James A. Leach: “with great respect for the two members who have offered this amendment, I rise in opposition to its content. What is at…”

“with great respect for the two members who have offered this amendment, I rise in opposition to its content. What is at issue is whether we want a first or second class transportation infrastructure. The locks are designed to last at least fifty years. It is impossible to predict what goods will be transported up or down the river fifty years from now. Will it be corn or some new fiber that is either calorie or energy intensive? Will it be steel, aluminum, iron ore, fertilizer, or a refined corn or plastic product? Accordingly, I am extremely doubtful of capacity testing approaches that fit a couple year time frame which would put the future economic viability of the Midwest in jeopardy. Unlike the coasts with their spacious oceans--we are landlocked. The Mississippi River and its locks are our doors to the world. The question with the Blumenauer and Flake Amendment is whether these doors will be small or constraining or somewhat larger and more hospitable to commerce. There are environmental as well as humanitarian questions that must be pondered. To the surprise of some, the environmental and humanitarian case for somewhat larger locks is compelling. After all, all forms of transportation cause environmental disruption. But barges use less energy than other forms of transportation. Indeed, logically, upgrading our locks and dams should be part of the Energy bill.…”