Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I would say yes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank all of the staff who worked so hard on this legislation, particularly the majority and minority staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. We would not be here today without the hard work of Ryan Seiger and Mike Brain on my staff and of others on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, today I rise in opposition to S. 612. At one point, I wholeheartedly supported this bill. There should be nothing partisan about infrastructure. Building and rebuilding infrastructure for transportation of goods and people, for shipping, for rail, for other aspects, and clean water--all that should be nonpartisan. It is in the best interests of the United States of America to make us more competitive and more efficient. This bill reflected the best of that tradition when it came out of the committee. Unfortunately, a number of things have happened since. First, when we came to the floor, the leadership stripped out a provision which was adopted unanimously in committee to make the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund into a trust fund--spending the tax that is collected for harbor maintenance on--shocking in Washington, D.C.--harbor maintenance. Right now, the Budget Committee diverts that money every year somewhere else--imaginary deficit reduction or some other program--and we underspend, through the appropriations process, that money. So the Americans are paying a tax. Every good you buy that is imported you pay a little bit more for it. You are paying that tax, and Congress is diverting the money while our harbors shoal in and our jetties crumble, and we can't compete in the world market. The committee had adopted a provision to turn that into a real trust fund and spend the money on harbor maintenance. That was stripped out because of objections by the Budget Committee that wants to divert the money and the Appropriations Committee that wants to divert the money. That just shouldn't be. I want to thank the chairman for promising to continue to work on that issue, which came out of committee, when we do the Water Resources Development bill again next year. Hopefully, the Trump administration will take a different position on this. There is $9 billion sitting there waiting to be spent tomorrow of taxes that have already been collected to maintain our harbors that Congress doesn't want to spend, despite the shoaling in and the jetties' deteriorating conditions. So, hopefully, the new administration will take a different position in the budget on that. Secondly, just this week, a 100-page provision which did not come from our committee, which relates to a hugely controversial water diversion and settlement of disputes in California pitting members of the California delegation on both sides of the aisle against one another, doesn't only just affect California, because Sacramento salmon swim north, and the last time we had a bad drought they shut down all the fishing on the southern Oregon coast because of endangered Sacramento salmon. Our salmon were doing fine. So if they start diverting more water from the delta, from the Sacramento, it is likely that our fisheries will be shut down in Oregon because of this misplaced provision which has not had any congressional review of any sort in any committee in this House. Finally, gratuitously, as part of that gigantic project in California, they are undermining Buy America and Davis-Bacon provisions. I hope this isn't a harbinger of things to come, that despite the President who wants a stronger Buy America, that the Republican House is going to want to undermine Buy America and start buying Chinese and Russian steel for our projects and doing away with prevailing wages paying a good living wage to people who work in construction jobs. It is very unfortunate that was inserted in this bill. But there are many meritorious provisions in the bill set aside for dredging of small harbors and many, many individual projects and authorizations in the bill. Had these other three things not happened, I would have enthusiastically supported it, but, unfortunately, I will have to oppose the bill. I reserve the balance of my time. I rise in reluctant opposition to S. 612. Mr. Speaker, at one time, this bill had great promise. At one time, this bill represented the bipartisan traditions of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. When the Committee unanimously reported this bill to the House, I was proud to support the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. However, since that time, the House Republican Leadership has unilaterally stripped key Democratic priorities and air-dropped-in controversial Republican provisions making it impossible for me to support the bill today. At every step of the legislative process, House Republican Leaders have morphed what was once the product of months of hard work by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure into something that I, as the Ranking Democrat on the Committee, can no longer support--despite the fact that some good policy provisions remain in this bill. That being said, I thank the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Shuster, for following through on his promise to pass a Water Resources Development Act this Congress. In May, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously approved WRDA. That bipartisan bill took a bold step to ensure that Congress would begin to draw down the enormous surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). This position, one that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has fought for, on a bipartisan basis, for decades, would have made the $9 billion surplus of the HMTF immediately available to the Secretary of the Army to dredge our Nation's harbors. