Resources Development Act. Water is critical to my district, not just 
because of the projects it authorizes but also because of the important 
guidance it gives the Army Corps of Engineers. The reforms contained in 
this bill, which are the results of that process started in 2001, 
represents meaningful change that will ensure that our limited dollars 
are spent wisely.
  Improving infrastructure is not a partisan issue. It is a commitment 
we as a Nation must ensure is met. If we do not, then we as a Nation 
will be facing significantly greater environmental and economic 
challenges than we do currently.
  I cannot think of a group of individuals more committed to improving 
our Nation's infrastructure than my colleagues on the Transportation 
Committee. Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica have shown true 
leadership in guiding this legislation forward, especially as we worked 
to merge our bill with the one passed by the Senate.
  Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Baker have stepped up to their 
new positions this year with true energy and passion about the issue 
before our subcommittee. And a special word of thanks must go to my 
friends, Don Young, Jerry Costello and Jimmy Duncan, who led the fight 
for this bill the past few Congresses. So much of this bill is because 
of their work and leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close by urging all of my colleagues to 
support this rule and this critical legislation so we can get the Corps 
to work. To those who complain about the cost of this legislature, let 
me remind you that this one bill is doing the work of three WRDA bills.
  If you missed a payment on your house, would the bank allow you to 
pay only the next month's payment, forgetting the payment you missed? 
Would the bank allow you to do the same thing if you missed two monthly 
payments? Of course not. You would have to make your catch-up payment, 
plus make the payments for the current month. That is what this 
legislation represents, a catch-up of two bills that went uncompleted, 
while also addressing our current needs.
  For the good of our Nation's economy and environment, I urge my 
colleagues to support this overdue catch-up and pass this rule and the 
WRDA Conference report.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this measure, because I strongly support the rule and 
look forward to the enactment of the Conference Committee Report. It 
represents hard work and has been acknowledged by my former colleagues 
on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whom I miss a great 
deal.
  Like many Members, I have some projects in here that I, too, am 
pleased to see move forward, particularly some environmental 
restoration in the State of Oregon that is going to smooth fish 
passages.
  I must say that, in terms of the thing that excites me most about the 
bill, though, is the movement towards the reform of our Water Resources 
policies. I have long talked about this on the floor. I have attempted, 
as a member of the committee, to support them and continue to move this 
work forward.
  As I look at the bill in its totality, there were some good things 
from the Senate, and some good things in the House version. I think the 
conferees worked to enhance the overall reform aspects of this 
legislation.
  I am particularly pleased that we've been able to retain the update 
of the principles and guidelines which have not been changed since 
1983. I think this is absolutely essential and look forward to the 
progress that the Corps can make in this area.
  I appreciate the fact that the conferees worked to strengthen and 
refine language on independence review for large projects. Much of the 
time, at least some of the controversy that we have faced in the 
political arena would have been avoided if we would have had this 
independent review mechanism in place. But I think there is a lesson 
that we all must pay attention to, that once we have the independent 
review, it's very important that we listen to what the independent 
review concludes.
  One project that I'm less than totally enthusiastic about, the Upper 
Mississippi Lock and Dam Project, had independent reviews from the GAO, 
from the National Academy of Sciences, from the Army's Inspector 
General that all were negative but somehow the project continues to 
move forward.
  It is important that we are sensitive to this. I take modest 
exception to my good friend from Washington being concerned about the 
language here to make it easier for dam removal. We have 60,000 dams 
that relate to the Depression era, for instance. We found last year 
that there are a number of dams in the Northeast; we don't know who is 
responsible for their maintenance. It is important in many cases to be 
able to sensitively, environmentally decommission dams in order to 
protect the public safety.
  As it relates to the Everglades, bear in mind we are spending 
billions of dollars undoing an earlier Corps of Engineers project. As 
it relates to the areas around New Orleans in Louisiana, there was a 
three-quarters of a billion dollar navigation project in an area where 
river traffic was static or declining at the very point of the levee 
failure. That money could have been better spent protecting New 
Orleans. In fact, the LSU Hurricane Research Center thinks that that 
navigation project actually may have amplified the surge and put more 
people at risk. At a time when we are dealing with global warming and 
climate change, the stakes are higher than ever.
  This bill represents an important step forward. I hope that we're 
able to work with the committee in its implementation and its oversight 
so we can build on this foundation and be better off as we move 
forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As the gentleman knows, because we're 
both from the Northwest, we have large dams that I alluded to in my 
remarks that provide hydroelectric power for all of the Northwest. And 
I know the provision in this bill does not apply to those dams. But, 
nevertheless, I think we in the Northwest need to be cognizant of the 
fact that, once you start these things, sometime in the future it may 
go up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will continue to yield. I would like 20 seconds at 
the end though, Doc.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. A point that I am simply making is that 
that is a major part, those dams on the Snake River and the Columbia 
River are major power sources for all of our electrical power and, 
therefore, for our economy. And I am just simply concerned because 
sometimes we don't look longer term enough. But if we look longer term 
enough and we start putting provisions in where it is a regular thing 
of takeout dams, then perhaps in the future, I hope not, I will do 
everything I can, but perhaps in the future that all of a sudden 
somebody will take a shot at those larger dams. I think that would be 
detrimental to our economy in the Northwest.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from 
Washington's clarification.

