Jon Kyl: “although I supported the Senate-passed version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, I cannot support the…”

“although I supported the Senate-passed version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, I cannot support the conference version of WRDA because it significantly exceeds the costs of both the Senate and House-passed bills and includes many projects outside the Army Corps of Engineers' traditional responsibilities. I am not alone in my opposition. Indeed, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant Secretary of the Army have indicated to Congress that the President will veto the bill in its current form. The conference reported version of WRDA would cost approximately $21 billion, which is about $7 billion more than the Senate and House-passed versions. The $21 billion "compromise" reached in conference is not a fiscally responsible bill and, therefore, should not pass. The conference version also inappropriately contains many projects outside the Corps' primary missions of navigation, flood damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration, such as environmental infrastructure projects. These environmental infrastructure projects divert vital resources away from the Corps' primary responsibilities, and add to the backlog of Corps projects. This is especially troubling since according to the Congressional Research Service the Corps' backlog of authorized projects is currently estimated to be 800 totaling nearly $38 billion to $60 billion.”