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped from the bill by the House Republican Leadership before Floor consideration, and was not included in the House-passed WRDA. This important provision would have unlocked the HMTF to ensure that revenues collected from shippers are used to dredge our Nation's harbors, and are not diverted to cover other debts of the U.S. Treasury. Despite this, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his commitment to work with me in the next Congress to unlock the HMTF once and for all. Without this provision, the balance in the Trust Fund will double in the next decade to more than $17 billion and continue to grow year after year, despite the tremendous needs of our Nation's ports and harbors. I am confident that, in the 115th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure can achieve full use of the HMTF, and strengthen and maintain our ports, harbors and waterways, and our Nation's economic competitiveness. I thank Chairman Shuster for his promise to work with me to achieve full use of the HMTF in the next Congress. Again, while I will oppose final passage of this bill, I do want to highlight several promising provisions in the bill. Emblematic of prior water resources legislation, S. 612 authorizes all pending Corps of Engineers' project authorizations--valued at more than $10 billion. It also authorizes 32 new feasibility studies and additional project modifications to existing Corps' projects--the first such provisions enacted since 2007. The bill also includes several provisions to improve the overall efficiency and transparency of the Corps in carrying out its construction and regulatory missions while preserving existing Federal environmental protections. For example, S. 612 includes a provision that requires the Corps to coordinate the regulatory review of project modifications (so-called section 408 reviews) with the expectation that these coordinated reviews will help expedite the decision-making process. S. 612 also directs the Secretary to expeditiously complete a report to Congress on any materials, articles, or supplies manufactured outside the United States that are currently used in Corps projects. This report will be critical to increased oversight by this Committee of the use of foreign-manufactured goods in Corps projects. S. 612 also includes provisions to preserve and enhance the participation of Indian tribes in our water-related infrastructure, as well as honor commitments made by the U.S. government to the tribes. First, the bill includes a provision that authorizes the Corps to provide immediate housing assistance to the Indian tribes displaced as a result of the construction of the Bonneville Dam, as well as to further study those Indian tribes displaced from the construction of the John Day Dam. Both of these provisions are intended to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to the commitments made to the tribes for construction of these two projects generations ago. In addition, S. 612 includes a provision that directs the Corps to undertake a comprehensive study of the existing tribal consultation process for the construction of any water resources development project, or any other project that may require the Corps' approval or the issuance of a Corps permit. As recent events have shown, it is past time for the Corps to revisit its existing tribal consultation processes to ensure that the Corps undertakes meaningful consultation with Indian tribes for projects that may have an impact on tribal cultural or natural resources. I look forward to working with the Corps to ensure that this study and report are completed within the year. I am also pleased that S. 612 provides the framework for the Federal Government to finally meet its commitment to help the families affected by lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan. While the funding for these projects will ultimately be included in the appropriations bill that funds the government into next year, I support the inclusion of additional Drinking Water State Revolving Fund resources for communities experiencing public health threats associated with lead- water contamination, and urge the Administration to release these funds to the State of Michigan and to the City of Flint as quickly as possible. The bill also benefits my home state of Oregon. First, and foremost, the bill makes permanent the existing set-aside of harbor maintenance funding for small commercial harbors. These small commercial harbors are the lifeblood of local and regional economies; yet, for decades, Federal dredging needs at these harbors went unmet. S. 612 makes permanent the existing 10 percent set-aside of annual Federal maintenance dredging funds for these types of harbors, and ensures that this 10 percent is the minimum (not the maximum) amount allocated to small commercial harbors from both baseline funding and priority funds. The bill also provides for the first-ever survey of the condition of existing breakwaters and jetties protecting Federal harbors. In the Northwest, these critical structures are crumbling, failing to provide necessary protection for shippers and fishermen alike, and increasing the long-term costs of maintaining our ports and harbors. This survey will provide Congress with critical information on the condition of breakwaters and levees so that we may start the process of repairing or replacing these structures in the near future. I am pleased that S. 612 also authorizes a new Columbia River Basin Restoration Program at the Environmental Protection Agency to help reduce toxic contamination and clean up contaminated sites in the Columbia River Basin. However, Mr. Speaker, there are also provisions in this bill that I cannot support. For example, when the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 was considered in the House in September, I sponsored an amendment to ensure that scarce Federal funds are not used for