[[Page 22384]]

  My point was that this is important because there comes a time when 
many dams outlive their usefulness. They either have to be restored or 
removed. They can actually pose a danger to the public. I don't want us 
to be frozen in place, unable to respond in the best way.
  There may come a time when people want to reassess big dams, small 
dams. What is in this committee report, however, is something I think 
is long overdue, to give the Corps flexibility in areas where there is 
little or no controversy; and I think it's important, that we need to 
be focusing more attention.
  I will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do 
the right thing in the Northwest and make sure that we don't have any 
unintended consequences, and I will work with him to make sure that 
this is not an unintended consequence.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I appreciate the gentleman 
simply saying that this is intended to go after dams that probably need 
to be looked at for a variety of reasons. And, in that sense, I 
obviously don't have a problem. My problem is long term, as I 
suggested, but I appreciate the gentleman working with me.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the T&I Committee, Mr. 
Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act, one of the most important bills we will take 
up in this Congress and I think certainly one of the most important 
environmental bills; and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time.
  This bill contains flood control projects, environmental restoration 
projects, wastewater system improvements, water projects all over the 
country in rural areas, small towns, medium-size cities and large 
cities. And in many of these areas, our water systems are 50 or 75 or 
even 100 years old and are in desperate need for work and improvement 
and, many times, new construction.
  I had the privilege, as my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) 
mentioned, of serving as chairman of the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee for 6 years; and during that time, as the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) mentioned, we passed the WRDA 
bill twice, once with only 8 votes against it, once with only 14 votes 
against it. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass in the Senate.
  In this Congress, under the leadership of my good friend, Chairwoman 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, and my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Baker), and certainly under the leadership of our full committee 
chairman, our outstanding chairman, Mr. Oberstar, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and the Ranking Member Mica from Florida, this bill passed 
not only the House, but it passed the Senate by a vote of 91-4. So 
there is tremendous support, bipartisan support, for this legislation 
from people all over the country.
  You know, if an automobile needs an oil change and you don't get it, 
a very low-cost matter, an engine can later explode and cost thousands 
of dollars; and that's sort of the situation we're in with many of our 
water systems from around the country. As several people have noted, 
this is a 7-year bill, and it deals with these water needs that have 
built up over all of that time.
  I think it's a very fiscally conservative bill. As expensive as it is 
in one way, it's only a little over a month and a half of what we're 
spending in Iraq. And comparing these 7 years of built-up needs to what 
we're doing in the little over 1\1/2\ and a half months in Iraq, I 
think makes this a very conservative bill.
  I had the privilege of chairing the Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years 
before I chaired the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for 6 
years, and in both of those areas I saw that there were very strong, 
competing interests in those areas. But, in this bill, we brought all 
these competing interests together. There was a great deal of 
compromise that went on and a great deal of work was put into this 
legislation.
  I'm very proud to support this bill. I think it's good for this 
Nation. I know it's good for my home area of east Tennessee, where we 
have so many water needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend everybody who has worked so hard 
on this legislation. It's very important for this country. There is 
nothing that the people in this country take for granted like we do our 
clean water and wastewater systems, and we desperately need this work 
to be done.
  I think this is a bipartisan legislation that all of our colleagues 
can and should support.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm very pleased 
to speak on this bill.
  Actually, this is a happy day for this Chamber that we are discussing 
this bill after 7 years of work, very hard work.
  In the midst of all of the difficulties we've had in the past few 
days, the arguments, the debates, the disagreements, to take a brief 
pause and pass a bill or a conference report that we almost all will 
agree on is a good piece of work for our Nation. It's a good piece of 
work for the people of this Nation. It will help in innumerable areas.

