Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that my friend from Georgia agrees with the President on something. That is kind of a fascinating turn of events considering his traditional record, but let's focus for a moment on what the upstream flood control dams do.
This is a program that began in the 1940s to build small earthen dams--too small to fall within the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction--to act as interlocking flood control structures to protect people and property and assets below the structures wherever they may be, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean or all the way to the Pacific Ocean.
The problem, you see, is that, as meritorious and as wonderful as these 3,000 structures have worked, time takes its toll on everything, and if we don't pursue this program to rehabilitate them--to extend the life--not only will they not continue the protection of people and of property and of wildlife and not only will they not restrain the silt and manage floods, but they will have to be taken out, and all of the good they have done will be undone.
So what does this language in the bill do?
It provides cost share money so that local entities can rehabilitate these structures.
My colleague was exactly right in that the advance of technology is tremendous. The work that is done should last--instead of 50 years--100 years or more, but we have got 3,000 of these structures, and they are getting older. Spending a little money to extend their lives to continue to protect wildlife and people and property from every structure all the way to the ocean seems like a wise use of resources.
Now, I understand that there is something like $900 million in requested funding in 2014 to meet this need. This farm bill language doesn't meet all of that need, but it takes a huge step in the right direction. We spend a lot of money around here on things that last just a few minutes or a few hours or a few days. This is an investment that will last a century in building on a previous half century's investment--a wise use of resources.
The government built these dams to protect life and property, and many of these structures are hitting their life expectancies. Let's spend a little bit to continue that wise investment. Yes, let's keep the silt out of the streams, and, yes, let's enhance the wildlife qualities up and down these streams, but don't ever forget not just the property but the people who can sleep at night without the fear of what Mother Nature may do because of the upstream flood control dams.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I urge them to continue to support the investment that has been so wisely made since the 1940s. Please vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. My friends, once again, slightly different amount, same subject.
What can I say?
Yes, in the process of putting the farm bill together, where we saved $23 billion, we looked very carefully at all of the programs underneath our jurisdictions. Many things were reformed, reducing spending.
Some things that have worked extremely well actually received more resources. I think that part of being competent and wise legislators is assessing how the resources are used, reducing spending in wasteful areas, and enhancing spending in areas that are wisely spent. I think that is what we are about here.
Now, I know that apparently there are outside groups that have chosen to score this, and I would remind my friends that they score a variety of things. But why do you have to pick on the things that affect rural America?
Why do you have to address the infrastructure issues that go after public safety, preservation of property, life itself?
I suppose if you are sitting somewhere in an ivory tower typing out scorecards, you can pick the things that are less relevant to you.
But of those 3,000 structures scattered across America, dating back to the 1940s, countless, countless lives and millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars of property have been protected. I think that is a good use of our resources, a wise commitment in how we allocate our funds.
Now, some of my colleagues have alluded to the way in which the funds are handled, the mandatory dollars coming through the farm bill every so many years and how, in the magical process called appropriations, some of that mandatory money becomes discretionary.
I do not pretend to have enough time to discuss the nuances of that art form, but I will say this: as long as the resources are of sufficient caliber to make a major effort in meeting the needs that exist, whether it is through the every 5-year farm bill or the annual appropriations process by our friends on the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations, let's just do the right thing. And on this occasion, we are doing the right thing.
If you care about long-term investments, if you care about public safety, if you care about property--and I repeat one more time: for those of you have ever been in the field that look at these structures, they act to control silt flows in streams. That is important to wildlife and fish. That is important to water quality, and they inhibit these floods that come, and then they meter the water out in a slow fashion.
The overwhelming lion's share of them do not impound water, they simply slow the process down so that the streams and rivers below can handle it.
My real regret here is that we haven't put more effort in the last 50 years into these structures. If we had, if we would have, if we could, or if we will some day, the effect on the environment, the effect on our fellow citizens will be tremendous, even more than it is now.
Again, please reject this amendment. I know my Republican friends here are very sincere in following the President's lead on this, but please reject this amendment. Let's continue to make this investment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
I respect my colleague from Tennessee greatly. I believe he is very sincere in what he is trying do. I do not question his motives. I have great faith in Congressman Duncan.
But this amendment, like the previous amendment, has long-term ramifications. They have long-term ramifications on previous investments made.
Let's reject these two amendments. Let's continue the good work that has been done. Let's focus on the things that we need to be doing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source