the construction of non-economically-justified projects, or projects for the construction of ballfields and splash parks. Unfortunately, at the insistence of the Republican majority, the authorization of the Central City; Texas project remains in this final bill, without the protections for taxpayers that I sought in my amendment. Should this project continue, I will continue to press the Committee and the Corps to oversee this project to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on frivolous and non-economically-justified projects, regardless of where they are constructed. In addition, I did not support the inclusion in this bill of those provisions which side with one State over another in regional water issues, such as those involving the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint watersheds in the States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. I do not support the inclusion of any of the provisions that purport to grant a private citizen with some undefined property right to publically-owned or managed property. These provisions, such as section 1148 (Cumberland River, Kentucky), section 1185 (Table Rock Lake, Arkansas and Missouri), and section 5003 (Tennessee Valley Authority jurisdictional waters), follow a concerning trend that seeks to provide some enforceable interest in public lands and resources for which no right currently exists, or no agreement with or payment to the government is made. Congress should conduct proper oversight of these and any future proposals to grant such a property right to ensure that public resources are properly held in trust for the good of the Nation, and not the benefit of private individuals or interests. In addition, I oppose efforts by the Republican Leadership to undermine worker protections and Buy America requirements for programs and projects authorized by this bill. If enacted, these provisions will undermine the principle of prevailing wage protections for construction jobs, and open the door to using American taxpayer dollars to pass off goods made with Russian and Chinese steel as ``Made-in-America'' . Finally, and most egregiously, I am opposed to the inclusion of the last-minute, nearly 100-page California water poison pill that was developed behind closed doors and with no apparent public debate. It deeply divides the existing California Congressional delegation, regardless of party, and picks winners and losers in a region-against- region and industry-against-industry fight for water in California. This provision was dropped on our lap on Monday. It jeopardizes not only our bill, but also Oregon's fishing industry and thousands of jobs that depend on sustainable fisheries. I cannot support a bill that will jeopardize thousands of jobs and our economic engine on the Oregon coast. Again, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his work on this bill. I am disappointed that the good work of our Committee has been sullied by the whims of House Republican Leaders, and hope that, in the next Congress, we can restore the strong and lasting commitments made between the majority and minority members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. For these reasons, I oppose S. 612.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rachel Carr, who has served as Counsel for the Subcommittee on Aviation for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, since I became Ranking Member in 2013. As a long-time Member of the Committee, I have had the pleasure of working with Rachel on numerous transportation issues, from railroads, pipelines, and hazardous materials safety to unmanned aircraft systems and efforts to defeat faulty legislative proposals to privatize the Air Traffic Control system. Her hard work and wise counsel have been invaluable to me and to many Members of the Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with her as she embarks on a new endeavor. Rachel is a long-time aviation lover. In a recent Congressional Quarterly article which featured key staff on Capitol Hill, Rachel reminisced about how she went to air shows as a child, and then studied engineering thinking she would get into a technical aspect of the industry, but after an internship at an airport, Rachel became intrigued with the policy side of transportation and, in particular, aviation. Indeed, Rachel began her career on Capitol Hill serving as Staff Assistant for the Full Committee in 1999 and, just a short time later, the Subcommittees on Aviation and Railroads, a foreshadowing of her accomplishments to come. Rachel went on to serve as Manager of Legislative Affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; an attorney at Coddington, Hicks & Danforth in Redwood City, California; and then, in 2009, Counsel for the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In that role, she helped lead efforts to investigate the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which resulted in numerous improvements to the Department of Transportation's hazardous materials safety program. She also played a key role in defeating Republican efforts to privatize Amtrak, our national passenger rail system before landing on the Aviation Subcommittee. Rachel's understanding of complex transportation safety issues has been an asset to the Committee for over a decade. Rachel was instrumental in drafting significant pieces of legislation including H.R. 4441, the ``Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016''; An Act to allow the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to enter into reimbursable agreements for certain airport projects (P.L. 114- ); and the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190). The latter legislation includes provisions that will substantially improve aviation safety and accommodate an emerging group of new airspace users who operate unmanned aircraft. Last month, Rachel was appointed Federal Policy Advisor for the Denver International Airport. Her expertise and counsel will be truly missed. I join my colleagues on the Transportation Committee in wishing Rachel and her dog, Sasha, all the best in her new endeavor.