Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 122 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6522-S6527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Reid):
S. 1508. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish a program of awarding grants to owners
or operators of water systems to increase the resiliency or
adaptability of the systems to any ongoing or forecasted changes to the
hydrologic conditions of a region of the United States; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is
crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The
truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need
to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water
infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but
today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve.
Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders
of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year,
Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most
essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000
people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted,
limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense
heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits.
At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced
to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint
Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of
services, including appointments at its medical center.
There are incidents like this happening all across America. The
reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility
professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water
infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking
water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver
safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like
many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the
country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was
built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid
demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even
older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in
the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs
and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to
elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now.
The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to
help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water
infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing
today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure
Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to
eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities
across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds,
which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome
these threats.
Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure
systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water
supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant
more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation
between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try
to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible.
It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining
water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a
$206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case
scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the
United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.
A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's
economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater
investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference
of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water
infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than
$6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields
close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job
created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs
elsewhere in the national economy.
We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in
the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making
strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the
current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of
the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1509. A bill to establish a Maritime Goods Movement User Fee and
provide grants for international maritime cargo improvements and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that
Senator Cantwell and I are introducing today to strengthen our maritime
economy and protect American jobs.
Over the past decade, we have seen increasing competition for the
market share of U.S.-bound maritime goods from ports beyond our border
to the north and to the south. In fact, among the 25 largest North
American ports, the fastest growing in 2012 were the Port of Prince
Rupert in Canada and the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Instead of
U.S.-bound cargo creating economic growth here at home by entering at
U.S. ports, we are witnessing it being diverted through Canadian and
Mexican ports. This loss of cargo shipments leads to decreased activity
and capacity at American ports. In our home State alone, more than
200,000 jobs are tied to the activities at the Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma. With nearly 27 percent of international container cargo
potentially at risk of moving to Canada from four West Coast ports,
this trend could result in significant job losses.
One of the main reasons for cargo diversion is the Harbor Maintenance
Tax, HMT. The HMT is a levy on imports designed to fund the operation
and maintenance of America's large and small ports, which drives job
creation and strengthens America's trade economy. Unfortunately,
shippers have been able to avoid the Harbor Maintenance Tax by shipping
goods through ports in Canada and Mexico and then transporting those
goods into the United States via truck and rail. This growing cargo
diversion reduces the funds available to keep our ports in operating
condition.
The loss of revenue from cargo diversion is only part of the problem.
Equally concerning is the fact that only half of the tax revenue
collected is being spent, even though ports across the country are in
desperate need of additional maintenance funding. As of 2011,

[[Page S6523]]

the balance of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, HMTF, which is funded
by the HMT, had a surplus of more than $6.4 billion, and it continues
to grow. Furthermore, of the funds allocated through the HMTF, the
balance is rarely spent on operations and maintenance at West Coast
ports, where a significant amount of the tax revenue is generated. Our
two largest ports in Washington--Seattle and Tacoma--generate, on
average, close to seven percent of the funding for the HMTF, but each
received just over a penny for every dollar collected from shippers who
pay the HMT in Seattle and Tacoma. We believe that we must work to
address the issue of cargo diversion as well as ensure that the funds
collected are allocated fully and more equitably to meet our nationwide
harbor and waterway needs.
To remain competitive in an international marketplace, we need a
long-term plan to grow and support infrastructure development, and
reforming the Harbor Maintenance Tax is a commonsense place to start.
That is why we are proud to introduce the Maritime Goods Movement Act
for the 21st Century. The legislation addresses threats to America's
maritime economy by repealing the Harbor Maintenance Tax and replacing
it with the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee. The proceeds of which
would be fully available to Congress to provide for port operation and
maintenance. This would nearly double the amount of funds available for
American ports, which will help our economy thrive.
The bill ensures that shippers cannot avoid the Maritime Goods
Movement User Fee by using ports in Canada and Mexico.
The legislation sets aside a portion of the user fee for critical
low-use ports that are at a competitive disadvantage for Federal
funding compared to large ports.
Lastly, the bill creates a competitive grant program using a
percentage of the proceeds of the user fee to help make improvements to
the intermodal transportation system of the United States so that goods
can more efficiently reach their intended destinations.
The HMT simply is not being collected or spent in a way that ensures
American ports can continue to compete on a level playing field. Our
legislation works to address these inequalities and enhance our
economic competitiveness abroad while supporting good jobs here in the
United States.
______

By Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Paul, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Heller, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1510. A bill to provide for auditable financial statements for the
Department of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this bill, the Audit the Pentagon Act of
2013, sharpens the teeth of the appropriations and accountability
clause in the Constitution, article I, section 9, clause 7, which says:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all
public Money shall be published from time to time.

The intent of this clause is simple: Congress cannot possibly know
that the executive branch is obeying the first part of the
appropriations clause--spending--of the Constitution without confidence
in the second--accountability. The decades-long failure by the Pentagon
to comply with existing Federal financial management laws is against
the very spirit of the Constitution--our Founding Fathers demanded that
those spending taxpayer dollars are accountable to taxpayers.
The Pentagon's financial management problems are intimately related
to the problems of waste at the Pentagon and the budget crisis that has
created sequestration. Currently, neither Pentagon leaders, nor
Congressional members can consistently and reliably identify what our
defense programs cost, will cost in the future, or even what they
really cost in the past. When the Pentagon doesn't know itself and
can't tell Congress how it is spending money, good programs face cuts
along with wasteful programs, which is the situation in which we find
ourselves today under sequestration. Unreliable financial management
information makes it impossible to link the consequences of past
decisions to the defense budget or to measure whether the activities of
the Defense Department are meeting the military requirements set for
it. Passing a financial audit is a critical step that will protect
vital priorities and help the Pentagon comply with current law and our
Constitution.
The problem is clear: if the Pentagon doesn't know how it spends its
money, Congress doesn't really know how DOD is spending its money. This
incomprehensible condition has been documented in hundreds of reports
over three decades from both the Government Accountability Office, GAO,
and the Department's own inspector general (DOD IG).
Our current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel knows that this is a
problem. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee he said
that the Pentagon needs ``auditable statements, both to improve the
quality of our financial information and to reassure the public, and
the Congress, that we are good stewards of public funds.'' Secretary
Hagel agrees that the Pentagon must audit the Pentagon and says, ``Our
next goal is audit-ready budget statements by the end of 2014 . . . I
strongly support this initiative and will do everything I can to
fulfill this commitment.''
For far too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional role and
its duty to the taxpayers by choosing not to hold DOD accountable for
the deadlines it sets for itself, and the result has been continued
missed deadlines and wasteful, non-value added spending. Past efforts
to make the Pentagon comply with the law by passing additional laws
with no teeth has not worked--the Pentagon simply ignores the laws
because it suffers no consequences. The result is that unlike every
other major Federal department, the Pentagon continues to fail at their
requirement and responsibility to report to Congress and the American
people that it can show where the hundreds of billions of dollars of
taxpayer money goes. I hope my fellow Senators will join me in
supporting this bill for auditable financial statements.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 1511. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act to remove barriers to the adoption of children in foster care
through reauthorization and improvement of the adoption incentives
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I
have been proud to fight tirelessly for policies that will help
vulnerable children in our foster care system find the permanent homes
they need and deserve. I have been very proud of the Finance
Committee's bipartisan work over the years to encourage adoption and
enhance child welfare services for our most vulnerable children. That
work would not have been possible without the commitment of Chairman
Baucus, as well as my other colleagues that I have been so proud to
work with over the years. Our goal has always been to improve our
Federal laws related to adoption and foster care, so that every child
has an opportunity to have a loving, safe home and a successful future.
To build on our history of encouraging safe and stable families,
Senator Casey and I are introducing the Removing Barriers to Adoption
and Supporting Families Act of 2013. This legislation outlines our
vision for a path to increase the number of successful adoptions from
foster care in our country. Doing so, we believe, can improve the lives
of the hundreds of thousands of children in our foster care system.
This legislation encourages safe and stable families, and takes a
number of important steps forward to ensure that permanency is
paramount for children in our foster care system.
First, the legislation puts incentives in place to help encourage
interstate adoptions, creating a shared incentive for states that work
together to connect children in foster care with families who are ready
and willing to provide loving homes, but who happen to live across
state lines. It also helps facilitate interstate adoptions further

