[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6696-H6758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 385

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3080) to provide for improvements to the 
     rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the 
     conservation and development of water and related resources, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-24. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described 
     in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), my good friend and colleague, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
rule and the underlying bill.
  House Resolution 385 provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, the first 
WRRDA bill since 2007. The rule makes 24 amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee in order, half of which are sponsored by my colleagues 
across the aisle, and it provides for robust debate in the House of 
Representatives.
  The underlying bill was marked up by the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, which reported the bill favorably with unanimous 
bipartisan support. The bill before us today garnered that support 
because of four reasons: this bill reforms the Federal bureaucracy; 
this bill is fiscally responsible; this bill strengthens 
accountability; and this bill creates jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, talk to anyone around the country that relies on the 
Army Corps of Engineers; talk with anyone that depends on our water 
infrastructure, water resources and so forth; talk to anyone who wants 
to develop a new water resource infrastructure; talk to anyone who 
ships in or out of our harbors or ports. Maybe you have the opportunity 
to talk with our shipping companies, or maybe with the women and men 
who work on our tugboats and barges, or maybe with the farmer who needs 
to get his corn to the right markets, or maybe the manufacturer who 
needs to ship her product or his product to a foreign customer, or 
maybe the port director who is trying to get America prepared for the 
economic opportunities that will come with the larger ships coming 
through the Panama Canal. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues spoke with 
these men and

[[Page H6697]]

women, they would hear the same refrain: our bureaucracy delays 
American investment; our bureaucracy costs American jobs; and our 
bureaucracy helps America's foreign competitors.
  The approval process of our critical water infrastructure takes years 
too long, and sometimes well over a decade. One project that my friend 
from Florida is familiar with is a project in Port Everglades, which 
has been studied for nearly two decades. Some bureaucrats have spent 
their entire career studying this one project. The study of the project 
of Port Everglades is a prime example of Washington bureaucracy 
crushing America's jobs and America's future.
  This bill before us today does away with these delays: it sets hard 
deadlines on the time and cost of the studies; it consolidates or 
eliminates duplicative studies; it requires concurrent project review 
by multiple agencies; and it puts our projects on a path to 
construction.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reforms Federal bureaucracy, but it also is 
fiscally responsible. We all know that our Nation spends too much, our 
Nation oftentimes spends money haphazardly without a plan and without 
restraint. This bill does not.
  Chairman Shuster is committed to restraining spending and is 
committed to managing American taxpayer dollars wisely. This bill is 
proof of that. This bill restrains spending. I commend Chairman Shuster 
and Ranking Member Rahall for actually making the tough choices 
necessary to get our budget in order.
  Mr. Speaker, when was the last time an infrastructure bill was 
brought to the House floor and it cut more than it spent? The bill 
before us today does just that: it deauthorizes $12 billion of old, 
inactive projects; it pays for the new projects by canceling old 
projects; and it sunsets the construction of new projects in order to 
prevent future backlogs. Mr. Speaker, this bill reforms Federal 
bureaucracy, is fiscally responsible, and it strengthens 
accountability.
  Many of our constituents, when they hear us talk about 
infrastructure, remember the days of pork barrel spending. Many of our 
colleagues might remember the 1939 movie about a newly appointed 
Senator who goes to Washington running head-on into a political machine 
built on earmarks and pork barrel spending. ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
Washington'' is a dramatic rendering of how most infrastructure bills 
were put together in the past. In fact, the bill that was debated in 
the movie was a water resource bill, and the filibuster was over an 
earmark in that bill. This bill ends that earmark process.
  The bill before us today strengthens accountability for the American 
people. Gone are the days of inserting earmarks at the last minute. 
Gone are the days of creating new pet projects. Gone are the days of 
wasting taxpayer money on pork barrel spending. Mr. Speaker, this bill 
contains no earmarks.
  It also establishes a new, transparent process for future bills that 
will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on necessary projects. It 
will prioritize our spending and provide strong Congressional 
oversight. This bill reforms Federal bureaucracy, is fiscally 
responsible, strengthens accountability, and creates jobs.
  The key to creating American jobs is expanding our economy. American 
producers must be able to get their products to the world market. This 
push to sell to the world is a high-stakes competition that America 
must win. Our farmers are being pressured by our neighbors in South 
America. Our manufacturers are being pressured by both European and 
Asian countries. Our energy producers are being pressured by many 
foreign countries in all corners of the globe. Investing in our 
infrastructure will boost trade, increase American competitiveness, and 
position our country for economic growth. These advancements will put 
America to work.
  While construction workers will immediately be put to work on these 
projects, every single American job that depends on our transportation 
infrastructure will benefit from this bill. Our economy will grow, our 
producers will compete with the world, and American jobs will be 
created.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why this bill garnered unanimous 
bipartisan support from the members of the committee and why it 
deserves to be passed here. This bill reforms Federal bureaucracy; this 
bill is fiscally responsible; this bill strengthens accountability; and 
this bill creates jobs.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have provided us with a 
unanimously supported bipartisan bill that will move our Nation 
forward.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today and agree with everything that my good 
friend and colleague from Florida said--everything that he said--with 
the exception of the fact that I am opposed to the rule. While I may 
support the underlying legislation, the rule blocks over 70 amendments, 
many of which were germane to the bill. This kind of rule is not 
conducive to an open process.
  The bill, though far from perfect, is long overdue. There is a lot of 
go-nowhere, do-nothing talk about creating jobs here on the Hill, but 
this bill, like the highway bill and the farm bill, will actually 
create jobs.
  The bill also reinforces a point that I have been making for some 
time, and that is: repairing our Nation's aging infrastructure, 
including our water infrastructure, is the best jobs program out there. 
The resulting economic benefits will ripple from our ports to Main 
Street America as badly needed jobs across a wide range of industries. 
For example, every dollar spent on Everglades restoration, like the 
ones authorized here, is returned fourfold by stimulating related 
industries like tourism, construction, and retail.
  Despite these undeniable benefits, it has been 7 years since the last 
WRRDA bill. That is 7 years of productivity lost. But if you think 7 
years is a long time, try waiting 17 years, as my colleague Mr. Webster 
pointed out. That is how long Port Everglades has been waiting for a 
Chief's Report from the Army Corps to deepen its channels in 
anticipation of the new Panama Canal standards. At long last, the 
report is due shortly, yet this bill fails to authorize the pending 
project. While much of the blame for the delay falls outside of this 
Chamber, Congress can and should do right by the port.
  Mr. Speaker, the port has already waited its turn. With the new 
Panama Canal expansion becoming operational in 2015, any further delay 
for such a vital piece of our Nation's infrastructure will be too late.
  I do understand that tough choices have to be made. The way I see it, 
the Army Corps' lengthy review process is in part to blame for the 
backlog of projects. Though this bill contains some partisan measures 
addressing this issue, the Corps has already begun testing its own way 
of increasing the speed of review.
  One of these successful tests was the pilot program for the Central 
Everglades Planning Project, yet that project is not included in this 
bill either, despite the Chief's report for CEPP being anticipated 
within a few months. This new approach, when coupled with a more 
frequent WRRDA bill, could help eliminate the massive backlog of 
projects that has forced Congress to make these tough decisions.
  When we look what CEPP actually does, the urgency for authorization 
is even more obvious. CEPP will help end the discharges of polluted 
water from Lake Okeechobee that have been devastating Florida 
communities for years. The water is choked green with algae and killing 
wildlife, tourism, fishing, and oyster industries, particularly in the 
Indian River area of our State.
  The people of Florida can't wait for another WRRDA bill to roll 
around. The streamlined successful pilot program is infinitely more 
preferable than the streamlining of environmental review contained in 
this bill.
  My friends across the aisle seem oddly opposed sometimes to having 
fresh water and clean air, attacking NEPA and environmental regulations 
at every opportunity, including otherwise inappropriate vehicles like 
this

