[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3442-S3443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WRDA AMENDMENTS
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are still in morning business, and I
will speak in morning business about two amendments I will call up when
we leave morning business. One is amendment No. 815 on this bill, which
is aimed at lessening State dependence on the Federal Government.
We have now, over the period of 50 years, helped with beach
nourishment. In this bill is a section that extends from 50 to 65 years
of government subsidization of beach nourishment. Really, if we look at
the section, we see it is targeted toward a few States because they are
running into the 50-year deadline. So all the amendment does is block
it from going from 50 to 65 years.
The Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama
administration, the Obama fiscal commission, all recommended
eliminating the Federal subsidization of beach nourishment projects. So
we have great bipartisan leadership on both sides of the aisle to bring
this back, put back to the States what is truly a State responsibility.
What we are doing in this bill is furthering the dependence of States
for beach nourishment projects on the Federal Government. So I will
call up that amendment.
The next amendment is amendment No. 816. This committee has done a
great job in setting up a review board that can eliminate authorized
projects that no longer make sense, but they have limited what they can
look at. They are not letting them look at the whole of water resources
projects; therefore, they limit those projects. All we are saying with
this amendment is we ought to reopen it.
One of the criticisms of this amendment is that a project may be in
the midst of completion and the review board might say we should
eliminate it. It doesn't mean we will eliminate it because in the
wisdom of the committee, they gave the opportunity for Congress to
disallow any of this.
So I think what the committee has done is a great step forward in
getting rid of projects that are no longer apropos to whatever the
needs are: But my question is, Why did they limit it to such a narrow
package when, in fact, they want this outside input to help guide us on
what we should do?
So at the appropriate time, when we are out of morning business, I
will call up those amendments. I will not speak further on them; I will
just call them up so we can move ahead with the bill.
I see the chairman of the committee is here. Good morning to her, and
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, we are
moving forward today. I thank all colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. Senator Vitter and I have tried to allow all kinds of
amendments.
Unfortunately, yesterday there was an objection to one contentious
amendment, and Senator Landrieu was--she took one for the team and
withdrew her amendment because she wanted to make sure this WRDA bill
moves forward. I appreciate that. It is a very important issue about
flood issues and it is complicated and I know how strongly she feels
about it. I know she will be back. So we have a number of amendments,
and we will be debating them for 1 minute on each side.
I wish to address my friend from Oklahoma. Let me tell my colleagues,
we have been on opposite sides on his amendments. I don't like that
very much. When we do work together we win big; when we don't, then it
doesn't work out well for either of us. So I am sorry to say I will
have to oppose the two amendments of my friend from Oklahoma, and I
want to lay out for the record in a little more than a minute why.
[[Page S3443]]
We do something important in this bill. We create a new
infrastructure deauthorization commission to review the backlog of
corps projects and develop a list of projects that will be deauthorized
unless Congress passes a joint resolution opposing the commission's
recommendation. It is kind of like the Base Closure Commission, where
the Base Closure Commission comes forward and says these are the bases
that will be closed.
It is a very cumbersome process to overturn the commission. We did
that on purpose because we know politics plays a part in a lot of these
things, and we want the commission to have power. I am sure my friend,
the Senator from Oklahoma, is grateful we have set up this commission
because what he is trying to do is cut out even more projects.
I just want to make the case that when we did this in the committee,
we developed a careful balance and we give the infrastructure
deauthorization committee a lot of authority. But this amendment
removes the bill's limitations on what projects can be deauthorized. So
this is in our bill. This is what we say to the commission. We give
guidance to the commission. We say: These are the projects that can be
deauthorized; in other words, stopped, because I share the view of my
friend from Oklahoma. We don't want to keep projects going that are
doomed and not going anywhere. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and,
frankly, it makes it very confusing for people back home because they
don't understand why a project started in 1996 is still alive.
What we do is projects authorized or reauthorized after the enactment
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, projects currently
undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received
appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50
percent complete, and projects that have a viable, non-Federal sponsor
would not be deauthorized. They would not be deauthorized.
So let me say it again. Projects that would not be deauthorized are
projects authorized after 1996, projects currently undergoing review by
the corps, projects that received appropriations in the last 10 years,
projects that are more than 50 percent complete, projects that have a
viable and non-Federal sponsor. So we do give guidance to the
commission. We say other than that, go for it and deauthorize.