[[Page S6524]]

through better data tracking and development of national standards for
home studies, a requirement before a child can be adopted.
Second, the bill aims to establish permanency for youth by
eliminating long-term foster care as a goal for children under 17. We
also request a study to learn more about why long-term foster care has
been set as a goal for some youth. We believe the study will further
inform our overall goal of connecting these children to permanent
families and caring adults. But, simply put, we believe permanent
foster care should not be a goal for children who are younger than 17.
Third, this legislation dedicates funding to post-adoption and post-
permanency support services for children who are adopted, or are
permanently in the care of a relative or guardian. This is an important
step to make sure that families receive support after a child becomes a
family member and, more broadly, can help make sure more adoptions and
permanent placements are successful. Additionally, the legislation
requires states to engage in public-private partnerships and enhanced
strategies to find more permanent placements for older youth who are
most at risk of aging out of foster care. Among our foster care
population, these are some of our most vulnerable and valuable young
people who are most in need of guidance and a loving, nurturing home.
Finally, this legislation would do more to keep siblings together
after they are removed from an unsafe home. The bond between siblings
is unique and often an important source of stability for children.
Unfortunately, once a child joins a permanent home through adoption,
there are sometimes barriers to maintaining sibling relationships under
current Federal law. Our legislation helps to remove these barriers by
strengthening the opportunities for sibling relationships and joint
placement, and making sure that the parents of siblings are given
notice if their brother or sister enters foster care.
Our legislation lays out an important vision for how we can improve
adoption and foster care in our country. Adoptions from foster care
have increased in recent years, which means that more families are
stepping up to adopt children who are in vulnerable situations through
no fault of their own. But, we have far more to do to ensure that every
child in foster care has this opportunity. I am extremely grateful to
many of the adoption advocates, including the Congressional Coalition
on Adoption Institute, Voice for Adoption, and Listening to Parents,
among others, who have been so instrumental in developing
recommendations and moving this and other related proposals forward.
Together, we can make great strides toward improving opportunities
for the nearly 400,000 children in foster care, of which 102,000 are
waiting to find forever families through adoption. New data from the
Department of Health and Human Services on adoption and foster care
suggests that while the number of children in foster care remains
steady, the adoption rate continues to climb. Last year alone, 52,000
children were adopted from foster care and for each of those children,
being adopted is a positive, affirming, and life-changing event.
Through our work, we can provide more of these opportunities for
children in foster care, and set them up to have successful lives with
forever families.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 1514. A bill to save coal jobs, and for other purposes; read the
first time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1514

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Saving
Coal Jobs Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX

Sec. 101. Prohibition on energy tax.

TITLE II--PERMITS

Sec. 201. National pollutant discharge elimination system.
Sec. 202. Permits for dredged or fill material.
Sec. 203. Impacts of Environmental Protection Agency regulatory
activity on employment and economic activity.
Sec. 204. Identification of waters protected by the Clean Water Act.
Sec. 205. Limitations on authority to modify State water quality
standards.
Sec. 206. State authority to identify waters within boundaries of the
State.

TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX

SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX.

