2014: Schweikert Voted Against Providing An Additional $10 Million For Flood Control, Port And Navigation Development, And Water Restoration Projects; As Well As An Additional $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy. In July 2014, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Army Corps of Engineers construction activities, specifically for water restoration projects, flood control and the development of navigation and ports. It would [have] increase[d] by $10 million the amount provided in the bill for the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy account and decrease[d] by $20 million the amount provided for Energy Department salaries and expenses." The vote was on a motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions to report it back immediately with the specified amendment. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 188 to 231. [House Vote 401, 7/10/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4923]
Motion's Sponsor Argued $10 Million For Preventative Water Projects Could Help Save Lives During Flood Season, While $10 Million For Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Would Pare Back The Underlying Bill's "Harsh" $113 Million Cut To Those Areas. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Bill Enyart (D-IL), the motion's sponsor, said, "Also well known [sic] across the State and particularly along Illinois' Mississippi River border were the efforts of men and women of the Illinois National Guard during flood season--efforts, resources, and dollars that can be saved with the preventative measures funded in this amendment. The amendment before us today provides an additional $10 million to the Army Corps of Engineers for projects that could include levee construction, levee repair, flood mitigation, and flood prevention. [...] Also included in this amendment is an additional $10 million for the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. Current language in the bill is almost $113 million less than in 2014 and $530 million less than the administration's request. We simply cannot afford such harsh reductions in funding for an area where our country desperately needs growth: energy efficiency and independence." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
Opponent Argued That Bill Already Increased Funding For The Army Corps Of Engineers By $25 Million, When The Administration Would Have Cut $1 Billion, And That Departmental Administration (DA) Funding Should Not Be Cut Any Further Than It Was Already. According to the Congressional Record, House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Mike Simpson (R-IA) said, "I wish the gentleman [Rep. Enyart] who just spoke would call the administration. His budget request was nearly $1 billion below last year's for the Army Corps of Engineers. That is what the administration proposed to us. We restored that and, in fact, increased last year's Army Corps of Engineers budget by $25 million while, at the same time, cutting $50 million out of the overall bill, so I wish he would talk to the administration about its budget request. This is a balanced bill, made more balanced by the 2 days of amendments we have debated--some accepted, some not accepted--from all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have already taken $45 million out of the DA account. I know it is an easy account to target, to just take money out of, but at some point in time, you have to stop, and we have already taken $45 million out of the DA account." [Congressional Record, 7/10/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut The Watershed Rehabilitation Program By $25 Million. In June 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Agriculture Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would eliminate the $25 million provided by the bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program and transfer the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 62 to 358. [House Vote 306, 6/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 861; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4800]
WRP Provides Funding And Technical Help For Rehabilitating The Thousands Of Small Flood-Control And Erosion Reduction Dams Across The Country That Have Reached The End Of Their 50-Year Lifespan. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides technical and financial assistance for planning, design, and implementation to rehabilitate aging watershed dam projects (including upgrading or removing dams) in communities to address health and safety concerns. Only dams constructed under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program [...] are eligible. Small watershed project dams have a 50-year design life, and 2,317 reached or exceeded that time span by the end of 2011. By the end of 2015, this number will be 4,480, according to the FY2013 budget notes." According to the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, "The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program (Watershed Operations) includes the Flood Prevention Operations Program authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566). The Flood Control Act originally authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to install watershed improvement measures in 11 watersheds, also known as pilot watersheds, to reduce flood, sedimentation, and erosion damage; improve the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and advance the conservation and proper utilization of land. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act provides for cooperation between the Federal government and the States and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; to further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and to further the conservation and proper utilization of land in authorized watersheds." [CRS Report #R40763, 2/5/13; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service website, Viewed 8/18/14]
The Underlying Bill Would Provide WRP With $117 Million In FY 2015 Funding, Up From $12 Million The Previous Year. According to the Congressional Record, the sponsor of a later amendment to cut $10 million from the WRP, Rep. John Duncan, (R-TN) said, "My amendment would save $10 million by reducing the increase in this program, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. My amendment simply reduces the increase. It is not a cut. In fact, this program would still be getting a 25 percent increase in discretionary funds even if my amendment were approved. In addition, this program has had a restriction on mandatory spending since 2002. Under this bill, this restriction is being removed. This means that, without my amendment, spending on this program, which was $12 million this year and $13.6 million last year, will go to $117 million this next fiscal year." [Congressional Record, 6/11/14]