[[Page H6698]]

bill. But I understand that no one is happy all the time.
  I do have grave reservations about some of the policies in the bill 
and hope that we can work them out through the legislative process. 
There is no need for Congress to make the waters rougher than they 
already are. Let's continue to do our work constituents sent us here to 
do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, nearly one-third of our economy 
depends on international trade, and 99 percent of that trade passes 
through our Nation's ports. Since transportation accounts for as much 
as 10 percent of the cost of the products we buy, it is so very 
critically important that our ports and waterways run efficiently and 
are properly maintained.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act, which is a part of the critical role laid out to 
Congress by our Founding Fathers in regulating interstate commerce. 
With this bill we can reform the Army Corps of Engineers' management of 
important infrastructure projects and reduce their project backlog in 
order to create the conditions for a much stronger American economy. 
Mr. Speaker, this bill does that, and that is why I am proud to support 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good 
friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first of all begin by opposing the rule. This 
House is becoming much too closed. I would remind my Republican 
colleagues of the promises they made when they took over this place. 
They promised a more open and more transparent House of 
Representatives. What we have seen is closed and restricted rules time 
and time and time again. There is no reason why this can't be an open 
rule. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
against the rule.
  Secondly, with regard to the underlying bill, it is my intention to 
support the underlying bill, but I do have serious reservations. The 
proponents of this bill talk about the streamlining provisions that are 
in this bill that somehow streamline the environmental review process 
and that somehow the environmental review process causes delays.
  I would remind my colleagues that the facts are clear that delays are 
caused by funding that doesn't correspond to the demand. The last WRRDA 
bill authorized over $23 billion in new projects, and since that time 
appropriations have been at $1.5 billion per year. The Ryan budget, 
which my Republican colleagues seem to love so much, will cut that by 
another third. Add to that sequestration and all the other budget cuts 
that my colleagues are proposing here, it is lack of money, not 
environmental reviews, that is causing the delays.
  Further, environmental reviews are really the only way voters have 
any say about the Federal projects in their community.