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent December 1st and 2nd due to a medical appointment. Had I been present I would have voted: On Roll Call Vote 594, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote 595, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote 596, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote 597, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote 598, I would have voted Aye. On Roll Call Vote 599, I would have voted No. On Roll Call Vote 600, I would have voted No.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I remember the closing ad in the Trump campaign. He was going to drain the swamp. Good. And then he had the CEO of Goldman Sachs up there, who represented the global elite who robbed the working class of their savings and homes. Pretty powerful stuff, and I will tell you what, I pretty much agreed with it. Now, he is already working on draining the swamp, so things are showing up in D.C. that you haven't seen for a while. I was walking down the street by Trump Tower International last night and I found this laying in the street. Now, I haven't seen this since a guy named Henry ``Hank'' Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was Secretary of the Treasury under George Bush and he came to Congress after Wall Street destroyed our economy with reckless gambling and asked for an unlimited bailout of Wall Street, the key to the Treasury. Now, I opposed that and, for one proud day, the House of Representatives didn't bail out Wall Street. Unfortunately, the Senate came back to town. They got scared by Wall Street tanking the market. They bailed out Wall Street and a number of my colleagues in the House changed their votes, so they all got bailed out. Well enough, good. Now, that is Goldman Sachs that says please return to Goldman Sachs. Well, Donald Trump is returning the key to the Treasury to Goldman Sachs. Ain't that great? That's draining the swamp folks; draining the swamp. A guy named Mnuchin--now he is a film producer, but he made a fortune at Goldman Sachs; his dad worked at Goldman Sachs for 33 years; his brother still works at Goldman Sachs--is going to get the key to the Treasury. Now, he also made a fortune during the TARP bailout by buying an asset, IndyMac, and dispossessing tens of thousands of people of their homes. So I would say that Mr. Trump, the candidate, and the ad was right. These people at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere are the global elite who have stolen people's savings, who have taken away their homes. But now he is putting them back in charge. Mr. Mnuchin is getting the key to the Treasury, Goldman Sachs executive, dad, lifetime Goldman Sachs executive, brother still working at Goldman Sachs. How the heck is that draining the swamp?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has identified a real and continuing issue, and I suggest that Members support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment has great merit, and I urge Members to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard over 2 days, the Corps' budget is tight--a $2.4 billion backlog in operations and maintenance and, after today, a $74 billion backlog in authorized projects. Now, deep in this bill is a line item that provides an authorization for an $810 million lavish waterfront development project in Fort Worth, Texas. My amendment simply guarantees fiscal discipline and regular order in two parts. First, it guarantees that no Corps of Engineers funds will be used to build soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, or splash parks as part of the project. Second, it requires the Secretary of the Army to determine that the project is economically justified. That is it. That is all this does. The proponents of this will say there are no funds that are going to be used for soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, or splash parks. However, this has been extracted from the Web site of the developer of the project. This is the official Web site. These are all included. They say: We are going to use local funds. There is a little gimmick here. Corps projects that have been authorized and have been found to be economically beneficial have to have local cost sharing. In this case, big parts of the local cost share are these things which are not qualified for a Corps project. They say: Those aren't going to be Federal funds. This is going to reduce the burden on the local people to match, and it is going to increase the burden on the taxpayers. In fact, if this does not authorize these things, all the Secretary has to do is to say they are not going to be constructed with Federal funds. If Members don't want to take my word for it, listen to the Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Taxpayers Union. ``The legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least, we urge you to remove or limit the funds. . . . `' If I am wrong and the National Taxpayers Union is wrong, the Secretary only has to confirm that. Secondly, we are going to require the Secretary to determine the project as economically justified. Why would Congress insist on economically justifying a $510 million Federal project? A better question might be: Why wouldn't you insist on this? Every other chief's report in this bill had to go through an economic analysis by the Corps of Engineers and be found to be a net benefit to the taxpayers of the United States. This project did not. Yes, there was a private analysis done that said this is a great project, but there was no study done by the chief's office, and it has not been economically justified. This project started out as an earmark in 2004 at