ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Contact your legislators at the U.S. Capitol
Zip codes: House 20515, Senate 20510
Capitol operator: (202) 224-3121
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS: Voting 417 for and three against, the House on Oct. 23 passed a bill (HR 3080) to guide the development of more than 700 of Army Corps of Engineers projects budgeted at $60 billion for purposes such as flood control, shoreline protection, river navigation, harbor dredging, lock and dam maintenance and environmental restoration. The bill authorizes $8.2 billion over ten years for new projects, cancels at least $12 billion worth of inactive projects, bar earmarks and fast-tracks environmental reviews under laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act.
A yes vote was to send the bill to conference with a similar Senate bill.
YES: LUJAN GRISHAM, PEARCE, LUJÃN
ENVIRONMENTAL-REVIEW STANDARDS: Voting 183 for and 236 against, the House on Oct. 23 refused to require standard rather than fast-track environmental reviews of water projects authorized by HR 3080 (above). The amendment sought to delay the bill’s easing of environmental requirements until the existing $60 billion backlog of unfinished projects has been reduced to $20 billion. Debate centered on whether reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have helped cause the current backlog. Supporters of this amendment attributed project delays to inadequate funding by Congress rather than environmental hurdles, while foes said environmental reviews have been drawn-out and cumbersome.
A yes vote was to require normal rather than expedited environmental reviews of water projects.
YES: LUJAN GRISHAM, LUJÃN NO: PEARCE
OCEAN-PLANNING GUIDELINES: Voting 225 for and 193 against, the House on Oct. 23 barred the Army Corps of Engineers from advancing administration guidelines for the stewardship of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources. The GOP amendment was added to HR 3080 (above). The guidelines were issued in 2010 in the form of a non-binding executive order. They seek to harmonize conflicting commercial, non-commercial and recreational uses of marine resources while protecting the health and biological diversity of ecosystems. In part, the guidelines promote “coastal and marine spatial planning,” which critics call “ocean zoning.”
A yes vote was to disregard administration guidelines for managing ocean and Great Lakes resources.
YES: PEARCE NO: LUJAN GRISHAM, LUJÃN