                              {time}  1300

  We need a WRRDA bill, but we don't need to sacrifice the 
environmental review process or a process that allows our constituents 
to have a say on how projects proceed. I hope when this bill moves to 
conference committee with the Senate, we can fix some of these, I 
think, egregious problems with the bill with regard to the 
environmental review process.
  We do need a WRRDA bill, and we also need a transportation bill. I 
would hope my colleagues on the other side could convince the Tea Party 
members to allow that to come to the floor because we have an aging 
infrastructure, not only in terms of water projects but in terms of 
highways, roads, and bridges. I could go on and on and on.
  If we get this right, we can create some jobs. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the rule, and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 3080.
  This bill provides commonsense reforms to the construction of water 
infrastructure projects, which will help facilitate commerce and get 
this country back to work, and it does so without earmarks. It also 
addresses our regulatory framework amidst commonsense solutions that we 
can use.
  Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal 
Government has a role in regulating commerce, and when we talk about 
building ports and dams, these are the types of projects that the 
Federal Government can and should undertake, which will allow the 
private sector to thrive, as well as encouraging private sector 
participation.
  I want to thank the chairman and the committee for their work on this 
bill, which also advances the cause of the Savannah Harbor expansion 
project, which is one of the many projects that can move forward under 
this bill. The Savannah Harbor deepening will allow the State of 
Georgia to begin construction on this much-needed project. When it is 
completed, consumers and businesses all across the country will benefit 
from the imports and exports that flow through Savannah.
  The bill also provides residents across the country with a framework 
that advances long-term economic growth opportunities by expanding and 
improving our sources of water supply.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
dean of the House of Representatives.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say thanks to my good friend 
from Florida for yielding me this time.
  I urge that the rule be rejected. There is no reason why we can't 
have an opportunity to amend this legislation to address some of its 
failures. As the author of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, I was proud to usher in a new era of environmental and wildlife 
conservation. Moreover, NEPA passed the House with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, by a vote of 372-15. A similar vote took place in 
the Senate. During the debate on NEPA, I noted:

       Mankind is playing an extremely dangerous game with his 
     environment. We have not yet learned that we must consider 
     the natural environment as a whole and to assess its quality 
     continuously if we really wish to make strides in improving, 
     preserving, and protecting it.

  NEPA has a very simple promise: look before leaping. The law ensures 
that Federal agencies weigh the environmental consequences of 
development projects before they are undertaken. This bill puts its 
finger in the eye of that particular approach. I worry that the 
provisions included in the bill before us today will lead us down a 
path going back to those days of impunity and disregard for the well-
being and concerns of the public, where actions were taken without any 
full appreciation or understanding of the environmental impact of that.
  That was the reason NEPA was passed, so that we would know what we 
were doing, and so that we would have a fair opportunity for people to 
participate in the judgments by having these decisions made in an open 
and a transparent fashion. Now perhaps changes are needed, and perhaps 
an update, if you will. We cannot say that this legislation does that. 
However, before we make changes, we need to have some comprehensive 
hearings in the committee of jurisdiction. I note that the committee 
that brings this legislation to the floor is not necessarily the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  This is a proposal which is disregarding one of the things which was 
said by President Nixon when he signed it. He said that this was going 
to stop the decay of the environment. We are renewing that decay.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for 
the inclusion of the provisions in the bill to help expedite 
environmental reviews and for the language that was requested by myself 
and Congressman Farenthold which would help increase private investment 
in our Nation's ports and expedite the completion of large critical 
projects.

[[Page H6699]]