The provision Senator Coburn wants to strike was included to focus
the attention of the commission on the older, truly inactive projects.
That is what we are about. The Coburn amendment would give unlimited
discretion to the commission to deauthorize a project even if it is in
the middle of construction or it has an active non-Federal sponsor.
Imagine we have a city or a county or even a private sector participant
who is involved, and all of a sudden everything they have done is for
naught.
I think what the amendment does is create havoc. I know my friend has
the best of intentions. His point that we can overturn the commission
is a valid point, but let's be clear. How many bills actually become a
law around here these days? It is hard to even pass a resolution saying
Happy Mother's Day. So we have a hard time. So to say the Congress
could actually overturn the commission--we have never done it in the
Base Closure Commission, and we wouldn't do it here.
States and local communities have invested millions of dollars in
local cost-shares from project feasibility studies. It isn't fair to
these communities that have committed significant resources to
deauthorize a project that remained active and is moving forward.
So, in essence, this amendment would disrupt the new deauthorization
process created in WRDA 2013, and I urge my colleagues to oppose that
amendment.
Now I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
from the National Construction Alliance. It reads: ``The National
Construction Alliance strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.''
It says: ``Communities . . . cannot afford to have the rug pulled out
from beneath them.''
I think it is important to note that they don't in any way chastise
the committee for our work.
We also have opposition from the Road Builders.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Construction Alliance II,
May 15, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC
Dear Majority Leader Reid: The National Construction
Alliance II (NCA II) strongly opposes the Coburn Amendment
#816 to the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, S. 601.
The NCA II--a partnership between two of the nation's
leading construction unions, the International Union of
Operating Engineers and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America--appreciates the hard work of the
Environment and Public Works Committee to establish the
Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission contained in S.
601. Senator Coburn's amendment threatens the bipartisan,
thoughtful process and criteria for reviewing the backlog of
projects in the underlying bill.
Communities (non-federal entities) simply cannot afford to
have the rug pulled out from underneath them when partnering
with the Army Corps of Engineers on critical port, harbor or
waterway projects. If the commission has broad authority to
shut down projects, as envisioned by the Coburn Amendment,
that is precisely what could occur.
The bipartisan EPW Committee-reported WRDA bill established
criteria to guide the Commission's work and ensure that it
focused on inactive and obsolete projects. The Coburn
amendment would undermine this careful balance, eliminating
important criteria for decommissioning projects and giving
the unelected Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission
simply too much power over the process of shutting down
projects, with too little Congressional guidance.
Please oppose the Coburn Amendment #816 to the Water
Resources Development Act of 2013. The amendment needlessly
threatens the bipartisan agreement forged in the Environment
and Public Works Committee on the issue of decommissioning of
projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Raymond J. Poupore,
Executive Vice President.
____
Mrs. BOXER. In my concluding moments, we also will have a Coburn
amendment on striking section 2030 on the beach nourishment extension.
I think it is very important that this be defeated because many of
these existing projects provide critical storm damage protection for
coastal communities which require periodic nourishment to maintain this
protection. There are dozens of important shoreline protection projects
around the country that it benefits that exceed the costs.
Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that Federal shoreline protection
projects fared better against the storm surge than other areas impacted
by the storm. We have seen this. Where there was beach nourishment,
they had a lot less damage and people were spared.
So in our work on WRDA, the EPW Committee held hearings on the corps'
flood and storm damage reduction projects. We received testimony from
local communities such as Ocean City, MD, which highlighted the
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages avoided by these projects.
Section 2030 in WRDA 2013 does not provide a blanket extension of all
beach nourishment and shore protections. The section simply allows the
corps to study projects and to make a recommendation to Congress. I
don't know why we would want to stop this since we know, after
Hurricane Sandy, some of these projects have cost-benefit for the
people--for the taxpayers.
Before receiving an extension, a project has to go through a
feasibility analysis to demonstrate that the project is in the national
interest, it has to have a positive cost-benefit ratio, is technically
feasible, and is environmentally acceptable.
The provision Senator Coburn is attempting to strike doesn't
guarantee an extension, it just tells the corps to study the issue and
come back with a recommendation.
I honestly believe blocking Federal investment in these projects will
harm coastal communities, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this Coburn
amendment. I know I speak for many, including Senator Lautenberg, who
actually brought this issue to my attention years ago.
I yield the floor and note that the time has come to debate the
Coburn amendment, 1 minute each side.
____________________