(a) Findings; Purposes.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) on June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential
memorandum directing the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue regulations relating to power
sector carbon pollution standards for existing coal fired
power plants;
(B) the issuance of that memorandum circumvents Congress
and the will of the people of the United States;
(C) any action to control emissions of greenhouse gases
from existing coal fired power plants in the United States by
mandating a national energy tax would devastate major sectors
of the economy, cost thousands of jobs, and increase energy
costs for low-income households, small businesses, and
seniors on fixed income;
(D) joblessness increases the likelihood of hospital
visits, illnesses, and premature deaths;
(E) according to testimony on June 15, 2011, before the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate by
Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University, ``The
unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for
elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological
studies performed since the early 1980s. In addition to
influences on mental disorder, suicide and alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, unemployment is also an important risk factor in
cardiovascular disease and overall decreases in life
expectancy.'';
(F) according to the National Center for Health Statistics,
``children in poor families were four times as likely to be
in fair or poor health as children that were not poor'';
(G) any major decision that would cost the economy of the
United States millions of dollars and lead to serious
negative health effects for the people of the United States
should be debated and explicitly authorized by Congress, not
approved by a Presidential memorandum or regulations; and
(H) any policy adopted by Congress should make United
States energy as clean as practicable, as quickly as
practicable, without increasing the cost of energy for
struggling families, seniors, low-income households, and
small businesses.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(A) to ensure that--
(i) a national energy tax is not imposed on the economy of
the United States; and
(ii) struggling families, seniors, low-income households,
and small businesses do not experience skyrocketing
electricity bills and joblessness;
(B) to protect the people of the United States,
particularly families, seniors, and children, from the
serious negative health effects of joblessness;
(C) to allow sufficient time for Congress to develop and
authorize an appropriate mechanism to address the energy
needs of the United States and the potential challenges posed
by severe weather; and
(D) to restore the legislative process and congressional
authority over the energy policy of the United States.
(b) Presidential Memorandum.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the head of a Federal agency shall not
promulgate any regulation relating to power sector carbon
pollution standards or any substantially similar regulation
on or after June 25, 2013, unless that regulation is
explicitly authorized by an Act of Congress.

TITLE II--PERMITS

SEC. 201. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM.

(a) Applicability of Guidance.--Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(s) Applicability of Guidance.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Guidance.--
``(i) In general.--The term `guidance' means draft,
interim, or final guidance issued by the Administrator.
``(ii) Inclusions.--The term `guidance' includes--

``(I) the comprehensive guidance issued by the
Administrator and dated April 1, 2010;
``(II) the proposed guidance entitled `Draft Guidance on
Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act' and
dated April 28, 2011;
``(III) the final guidance proposed by the Administrator
and dated July 21, 2011; and
``(IV) any other document or paper issued by the
Administrator through any process other than the notice and
comment rulemaking process.

``(B) New permit.--The term `new permit' means a permit
covering discharges from a structure--
``(i) that is issued under this section by a permitting
authority; and
``(ii) for which an application is--

``(I) pending as of the date of enactment of this
subsection; or

[[Page S6525]]

``(II) filed on or after the date of enactment of this
subsection.

``(C) Permitting authority.--The term `permitting
authority' means--
``(i) the Administrator; or
``(ii) a State, acting pursuant to a State program that is
equivalent to the program under this section and approved by
the Administrator.
``(2) Permits.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, in making a determination whether to approve a new
permit or a renewed permit, the permitting authority--
``(i) shall base the determination only on compliance with
regulations issued by the Administrator or the permitting
authority; and
``(ii) shall not base the determination on the extent of
adherence of the applicant for the new permit or renewed
permit to guidance.
``(B) New permits.--If the permitting authority does not
approve or deny an application for a new permit by the date
that is 270 days after the date of receipt of the application
for the new permit, the applicant may operate as if the
application were approved in accordance with Federal law for
the period of time for which a permit from the same industry
would be approved.
``(C) Substantial completeness.--In determining whether an
application for a new permit or a renewed permit received
under this paragraph is substantially complete, the
permitting authority shall use standards for determining
substantial completeness of similar permits for similar
facilities submitted in fiscal year 2007.''.
(b) State Permit Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by striking
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) State Permit Programs.--
``(1) In general.--At any time after the promulgation of
the guidelines required by section 304(a)(2), the Governor of
each State desiring to administer a permit program for
discharges into navigable waters within the jurisdiction of
the State may submit to the Administrator--
``(A) a full and complete description of the program the
State proposes to establish and administer under State law or
under an interstate compact; and
``(B) a statement from the attorney general (or the
attorney for those State water pollution control agencies
that have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal
officer in the case of an interstate agency, that the laws of
the State, or the interstate compact, as applicable, provide
adequate authority to carry out the described program.
``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve each
program for which a description is submitted under paragraph
(1) unless the Administrator determines that adequate
authority does not exist--
``(A) to issue permits that--
``(i) apply, and ensure compliance with, any applicable
requirements of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
``(ii) are for fixed terms not exceeding 5 years;
``(iii) can be terminated or modified for cause,
including--