  One important project that is authorized in this bill is the 
deepening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway. I have been working on the 
authorization of this project since I was elected in 2004. My 
predecessors, Nick Lampson and Jack Brooks, worked on this project. Mr. 
Weber, who now represents this area, has been working on this project. 
In fact, the original Chief's Report for the Sabine-Neches Waterway was 
authorized to begin in 1997, 16 years ago. That was three Presidents 
ago. It was in the last century.
  Since that time, all four of my kids have finished high school, 
graduated from college, gotten married, and have given me 10 grandkids. 
The United States has fought two major wars. Sixteen years to do an 
authorization on a Federal project--something is wrong with this 
picture, Mr. Speaker.
  This project was supposed to cost $300 million. Today, if it is 
authorized, it will be $1.1 billion. That is a 287 percent increase, 
and we still haven't moved any dirt. There is something wrong with this 
picture, Mr. Speaker.
  That is why this WRRDA bill is so important. It makes critical 
structural improvements to the way the Corps of Engineers does business 
so we can end these absurd delays. It shouldn't take 20 years to 
complete a project, and I'm talking about authorization just to approve 
a project, like the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
  The Sabine-Neches Waterway is critical to America's energy and 
national security. It was first authorized at 40 feet. This WRRDA bill 
will make the depth 48 feet, permitting deeper draft vessels to come 
through. Right now, tankers that come up the Sabine-Neches Waterway 
can't be full because they drag bottom. They have to offload part of 
their fuel before they come up the waterway. That is why this is 
important to the United States.
  It is also vital to the United States military. The Sabine-Neches 
Waterway, actually is the home of the largest commercial military out-
load port in America, and it is the second-largest military port in the 
world. The channel is home to two designated military strategic 
seaports: Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas.
  Additionally, 20 to 30 percent of the Nation's commercial jet fuel 
and a significant majority and classified amount of our military's jet 
fuel is produced on the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
  This is the energy corridor of the United States. Refineries line 
this entire waterway. Delays by the Corps of Engineers have cost 
millions of dollars, all because they cannot make up their mind to 
approve the project.
  Mr. Speaker, pick a horse and ride it. Either approve the project or 
deny the project, but make up your mind. These delays are absurd.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  (Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, while not a perfect bill, I will be voting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act, better known as WRRDA.
  As a member of the California Delegation, I am particularly 
supportive of reauthorizing WRRDA, which is such a critical bill for 
our state.
  Although this bill was intended to be reauthorized every two years, 
it has been six years since the last Water Resources Development Act 
(WRRDA) was signed into law.
  After examining the provisions included in this legislation, I am 
encouraged by provisions like Section 124 which helps our state by 
requiring a comprehensive review of the Corps of Engineers' policy 
guidelines on vegetation management for levees.
  I am hopeful that this provision will help eliminate some of the 
challenges that local governments and flood control agencies face 
because of current vegetation removal policy.
  Additionally, provisions like the one outlined in Section 130 mandate 
that a report be issued on the practices, priorities, and authorized 
purposes at Corps of Engineers reservoirs in arid regions and their 
effect on water supply during times of drought.
  This is a good start to begin addressing the need and ability for 
local water agencies to be able to store more water in their dams for 
water replenishment.
  Although we do not have the ideal reauthorization bill of WRRDA in 
front of us, I believe this to be a good start to once again focus on 
the importance of water supply and management.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend and a 
former member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan WRRDA bill. I 
want to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, along with 
Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop. I would also like to thank 
Senator Boxer for leading the Senate in passing its WRRDA bill earlier 
this year.
  Mr. Speaker, my district of Sacramento is the most at-risk 
metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence of 
two great rivers: the American and the Sacramento. We have a lot at 
risk. We waited too long for this bill, and we need Congress to act.
  Since the last WRRDA in 2007, a number of key flood protection 
investments have been carefully studied by the Army Corps of Engineers. 
One such project that has been thoroughly studied by the Corps of 
Engineers and holds a Chief's Report is the Natomas Levee Improvement 
Project. Levee deficiencies were found in the area in 2008, and it was 
remapped by FEMA in 2008. The Corps of Engineers put the level of 
protection at 1 in 33 years, a third of the national standard. Since 
then, costly flood insurance has become mandatory.
  The area to be protected by the project is home to over 100,000 
people, two interstate highways, and an international airport. It is 
heavily urbanized, and home to dozens of schools and hundreds of small 
businesses. If a levee broke, the damage would be similar to that 
experienced in New Orleans.
  To fully underscore the importance of this project, my constituents 
have voluntarily voted twice to pay their local share. Despite the 
significant local investment, work remains uncompleted. The project 
needs congressional authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill. We must establish a conference 
committee with the Senate, and we must work to ensure WRRDA becomes law 
this year. It is too important for our Nation, and I look forward to 
working in a bipartisan way to ensure that.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, as well as a bipartisan 
amendment that we will have on the floor later today. This bill works 
to address our Nation's competitiveness and increasing economic growth 
by maintaining our infrastructure in a sensible manner.
  Our amendment that we will offer today will work to address the 
challenges that invasive species present to our country today. As the 
cochair of the Invasive Species Caucus and the only Member who has the 
privilege to represent three of the five Great Lakes, I am honored to 
speak on the floor today about the threat that these species bring to 
our natural environment. They also represent a huge economic cost to 
each of our districts. It costs over $100 million a year in the Great 
Lakes alone to have these invasive species fought and controlled.
  Mr. Speaker, our amendment is simple. It does not authorize any new 
funds or create new programs. Simply put, it helps address the invasive 
species issue by requiring the GAO to complete a comprehensive report 
on Federal spending for the operations and cost of invasive species. 
Why is this important? A report that takes into account all species 
nationwide will allow Congress to identify both gaps and duplicative 
efforts in the future. By beginning with a comprehensive report, we can 
effectively target areas for improvement in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge your support and all Members' support for this 
bill and our amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to 
tell us the time remaining for both sides.