Amendment Opponent Said Money Needed To Rehabilitate WRP Structures Across The Country, Which He Claimed Had Saved Many Lives And Protected Millions Of Dollars In Property. According to the Congressional Record, House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), said, "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. [...] Now, I know that apparently there are outside groups that have chosen to score this [vote on a separate amendment to cut $10 million from the WRP], 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." [Congressional Record, 6/11/14]
Amendment's Sponsor Argued Rehabilitation Of The Thousands Of WRP Dams Was Fiscally Impossible, Making This A Wasteful Use Of Federal Money On Projects That Should Be Handled Entirely By The States. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), said, "[M]y amendment would eliminate all funding provided in the bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Across the United States, 11,000 dams have been constructed in local communities under this program for the purpose of mitigating flood conditions. Most of these dams were built in the 1940s and 1950s, and thousands of them are suspected to be in need of attention. Of this amount, only about 120 dams have been repaired so as to extend their use into modern times. Indeed, given the advances of engineering technology in the last 50 years, these refurbished dams may last well into the next century, but Federal funding to maintain these many-State infrastructure projects is simply not sustainable. Under the farm bill passed earlier this year, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program was authorized to receive both increased mandatory as well as discretionary funding. However, the President has not requested funding for this program in over 3 years, in large part because he recognizes that the responsibility to maintain these projects must ultimately fall on the local project sponsors. [...] In my home State of Georgia, we have many dams that we depend on to mitigate heavy rains and prevent floods. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with the President here. I don't agree with him sometimes, and I do agree with him many times, but in this place, I agree with him in that we ought to leave the maintenance of these projects to the States. They know better than the Federal Government what works for their communities." [Congressional Record, 6/11/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Cut The Watershed Rehabilitation Program By $10 Million. In June 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the FY 2015 Agriculture Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] decrease[d] by $10 million the amount provided by the bill for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program and transfer[red] the savings to the bill's spending reduction account." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 119 to 303. [House Vote 305, 6/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14]
WRP Provides Funding And Technical Help For Rehabilitating The Thousands Of Small Flood-Control And Erosion Reduction Dams Across The Country That Have Reached The End Of Their 50-Year Lifespan. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The Watershed Rehabilitation Program provides technical and financial assistance for planning, design, and implementation to rehabilitate aging watershed dam projects (including upgrading or removing dams) in communities to address health and safety concerns. Only dams constructed under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program [...] are eligible. Small watershed project dams have a 50-year design life, and 2,317 reached or exceeded that time span by the end of 2011. By the end of 2015, this number will be 4,480, according to the FY2013 budget notes." According to the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, "The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) Program (Watershed Operations) includes the Flood Prevention Operations Program authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) and the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566). The Flood Control Act originally authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to install watershed improvement measures in 11 watersheds, also known as pilot watersheds, to reduce flood, sedimentation, and erosion damage; improve the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and advance the conservation and proper utilization of land. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act provides for cooperation between the Federal government and the States and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; to further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and to further the conservation and proper utilization of land in authorized watersheds." [CRS Report #R40763, 2/5/13; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service website, Viewed 8/18/14]
The Underlying Bill Would Provide WRP With $117 Million In FY 2015 Funding, Up From $12 Million The Previous Year, Amendment Would Reduce That Increase By $10 Million. According to the Congressional Record, the amendment's sponsor, Rep. John Duncan, (R-TN) said, "My amendment would save $10 million by reducing the increase in this program, the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. My amendment simply reduces the increase. It is not a cut. In fact, this program would still be getting a 25 percent increase in discretionary funds even if my amendment were approved. In addition, this program has had a restriction on mandatory spending since 2002. Under this bill, this restriction is being removed. This means that, without my amendment, spending on this program, which was $12 million this year and $13.6 million last year, will go to $117 million this next fiscal year. No other department or agency in the Federal Government is receiving this type of increase--almost 10 times what is being spent on this program during this fiscal year. This is a program for which the President requested no funding, as Mr. Broun mentioned, and for which the Senate Appropriations Committee provides no funding, which he also mentioned. Surely, Republicans in the House are not going to allow the President or the Senate to act in a more fiscally conservative manner than we here in the House." [Congressional Record, 6/11/14]
Amendment Opponent Said Money Needed To Rehabilitate WRP Structures Across The Country, Which He Claimed Had Saved Many Lives And Protected Millions Of Dollars In Property. According to the Congressional Record, House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), said, "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. [...] 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." [Congressional Record, 6/11/14]