In a Congress dominated by legislative dysfunction, this week brought a rare victory for bipartisanship and behind-the-scenes work on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers advanced a popular water projects bill.
The two-year measure is chock-full of projects big and small for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and its legislative success triggered a flood of news releases from lawmakers of all stripes.
“This is good, much-needed policy that we can be proud of,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, R-Jackson.
The main victory for Georgia is a provision calling for a study on further deepening of the Port of Savannah, allowing in even larger cargo ships. Georgia lawmakers have long said the feds should foot the bill for such improvements because they involve commerce, trade and jobs.
While no cost estimate was included, the last multiyear project to deepen the port ended up with a price tag just short of $1 billion.
The debate on this bill was a reminder of how much lawmakers in both parties like to send money back home as not a single member stood up on the House floor to oppose the plan, which passed on a vote of 399-18.
Conservative budget watchdog groups have grumbled in the past that the Water Resources Development Act is nothing but a way to approve home state budget earmarks without calling them pork barrel projects.
For Republicans, this postelection deal arrived as a slightly out-of-tune note, coming at the same time GOP lawmakers are demanding deep cuts in spending.
If the deficit is too big, does a harbor deepening in Georgia make the cut when it comes to President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency?
What about beach replenishment projects in Florida? Water storage in Oklahoma? Stormwater management in Ohio? Hurricane risk reduction in Virginia? Drinking water in Kentucky?
Getting the feds to repair the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam or studying hurricane risk reduction on Tybee Island makes sense for Georgia, but why should lawmakers in other states support that spending?
In this year’s bill, the answer was a familiar one, as projects were handed out to just about every corner of the country, ensuring an overwhelming vote in favor of the plan.
Will things be different on spending next year under full GOP rule in the White House and Congress? Some wonder.
“They talk a good game about reducing spending,” U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said of his fellow Republicans, “but they don’t like the pressure of having to do it.”
That test will come in 2025.
Jamie Dupree has covered national politics and Congress from Washington since the Reagan administration. His column appears weekly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. For more, check out his Capitol Hill newsletter at jamiedupree.substack.com.