[[Page H6700]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) 
has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn) who 
is the cochair of the PORTS Caucus, of which I am a proud member.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill, and 
as my colleague said, as a founder and cochair, along with my friend, 
Ted Poe, of the Congressional PORTS Caucus, I am happy that today the 
House has this opportunity to pass a water resources bill that will 
provide long-needed investment to our Nation's ports and create jobs. 
Our ports and waterways have been waiting for over 6 years for a new 
water bill. It is time to end their wait.
  One of the things I came to Congress to do was to fight for the full 
use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and to ensure that we address 
the expanded use needs of ports like the Port of Los Angeles and the 
Port of Long Beach that see so much commerce but so little of this 
harbor maintenance funding.
  Do I wish that we would have been able to be more aggressive in this 
bill? Of course--but the bill we have before us is a huge step in the 
right direction. Congress, I think, is finally recognizing that our 
ports aren't just gateways; they are engines of growth, of prosperity, 
and of jobs. Passing this legislation would be a big victory for our 
ports, a strong signal that this House recognizes the critical 
importance of our ports to our economic health.
  I am going to be voting for this bill, and I encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good 
friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the Rules Committee 
for yielding.
  This is a big bill for Georgia. It is a big bill for all of America. 
Mr. Speaker, it is so often that we hear about conflict in this body. 
We all know that jobs are important to absolutely everyone's 
constituency; and when we all know that 99 percent of our imports and 
exports travel through our ports, it is easy to come together and get 
excited about doing things that matter.
  We have got the Panama Canal opening for newer and wider and bigger 
ships, but my own home port in Savannah is not ready, through no fault 
of our own. We began that process back in the 1990s to begin to expand 
the Port of Savannah, and it has taken 15 years to get through that 
permitting process. This bill says: Who benefits from that? Whose 
constituency is it that benefits from jobs being slowed or delayed for 
15 years? No one's does. So we are able to come together and say let's 
do it; let's do it right, but let's do it in an efficient manner.
  Three years is what we have given, 36 months, to study each and every 
aspect in the permitting process, and to do those things concurrently. 
Today, Mr. Speaker, as you know, you have to do one study first and 
then a second one and then a third one and then a fourth one, and you 
can't start the next one until the first one is finished. Today we say, 
if we know we have six studies to do, let's do them simultaneously. 
Let's go ahead and get all the work done. We all benefit from that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The reforms in this bill go into those projects that are authorized, 
Mr. Speaker, that represent spending on our books that we know we are 
not going to do. We say that if we have any new projects we are 
interested in doing, let's take those old projects off that are no 
longer a priority for America. Let's set our priorities. We know we 
have to spend money in this government, but we ought to spend it on the 
best projects, not the least of these; and this bill recognizes, in a 
budget-neutral way, a way to authorize those projects that are most 
important to us while we are moving those that are the least.
  Mr. Speaker, I live in a county that relies on a Corps of Engineers' 
lake. Working with the Corps of Engineers in partnership is critical to 
my community for our drinking water, for our recreation, for our 
economy. The Corps has been a good partner, but the Corps is often 
hamstrung by the laws that this Congress has put in place and by the 
implementation of those laws by administrations, both Republican and 
Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reclaims to this House, for both sides of the 
aisle, the authority to direct the projects of the Corps of Engineers. 
We direct these not through earmarks, Mr. Speaker, but by recognizing 
that constitutional responsibility that we have to our constituents 
back home to decide where those dollars are spent, how those projects 
are prioritized. Rather than punting on that issue, this bill reserves 
those powers rightfully to this House and to this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not everything that I would like for it to 
be. Candidly, in 3 years of serving in this Congress, I have yet to see 
a bill that is everything that I would like for it to be. What I know 
is that this bill is a step in the right direction, a step that we can 
take and a step that we must take.
  I thank my friend from Florida for his leadership on the issue, for 
his leadership on the Rules Committee, and for yielding me the time 
today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), my friend.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a country of interdependent States that share 
prosperity, challenges, and resources, united with a goal of a healthy 
economy supported by quality infrastructure.
  At times, though, inequities in the collection and distribution of 
Federal resources create such an imbalance that one region is put at a 
distinct disadvantage. This is the case for California, which collects 
nearly one-third of the Nation's harbor maintenance taxes but receives 
less than 7 percent of the expenditures for port projects.
  Mrs. Napolitano's amendment, had it been allowed to come to this 
floor, would have brought a measure of equity to this stark imbalance. 
I believe this was a missed opportunity for our Nation's ports.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. 
Southerland, my fellow Floridian and good friend.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me today.
  Today I rise in support of this rule for the Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act, and I agree with my colleague on the other side of 
the aisle, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn). She understands 
how important this bill is, as do I.
  Make no mistake, this is a jobs bill. We are going to be able to take 
advantage of economic opportunities because of this piece of 
legislation. I am proud to serve as a member of the Transportation 
Committee. That this bill passed unanimously out of committee is 
something that I think needs to be noted.
  This legislation enhances the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to 
develop and support America's port and waterway infrastructure, and it 
does so with full spending offsets and zero earmarks. That is the kind 
of commonsense reform I believe the American people expect and deserve.
  This bill places hard caps on the time and cost of studies, 
eliminates duplications and delays, places a 3-year cap on those 
studies and caps in dollar amounts of $3 million. It expands the role 
of public-private partnerships in water infrastructure and makes 
significant changes to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund so that monies 
that are collected for harbor maintenance are more fully utilized for 
their design purpose. I know it is a novel idea that those monies 
collected for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be there, and 
this bill addresses that.
  Perhaps most importantly to the people of my district, this bill 
begins a critically important conversation that began at the committee 
level on the impact of the decreased water flows down the ACF River 
system and into the Apalachicola Bay. The Apalachicola Bay is a natural 
treasure, producing 90 percent of Florida's oyster harvest and 10 
percent of the Nation's oyster harvest. The oystermen, small 
businesses, and hardworking families who depend on this bay have seen 
their livelihoods put at risk.

[[Page H6701]]

  I am pleased that Chairman Shuster and the ranking member have worked 
in good faith to begin this dialogue with me. For these reasons, I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying bill, 
which provides critical support to Florida's 15 deepwater ports and 
allows us to be fully prepared for the economic opportunities as a 
result of the Panama Canal expansion.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time I 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McIntyre), my good friend and fellow Helsinki Commission member.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for this time.
  As the cochairman of the Congressional Waterways Caucus, I do support 
many of the provisions of this bill, but I am concerned that it has no 
language to reauthorize expiring coastal protection projects.
  Our beaches are the economic engines and environmental treasures that 
protect our coasts from storms and create jobs for our community. In 
fact, when you talk about return on tax dollars, the beaches can't be 
beat. For every $1 spent by the Federal Government on beach 
renourishment, $320 is returned in revenue. I know of no other Federal 
program that gives that kind of return.
  When we think about the inclusion of coastal renourishment projects, 
there are over 50 that will be expiring if this is not addressed. We 
have found at Carolina and Kure Beach in North Carolina, and as many of 
our colleagues all over the Nation have found, a few thousand dollars 
on the frontside saves millions of dollars on the backside after a 
vicious storm like Sandy, Katrina, Fran, or Hugo. The list goes on.
  It is imperative that the WRRDA language contain the reauthorization 
of these projects that are already in progress; otherwise, we lose 
these investments, and that is not a good use of taxpayer money. These 
are investments that ultimately create jobs and save money.