                              {time}  2015

  I am especially pleased that we have addressed some of the problems 
in the Great Lakes which have been too neglected in the past. We have 
taken good care of the Everglades, the Chesapeake and Louisiana areas, 
lots of other water-filled areas, but not the Great Lakes, where 40 
million people depend on the lakes for their drinking water, for their 
industry and so forth.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Mr. Oberstar, who grabbed hold of 
this as soon as he became chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and made a total and complete commitment to 
getting this bill out. He deserves credit for having done so.
  I want to publicly express my appreciation to him and, of course, to 
Mr. Mica, who is the ranking member on the committee and worked equally 
hard on this. Richard Baker of our committee also put in many, many 
hours putting this bill together. So thank you to one and all.
  Mr. Speaker, the Nation will be the better for it. The Nation will be 
grateful for it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of the discussion, the exchange that took place 
between the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Oregon, I 
just want to observe that the committee will hold hearings on the issue 
of dams. Tomorrow, in full committee, we will take up a bill to give 
the Corps new authorities and direction to conduct inspections of dam 
safety. But on the broader issue of dams that has been in our work 
portfolio for quite some time, we will have hearings and explore the 
broad issue in terms of what the gentleman raised and in terms of what 
the gentleman from Oregon raised.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not something that will be taken lightly or 
swept under the rug in any way or forgotten when this bill was passed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Again, I 
am particularly sensitive, because of the nature of the dams that we 
are talking about on the Snake River and on the Columbia River in my 
State. But there's also larger dams throughout the Pacific Northwest. 
My understanding of this legislation, it was talking about dams, as the 
gentleman

[[Page 22385]]

from Oregon described. I understand that. So I appreciate the 
chairman's consideration.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the Corps has long had authority to 
terminate dams, but it has been reluctant to use it. In the conference 
report, we make that authority explicit with the intention that the 
Corps will be invigorated to evaluate dams in a broader context.
  But I think it is important for us to hold hearings so that the 
issues are aired fairly, equitably, scientifically, and 
engineeringwise, so rather than just have these things go on and 
conducted by bloggers and in some other unscientific way, let's put the 
issues on the record, and we will consult with the gentleman and the 
gentleman from Oregon on appropriate subjects and witnesses as we go 
through and proceed toward these hearings.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I appreciate that. I think it is something we need to look at. 
We have oversight nevertheless, anyway.
  If the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as was said, this bill is long overdue. Our country 
needs a comprehensive water resources policy, and WRDA is the framework 
that can meet this need.
  We have 7 years of backlogged water projects that must be addressed. 
There is a growing demand on our already overburdened water 
infrastructure. The sooner we move forward on this conference report, 
the sooner our communities across the country will be healthier and 
safer. This conference report has bipartisan support. In fact, every 
member of the conference signed off on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________