Jimmy Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement by the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Kind amendment be made in order immediately after the disposition of the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I will not take 2 minutes, but I rise in strong support of the rule for consideration of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This is a good rule and a good bill. All amendments that were submitted were submitted in a timely manner and were germane and made in order. The reason I rise is to take just a moment to say that there are few amendments because the committee worked hard to address Members' needs in the bill and in the manager's amendment. I just wanted to commend the staff on both sides for their hard work and long hours that they put in on this bill because, in many cases, groups and Members and staff started out far apart on many controversial issues, but this bill became a real effort and the best of bipartisanship, and we ended up with a very good bill that has flood control and environmental restoration projects, navigation projects, water conservation, recreation and dam safety projects. So I just wanted to say that I want to commend the Members who worked so hard on this bill, particularly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, but especially I wanted to say a word about the hard work and long hours that the staff put in on this to resolve many of the very controversial issues, and I also want to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us this time and a good rule here, and I urge support of this rule.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is currently evaluating a test barrier that was authorized under the National Invasive Species Act in 1996. At the same time, the Corps is studying the potential of building a second barrier under a continuing authority for small projects. I will work with the gentlewoman and be glad to do so to see that this project is not delayed. This is a serious matter that involves the missions of several Federal agencies and impacts the entire Great Lakes region. The committee plans to work on a reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act during the next session. I am willing to work with the gentlewoman as we work on that legislation to encourage a regional and multi-agency response to this problem.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for her kind words. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), another member who has worked hard on certain parts of this legislation.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I likewise would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member, for his work on this legislation. I used to say that during my 6 years as Chairman of the aviation subcommittee that I knew of no other chairman and ranking member of a subcommittee who got along better than I did with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my ranking member. We got along with each. Now, I can say the same thing about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). There must be something special about people from Illinois, Mr. Chairman, but it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) on this bill. This is the most environmentally friendly Water Resources Development Act that this Congress has ever produced. It is also a good bill for the taxpayers in the provisions that it has to speed up and thus hold down the cost of these very needed projects around the country. So like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention following committee action. Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has prepared nine additional chief's reports, recommending that Congress authorize certain water resources projects. The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a number of small projects under existing Corps authorities to improve navigation, provide flood damage reduction and improve the quality of the environment. For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment authorizes four new Corps of Engineers studies. This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and must comply with cost-sharing and cost-benefit rules. This means not every project could be addressed. But, within these constraints, we did our best to meet the needs of all our communities and all the Members that we possibly could. I urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time and urge support for this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from staff on the other side is that the staff on the other side of the aisle and the Members on the other side of the aisle, particularly the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if the gentleman withdraws his colloquy at this point. I will say that there is language in the bill at this time that attempts to get at the problem that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) is trying to solve. The language says, ``In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall award contracts based on an invitation for bids procedure.'' If that is not satisfactory to accomplish the goal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), if he feels that he is in a position to withdraw the colloquy at this point, then it is my understanding that the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will try to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to resolve this issue.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) wanted to be here to make a statement in opposition to this amendment. On his behalf, I have been asked to point out, at least, that the ports already have the authority to charge fees for the services that they render; they do not need Congress to give them this authority. Also, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) feels that if this amendment were to pass, this could force ships to go to other ports. Also, we have letters from the American Association of Port Authorities and the California Marine Affairs Navigation Conference, the Port of Long Beach, the California Association of Port Authorities, the Virginia Port Authority, the Port of Stockton, and other similar groups opposing the gentleman's amendment. Let me just say that as the gentleman from Illinois has said, we certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from California and I came to Congress together. There is almost nobody in this Congress that I admire and respect more than the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). I think, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this amendment is well intentioned. I think it is something that our subcommittee could and should hold a hearing about. And I think that perhaps if the gentleman would work with the committee and the subcommittee and the various organizations, the port authorities and the shipping industry, there might be a way to accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish through this amendment. But at this point, we do have to rise in opposition to this amendment because it is something that I think probably deserves and probably needs a little additional work. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may have remaining to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.