                                      EXPIRING COASTAL NOURISHMENT PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Member                             State                      Project               End Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Mike McIntyre......................  NC                         Carolina Beach and Vicinity            2014
Rep. Bill Young.........................  FL                         Pinellas County--Treasure              2019
                                                                      Island Segment.
Rep. Lois Frankel.......................  FL                         Broward County--Segment II.            2020
Rep. Patrick Murphy.....................  FL                         Fort Pierce Beach St. Lucie            2020
Rep. John Carney........................  DE                         Delaware Coast Protection,             2021
                                                                      Indian River Inlet.
Rep. Jack Kingston......................  GA                         Tybee Island...............            2023
Rep. Alcee Hastings.....................  FL                         Broward County-Segment III.            2025
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz...........  FL                         Dade County-Bal Harbour....            2025
Rep. Timothy Bishop.....................  NY                         Westhampton................            2027
Rep. Corrine Brown......................  FL                         Duval County...............            2028
Rep. C.W. Bill Young....................  FL                         Pinellas County--Long Key              2030
                                                                      Segment.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz...........  FL                         Dade County--Sunny Isles...            2038
Rep. Trey Radel.........................  FL                         Lee County--Captiva Island             2038
                                                                      Segment.
Rep. Theodore Deutch....................  FL                         Palm Beach County--North               2038
                                                                      Boca Raton Segment.
Vacant..................................  MA                         Revere Beach...............            2041
Rep. Frank LoBiondo.....................  NJ                         Cape May City (Cape May                2041
                                                                      Inlet to Lower Tower.
Rep. Mike McIntyre......................  NC                         Wrightsville Beach.........            2041
Rep. Marcy Kaptur.......................  OH                         Presque Island.............            2042
Rep. Marshall ``Mark'' Sanford..........  SC                         Folly Beach................            2043
Rep. Vern Buchanan......................  FL                         Manatee County.............            2043
Rep. Lois Frankel.......................  FL                         Palm Beach County--Delray              2043
                                                                      Beach Segment.
Rep. Richard Nugent.....................  FL                         Pinellas County--Sand Key              2043
                                                                      Segment.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro.......................  CT                         Prospect Beach.............            2043
Rep. Frank LoBiondo.....................  NJ                         Ocean City--Great Egg                  2043
                                                                      Harbor Inlet and Peck.
Rep. Luke Messer........................  IN                         Indiana Shoreline..........            2044
Rep. Patrick Murphy.....................  FL                         Martin County..............            2045
Rep. Lois Frankel.......................  FL                         Palm Beach--Jupiter/Carlin.            2045
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries....................  NY                         Coney Island...............            2045
Rep. Gregory Meeks......................  NY                         East Rockaway Inlet to                 2045
                                                                      Rockaway Inlet Sectic.
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr...................  NJ                         Sea Bright--Manasquan:                 2045
                                                                      Monmouth Beach (F.
Rep. Tom Rice...........................  SC                         Myrtle Beach...............            2046
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr...................  NJ                         Sea Bright--Manasquan: Sea             2046
                                                                      Bright (Reach 1).
Rep. Lois Frankel.......................  FL                         Palm Beach--Ocean Ridge                2047
                                                                      Segment.
Rep. Vern Buchanan......................  FL                         Sarasota County--Venice                2047
                                                                      Segment.
Rep. Christopher ``Chris'' Smith........  NJ                         Sea Bright--Manasquan:                 2047
                                                                      Belmar to Manasqui.
Rep. Mike McIntyre......................  NC                         Kure Beach.................            2047
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr...................  NJ                         Sea Bright--Manasquan: Long            2048
                                                                      Branch (Reach.
Rep. Scott Rigell.......................  VA                         Sandbridge.................            2048
Rep. Steve Southerland..................  FL                         Panama City Beaches........            2050
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr...................  NJ                         Sea Bright--Manasquan:                 2050
                                                                      Asbury to Avon.
Rep. Mike McIntyre......................  NC                         Ocean Isle, Brunswick                  2050
                                                                      County Beaches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Webster from 
Florida.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2013. WRRDA is commonsense legislation that permits 
the Army Corps of Engineers to eliminate costly and duplicative 
projects, caps the time and costs of studies, consolidates and 
accelerates environmental analyses, and stimulates the U.S. economy 
through increased competitiveness in the global market and through job 
reaction.
  In my home State of Florida, our 15 ports have contributed over $96 
billion to the State's economy and, perhaps most importantly, employs 
hundreds of thousands of individuals. Within my district, we have two 
inland ports in particular, Ocala and Lake City, which are uniquely 
positioned to import and export products quickly to Florida, the 
southeast, and to America's heartland. Encouraging infrastructure 
projects such as these spur job creation. In today's economy, we cannot 
afford to neglect these opportunities.
  We have, today, the opportunity to demonstrate that Congress can work 
towards the best interest of our country. So I urge my colleagues in 
the House to take swift action in voting to approve WRRDA and get our 
country back on the path to save infrastructure, global 
competitiveness, economic stability, and job creation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 
because it is essential for our economy and it addresses flood control 
and water management issues important to my district.
  Waterways and ports support more than 27,000 jobs in Connecticut, but 
Congress hasn't passed a WRRDA bill since 2007. We can't wait another 6 
years to ensure that our inland waterways and seaports remain the 
greatest in the world.
  I do have concerns about provisions meant to streamline environmental 
reviews, but this bill is the result of bipartisan cooperation, 
something all too rare in Washington these days; and as a cosponsor, I 
am proud to say that this bill reflects the bipartisan action that my 
constituents expect from Congress. That is why I am so grateful to my 
friend from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, as well as Ranking Member 
Rahall and Representative Bishop for