``(I) a violation of any condition of the permit;
``(II) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure
to disclose fully all relevant facts; and
``(III) a change in any condition that requires either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the
permitted discharge; and

``(iv) control the disposal of pollutants into wells;
``(B)(i) to issue permits that apply, and ensure compliance
with, all applicable requirements of section 308; or
``(ii) to inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to
at least the same extent as required in section 308;
``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State the
waters of which may be affected, receives notice of each
application for a permit and an opportunity for a public
hearing before a ruling on each application;
``(D) to ensure that the Administrator receives notice and
a copy of each application for a permit;
``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the permitting
State), whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a
permit may submit written recommendations to the permitting
State and the Administrator with respect to any permit
application and, if any part of the written recommendations
are not accepted by the permitting State, that the permitting
State will notify the affected State and the Administrator in
writing of the failure of the State to accept the
recommendations, including the reasons for not accepting the
recommendations;
``(F) to ensure that no permit will be issued if, in the
judgment of the Secretary of the Army (acting through the
Chief of Engineers), after consultation with the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating,
anchorage and navigation of any of the navigable waters would
be substantially impaired by the issuance of the permit;
``(G) to abate violations of the permit or the permit
program, including civil and criminal penalties and other
means of enforcement;
``(H) to ensure that any permit for a discharge from a
publicly owned treatment works includes conditions to require
the identification in terms of character and volume of
pollutants of any significant source introducing pollutants
subject to pretreatment standards under section 307(b) into
the treatment works and a program to ensure compliance with
those pretreatment standards by each source, in addition to
adequate notice, which shall include information on the
quality and quantity of effluent to be introduced into the
treatment works and any anticipated impact of the change in
the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the
publicly owned treatment works, to the permitting agency of--
``(i) new introductions into the treatment works of
pollutants from any source that would be a new source (as
defined in section 306(a)) if the source were discharging
pollutants;
``(ii) new introductions of pollutants into the treatment
works from a source that would be subject to section 301 if
the source were discharging those pollutants; or
``(iii) a substantial change in volume or character of
pollutants being introduced into the treatment works by a
source introducing pollutants into the treatment works at the
time of issuance of the permit; and
``(I) to ensure that any industrial user of any publicly
owned treatment works will comply with sections 204(b), 307,
and 308.
``(3) Administration.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the
Administrator may not disapprove or withdraw approval of a
program under this subsection on the basis of the following:
``(A) The failure of the program to incorporate or comply
with guidance (as defined in subsection (s)(1)).
``(B) The implementation of a water quality standard that
has been adopted by the State and approved by the
Administrator under section 303(c).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 309 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended--
(i) in subsection (c)--

(I) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``402(b)(8)'' and
inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''; and
(II) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``402(b)(8)'' and
inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''; and

(ii) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by striking
``402(b)(8)'' and inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''.
(B) Section 402(m) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(m)) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``subsection (b)(8) of this section'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(2)(H)''.
(c) Suspension of Federal Program.--Section 402(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Limitation on disapproval.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) through (3), the Administrator may not
disapprove or withdraw approval of a State program under
subsection (b) on the basis of the failure of the following:
``(A) The failure of the program to incorporate or comply
with guidance (as defined in subsection (s)(1)).
``(B) The implementation of a water quality standard that
has been adopted by the State and approved by the
Administrator under section 303(c).''.
(d) Notification of Administrator.--Section 402(d)(2) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1342(d)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2)'' and all that follows through the
end of the first sentence and inserting the following:
``(2) Objection by administrator.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), no permit
shall issue if--
``(i) not later than 90 days after the date on which the
Administrator receives notification under subsection
(b)(2)(E), the Administrator objects in writing to the
issuance of the permit; or
``(ii) not later than 90 days after the date on which the
proposed permit of the State is transmitted to the
Administrator, the Administrator objects in writing to the
issuance of the permit as being outside the guidelines and
requirements of this Act.'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Whenever the
Administrator'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Requirements.--If the Administrator''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Exception.--The Administrator shall not object to or
deny the issuance of a permit by a State under subsection (b)
or (s) based on the following:
``(i) Guidance, as that term is defined in subsection
(s)(1).
``(ii) The interpretation of the Administrator of a water
quality standard that has been adopted by the State and
approved by the Administrator under section 303(c).''.