a cost of $220 million. In this bill, it is a renewed earmark at $810 million, and the Federal share has gone from $110 million to $527 million. Anybody out there who has a need for a port or a harbor or anything else, think about that as you are in a very long line, and $527 million is going to get ahead of you with an earmarked project which includes these sorts of features. I urge Members to observe regular order, not to do an earmark by any other name, and require this project to be economically justified and not to construct sports facilities. September 27, 2016. Dear Representative: While less expensive and problematic than the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (S. 2848), we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Instead of much needed reform, this legislation piles billions of dollars in additional water projects on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plate. The legislation also makes policy changes that will be costly to taxpayers. The largest challenge facing the Corps of Engineers water resources program is the lack of a prioritization system for allocating the limited available tax dollars. The legislation directs the executive branch to better explain its budgeting decisions, but this should not serve as an abdication of congressional authority. Congress should develop the criteria and metrics to prioritize Corps projects in the three primary mission areas (navigation, flood/storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration). The executive branch should be required to allocate funds in the budget request in a transparent manner through merit, competitive, or formula systems developed by Congress. Lawmakers could then conduct oversight, hold the administration accountable, and adjust the systems, criteria, and metrics as needed. H.R. 5303 fails to include such a prioritization system. It does many other things, however. Between committee consideration and the floor, the bill grew by over $6 billion. A provision from the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 dedicating maintenance dredging funds to emerging ports is made permanent. It doesn't make sense to invest in a port that is continually ``emerging.'' It also extends set-asides for ``donor'' and ``energy'' ports without reforming the massive cross-subsidies in the existing maintenance dredging program. The legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least, we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project. Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303 the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Sincerely, Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense. Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the gentleman on this, creating a permanent set-aside for this critical harbor maintenance in the Great Lakes. I have a similar amendment targeted toward small ports in the base bill. But, as the gentleman mentioned, what this points to is the fact that the Corps is stretched too thin. They have a $2.5 million backlog on operations and maintenance, yet there is $9.8 billion in the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund. That is, there is $9.8 billion in taxes that has been paid by shippers and passed on to consumers that hasn't been spent on harbor maintenance. Were we to create a harbor maintenance trust fund next year and, say, it was to be fully obligated, we would have an additional $500 million in current revenues to invest in operations and maintenance, let alone the $9.8 billion that harbor maintenance and construction is owed from past collections. So I think this is an excellent amendment. I recommend it to my colleagues. The Great Lakes need this sort of attention, but we have got to get to the underlying problem which is insufficient funds. I thank the gentleman for his support also on that issue. I urge a positive vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his amendment. I can confirm that the Corps of Engineers has said they have no objection to this. I guess just somehow, they couldn't get through the bureaucracy to release the land until the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vela) brought this amendment to the floor. So the gentleman is doing a public service for his constituents and I believe the Nation, holding onto property unnecessarily. I recommend our colleagues support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate the gentleman from California on a very thoughtful amendment. Actually, I am having a personal experience with this right now. Since we have discovered we have a major fault off of southern Oregon, the Corps has decided that they need to come back in and bore and reevaluate the dams on my Willamette River system. This should be, I would think, a pretty routine thing for the Corps. I asked: Why do you have to do that? They said: Back when we built those dams, we didn't know about it, and we aren't really quite sure of their seismic stability. I think there are probably many, many, many other Corps projects in California, Oregon, and elsewhere that need that kind of scrutiny; so what the gentleman is doing is shining a light on a problem. As I mentioned earlier, the Corps has a $2.5 billion backlog on O&M. This will come out of the O&M budget. I am happy to send this mandate to the Corps. In revisiting my objections to the bill yesterday, which is going to cause me to vote against the bill, underspending the tax which is levied on all imported goods--paid for by all Americans who buy imported goods--and diverting that money to other programs when the Corps has critical needs like this is stupid. I really regret, again, that my harbor maintenance trust fund amendment was pulled out of the bill, but this just underlines the need for the Corps to have more resources. I urge a positive vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am opposed to the bill.