[[Page H6702]]

their responsible bipartisan leadership on this effort.
  If you are concerned about the economy, public safety, or the lack of 
funding for our water infrastructure, pass WRRDA today.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act, because it is essential for our economy, and it 
addresses flood control and water management issues that are important 
to my district.
  This past May, I led officials from the Army Corps of Engineers' New 
England Office on a tour of my district.
  We met with constituents in Torrington, CT, where the city is bound 
by old restrictions on levee vegetation that are both costly AND 
harmful to the environment. This bill is a good first step to provide 
them relief.
  We met with city leaders in Meriden, CT, about a downtown flood 
control project that is vital for economic development.
  They need a partner in Washington, as do communities across America, 
and that means they need Congress to pass water resources legislation 
on a regular basis.
  Waterways and ports support more than 27,000 jobs in Connecticut, but 
Congress hasn't passed a WRDA bill since 2007.
  We can't wait another 6 years to ensure our inland waterways and 
seaports remain the greatest commercial water transportation system in 
the world.
  As a cosponsor of this legislation, I'm also proud to say this bill 
reflects the kind of bipartisan cooperation my constituents expect from 
Congress.
  This is not a perfect bill.
  I am particularly concerned about provisions meant to streamline 
environmental reviews.
  But this bill is the result of bipartisan negotiations, something 
that is all too rare in Washington these days. Despite our 
disagreements, we have worked together to advance our national 
interest.
  That is why I am so thankful for my friend from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Shuster, as well as Ranking Member Rahall and Representative 
Bishop, for their responsible bipartisan leadership.
  If you are concerned about the economy, public safety, or 
environmentally friendly reforms for Corps policy: pass this bill 
today, so that we can turn our focus to the critical lack of funding 
for our water infrastructure.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one 
thing, and that is the chairman and the ranking member did everything 
they could to stay within the guidelines and the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and they did that. They 
did not vary in any way over into the Clean Water Act or anything else. 
So nothing in this bill is changing any of the standards; all it is 
doing is allowing parallel tracks. That is it. So the project mentioned 
by Mr. Woodall, which is 15 years, and the project in Mr. Hastings' 
area, which is 17 years, would only be done sooner, not by 
circumventing any environmental requirement, but through the parallel 
tracks.
  I now yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1733, when General Oglethorpe sailed up the Savannah 
River, I have been told the river was 12 feet deep. We have been 
playing in the mud down there ever since. Today, it is 42 feet deep, 
but 42 feet isn't enough for the large Panamax ships that will soon 
start coming through the expanded Panama Canal. If we are to stay 
competitive, we have to deepen the river.
  There are 352,000 jobs in Georgia related to import/export and the 
Port of Savannah. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis of this investment 
is a dollar spent gives us a $5.50 return. In these tough economic 
times, that is why this legislation is so important.

                              {time}  1330

  Furthermore, it is basically a reauthorization necessitated by 
bureaucratic delays. The original authority to deepen the Savannah 
River was in 1999. It took 13 years and $41 million worth of study to 
finally get four Federal agencies to approve it. During that period of 
time, China built a port, from start to finish, which is bigger than 
the Port of Savannah.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are to be competitive as a Nation, we have to do 
better than this. Today's legislation accelerates the approval process 
by alleviating unnecessary government delays.
  This legislation is common sense; it is pro-jobs and pro-America; and 
I urge its passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am privileged to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act, and I rise in support for a very 
good reason. This bill helps create jobs, good jobs, family-wage jobs. 
And it is not just jobs in construction from the infrastructure 
projects. It is jobs throughout the shipping and transportation 
sectors.
  I happen to represent a district that contains a number of ports, 
including the Port of Olympia and parts of the Port of Tacoma. And 
activities at the Port of Tacoma alone are related to 113,000 jobs in 
Washington State; but there are more jobs to be found there, and around 
the country, if we act now.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a healthy economy requires a healthy 
environment, and I hope that the final bill that is reported out of the 
conference committee does not get caught in the false premise of having 
to choose just one.
  However, I think this bill is a good, bipartisan start, and I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no more presenters and I 
am prepared to close. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, this reauthorization is long overdue. 
There is no better way to put people back to work and stimulate our 
economy than to invest in our Nation's infrastructure.
  In my home, the 10th District of Illinois, there are $235 million in 
projects that are waiting to get under way. The multiplier effect that 
these projects will have in our communities cannot be overstated.
  This bill makes a number of reforms that will benefit the communities 
in Illinois that I represent. It will, for the first time, recognize 
the Great Lakes Navigation System as the single system that it is. It 
will ensure that a portion of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is 
dedicated to small harbors like the one I represent in Waukegan.
  This bill is not perfect. I certainly have objections to some of the 
environmental streamlining provisions. That said, this bill is a great 
example of the progress that can be made when both sides come to the 
table and find common ground.
  I believe there is still more to be done to safeguard our environment 
in the underlying bill, and I look forward to working with the chairman 
and ranking member as this bill moves through the conference to ensure 
that adequate environmental protections are maintained in the final 
measure.
  I thank the gentleman and look forward to passing this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today generally in support of the 
reauthorization of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, but 
I do want to express a couple of concerns that I have.
  One is this discussion about reforms that I think really put in 
jeopardy what it is that we are trying to do, both in terms of 
developing our water resources and also protecting our environment.
  I am concerned about the streamlining under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. It doesn't slow down projects. In fact, 
it ensures that the general public, State and local government 
officials, and industry have a seat at the table when Federal agencies 
make decisions that impact our communities.
  Indeed, I am offering an amendment, along with my colleagues, Mr. 
Blumenauer and Mr. DeFazio, that would restore our confidence in the 
system to make sure that we are really protecting our environment.
  My other concern, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that is going to be 
offered, the Young and Petri amendment, that would, in fact, go back to 
the private sector for services instead of leaving that to the decision 
of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  I look forward to further working on these issues.