SEC. 202. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

(a) In General.--Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and all that follows
through ``Sec. 404. (a) The Secretary may issue'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

``(a) Permits.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue''; and

[[Page S6526]]

(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Deadline for approval.--
``(A) Permit applications.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), if an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement,
as appropriate, is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary
shall--

``(I) begin the process not later than 90 days after the
date on which the Secretary receives a permit application;
and
``(II) approve or deny an application for a permit under
this subsection not later than the latter of--

``(aa) if an agency carries out an environmental assessment
that leads to a finding of no significant impact, the date on
which the finding of no significant impact is issued; or
``(bb) if an agency carries out an environmental assessment
that leads to a record of decision, 15 days after the date on
which the record of decision on an environmental impact
statement is issued.
``(ii) Processes.--Notwithstanding clause (i), regardless
of whether the Secretary has commenced an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement by the date
described in clause (i)(I), the following deadlines shall
apply:

``(I) An environmental assessment carried out under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) shall be completed not later than 1 year after the
deadline for commencing the permit process under clause
(i)(I).
``(II) An environmental impact statement carried out under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the
deadline for commencing the permit process under clause
(i)(I).

``(B) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to act by the
deadline specified in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) the application, and the permit requested in the
application, shall be considered to be approved;
``(ii) the Secretary shall issue a permit to the applicant;
and
``(iii) the permit shall not be subject to judicial
review.''.
(b) State Permitting Programs.--Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Authority of Administrator.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4),
until the Secretary has issued a permit under this section,
the Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification
(including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined
area as a disposal site, and deny or restrict the use of any
defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of
specification) as a disposal site, if the Administrator
determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings,
that the discharge of the materials into the area will have
an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds or fishery areas (including spawning and
breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
``(2) Consultation.--Before making a determination under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consult with the
Secretary.
``(3) Findings.--The Administrator shall set forth in
writing and make public the findings of the Administrator and
the reasons of the Administrator for making any determination
under this subsection.
``(4) Authority of state permitting programs.--This
subsection shall not apply to any permit if the State in
which the discharge originates or will originate does not
concur with the determination of the Administrator that the
discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect as
described in paragraph (1).''.
(c) State Programs.--Section 404(g)(1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``for the discharge'' and
inserting ``for all or part of the discharges''.

SEC. 203. IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means any
of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.):
(A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance,
response to a petition, or other requirement.
(B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.
(3) More than a de minimis negative impact.--The term
``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the
following:
(A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than
100 jobs, except that any offsetting job gains that result
from the hypothetical creation of new jobs through new
technologies or government employment may not be used in the
job loss calculation.
(B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in
economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over any calendar
year, except that any offsetting economic activity that
results from the hypothetical creation of new economic
activity through new technologies or government employment
may not be used in the economic activity calculation.
(b) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and
Economic Activity.--
(1) Analysis.--Before taking a covered action, the
Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by
State, of the covered action on employment levels and
economic activity, including estimated job losses and
decreased economic activity.
(2) Economic models.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall use the best available economic models.
(B) Annual gao report.--Not later than December 31st of
each year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by
the Administrator to carry out this subsection.
(3) Availability of information.--With respect to any
covered action, the Administrator shall--
(A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the
main page of the public Internet Web site of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and
(B) request that the Governor of any State experiencing
more than a de minimis negative impact post the analysis in
the Capitol of the State.
(c) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (b)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic
activity in a State, the Administrator shall hold a public
hearing in each such State at least 30 days prior to the
effective date of the covered action.
(2) Time, location, and selection.--
(A) In general.--A public hearing required under paragraph
(1) shall be held at a convenient time and location for
impacted residents.
(B) Priority.--In selecting a location for such a public
hearing, the Administrator shall give priority to locations
in the State that will experience the greatest number of job
losses.
(d) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under
subsection (b)(1) that a covered action will have more than a
de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic
activity in any State, the Administrator shall give notice of
such impact to the congressional delegation, Governor, and
legislature of the State at least 45 days before the
effective date of the covered action.

