$12B water bill barrels through House; Senate may vote this week
WASHINGTON — The House passed the closest thing so far this year to an infrastructure bill — a $12 billion-plus bipartisan measure authorizing 34 water projects, ranging from flood protection in California and North Dakota to deepening the Port of Savannah and widening a Texas-Louisiana waterway that services the oil industry.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act passed on Tuesday on a 412-4 vote. Lawmakers shook off criticism from conservative and watchdog groups including Heritage Action and Taxpayers for Common Sense that argued the bill should have done more to rein in wasteful government spending.
The Senate could vote on the bill before the end of the week, sending it to President Obama for his signature. The legislation is a bipartisan compromise of companion bills passed separately by the House and Senate last year. A final deal on it was reached last week, concluding months of negotiations.
Supporters, including business interests like the Chamber of Commerce, hailed it as an economy-boosting measure that could deliver thousands of jobs.
“It's a bipartisan bill, and it is a jobs bill,” said Bill Shuster of Hollidaysburg, chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Baltimore gets bloodier as arrests drop post-riots
- Former GOP House Speaker Hastert indicted in banking violation
- California man beaten by deputies on video faces charges
- Justice Department seeks info on medical scope in superbug outbreaks
- Health care law’s supporters encounter resistance from federal judge
- Texas rivers threaten cities downstream
- Detroit-area police officer to stand trial in driver’s beating
- North Carolina governor to veto marriage abstention bill
- Dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded after all
- EPA’s temporary pesticide-free zones would protect commercial honeybees
- Pataki formally opens White House bid, 8th from GOP