SEC. 204. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN
WATER ACT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may
not--
(1) finalize, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed guidance described in the notice of availability and
request for comments entitled ``EPA and Army Corps of
Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters
Protected by the Clean Water Act'' (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0409) (76
Fed. Reg. 24479 (May 2, 2011)); and
(2) use the guidance described in paragraph (1), any
successor document, or any substantially similar guidance
made publicly available on or after December 3, 2008, as the
basis for any decision regarding the scope of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or any
rulemaking.
(b) Rules.--The use of the guidance described in subsection
(a)(1), or any successor document or substantially similar
guidance made publicly available on or after December 3,
2008, as the basis for any rule shall be grounds for vacating
the rule.

SEC. 205. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY TO MODIFY STATE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS.

(a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1313(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(2) by striking ``(4) The'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Promulgation of revised or new standards.--
``(A) In general.--The'';
(3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and
inserting the following:
``(B) Deadline.--The Administrator shall promulgate;'' and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) State water quality standards.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this paragraph, the Administrator may not
promulgate a revised or new standard for a pollutant in any
case in which the State has submitted to the Administrator
and the Administrator has approved a water quality standard
for that pollutant, unless the State concurs with the
determination of the Administrator that the revised or new
standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this
Act.''.
(b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) State or interstate agency determination.--With
respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate agency
having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point at
which the discharge originates or will originate determines
under paragraph (1) that the discharge will comply with the
applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and
307, the Administrator may not take any action to supersede
the determination.''.

[[Page S6527]]

SEC. 206. STATE AUTHORITY TO IDENTIFY WATERS WITHIN
BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) State authority to identify waters within boundaries
of the state.--
``(A) In general.--Each State shall submit to the
Administrator from time to time, with the first such
submission not later than 180 days after the date of
publication of the first identification of pollutants under
section 304(a)(2)(D), the waters identified and the loads
established under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of
paragraph (1).
``(B) Approval or disapproval by administrator.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
submission, the Administrator shall approve the State
identification and load or announce the disagreement of the
Administrator with the State identification and load.
``(ii) Approval.--If the Administrator approves the
identification and load submitted by the State under this
subsection, the State shall incorporate the identification
and load into the current plan of the State under subsection
(e).
``(iii) Disapproval.--If the Administrator announces the
disagreement of the Administrator with the identification and
load submitted by the State under this subsection. the
Administrator shall submit, not later than 30 days after the
date that the Administrator announces the disagreement of the
Administrator with the submission of the State, to the State
the written recommendation of the Administrator of those
additional waters that the Administrator identifies and such
loads for such waters as the Administrator believes are
necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable
to the waters.
``(C) Action by state.--Not later than 30 days after
receipt of the recommendation of the Administrator, the State
shall--
``(i) disregard the recommendation of the Administrator in
full and incorporate its own identification and load into the
current plan of the State under subsection (e);
``(ii) accept the recommendation of the Administrator in
full and incorporate its identification and load as amended
by the recommendation of the Administrator into the current
plan of the State under subsection (e); or
``(iii) accept the recommendation of the Administrator in
part, identifying certain additional waters and certain
additional loads proposed by the Administrator to be added to
the State's identification and load and incorporate the
State's identification and load as amended into the current
plan of the State under subsection (e).
``(D) Noncompliance by administrator.--
``(i) In general.--If the Administrator fails to approve
the State identification and load or announce the
disagreement of the Administrator with the State
identification and load within the time specified in this
subsection--

``(I) the identification and load of the State shall be
considered approved; and
``(II) the State shall incorporate the identification and
load that the State submitted into the current plan of the
State under subsection (e).

``(ii) Recommendations not submitted.--If the Administrator
announces the disagreement of the Administrator with the
identification and load of the State but fails to submit the
written recommendation of the Administrator to the State
within 30 days as required by subparagraph (B)(iii)--

``(E) Application.--This section shall apply to any
decision made by the Administrator under this subsection
issued on or after March 1, 2013.''.

____________________