[[Page H6703]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that we have today 
before us a bipartisan bill that will help improve our Nation's 
waterways and infrastructure and create jobs.
  However, I do agree that this bill is imperfect, and I am dismayed 
that this bill includes provisions that will undermine our 
environmental protections and reduce the ability for public input. In 
that regard, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. 
Dingell.
  What is left out is an environmental review process that avoids 
pitfalls and saves taxpayers money by allowing the Army Corps of 
Engineers to understand where problems may exist with their proposals.
  The bill also misses an opportunity to encourage the Corps to use 
natural infrastructure in its flood control projects. In order to 
better address future extreme weather, safeguard our neighborhoods, and 
improve wildlife habitat, nonstructural alternatives to Corps projects 
should be considered as viable options.
  Project delays are overwhelmingly due to funding issues or changes to 
the project, not environmental review. I urge my colleagues to fix 
these shortcomings in the conference committee process.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding time.
  Environmental review isn't a problem; it is a good thing. Including 
citizens in projects and how they affect our communities and their 
voices is important. Protecting water quality in natural areas that 
drive local economies is important. Saving tax dollars is important.
  And yet, unfortunately, in the minds of some, environmental review is 
a problem that needs to be streamlined. I don't call these 
environmental review streamlines something good. I say that they are 
just weakening a good process that allows people to be involved and 
participate.
  I think weakening the National Environmental Protection Act is 
shortsighted, misguided; and I oppose those particular provisions.
  While there are merits in this bill, there also are problems, and 
weakening environmental review is chief among them. I am very 
disappointed those provisions are included in this bill.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would just like to point out, again, no environmental law has been 
changed, none. Nothing has been weakened. Nothing has been 
shortchanged. Nothing has been slowed down.
  The only thing that has happened is those studies, instead of being 
done in a linear path, one after another, are done simultaneously. It 
doesn't weaken anything. It doesn't undo anything. What it does do is 
speed up the process, which is very, very needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.
  Despite some merits in the WRRDA bills that the Republicans have 
proposed, they fail to address the number one reason why Corps of 
Engineers projects are delayed, a serious lack of Federal funding. The 
bill before us perpetuates a myth that the problem is environmental 
review of engineering projects and not inadequate funding.
  In my congressional District, the Green Brook project has been funded 
at $11 million per year. If this funding level continues, it will take 
more than 30 years to complete the project, which will eventually 
protect several flood-prone communities frequently at risk from extreme 
weather, and save lives. Until then, the Green Brook residents remain 
under threat.
  Now, every water resource project has effects on the environment and 
should have good environmental review. Streamlining environmental 
review will not save money or expedite construction. Limiting the 
national environmental review limits public participation, prevents 
identification of potentially costly problems, project-stopping 
problems.
  Environmental review is not something to be tolerated. It is 
something to be welcomed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased 
to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, distinguished Member 
from Florida, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation. It is a 
good example of bipartisanship and cooperation and common sense, as 
opposed to some of the politics that have dominated this Chamber.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, I was pleased to 
have had a part in several bipartisan provisions beneficial to the 
economy, to the environment, and to conservation.
  We are creating jobs and stimulating the business economy with this 
legislation. We are putting a stop to raids on the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund. We are expanding the definition of invasive species, now 
limited to plant life, to include animal life species like zebra 
mussels and Asian carp, and we are closing the lock and dam at St. 
Anthony Falls to prevent the spread of Asian carp through the precious 
lakes and rivers of northern Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, by passing this bill, the Congress demonstrates that we 
are still capable of achieving reasonable, bipartisan solutions that 
solve problems and get things done here in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) to discuss 
our proposal if we defeat the previous question.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my 
colleague from Florida for yielding time to me.
  My amendment is very simple. It authorizes the Corps projects to 
receive a final Chief's Report up to 1 year following the enactment of 
the bill.
  Let's be clear: under the present arbitrary deadline, critical Corps 
of Engineer projects throughout the United States will have to wait for 
years. This is the second Corps project that we have done in 14 years.
  Now, my colleague from Florida keeps saying that there is no change. 
There is a change in this project, in that, in this particular bill, 
this is the first time that members did not have up to 2 years to get 
their Chief's Report in.
  The Chief's Report is long, it takes time, it is economically and 
environmentally justified, and it has to indicate it is a benefit to 
the entire country.
  Now, let me say one thing about this amendment. It does not change 
anything in the current bill. It pays the same way other projects are 
paid for. It is what we have always done.
  Authorizing these additional projects would generate billions of 
dollars in economic activity, create hundreds and thousands of well-
paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for the yielding.
  I rise once again, Mr. Speaker, to discuss an environmental 
catastrophe taking place in my district. While I strongly support the 
underlying bill, without the amendment, it would force my constituents 
and residents from Florida to wait at least another 2 years for 
projects critical for our environment and our economy.
  The Central Everglades Planning Project, critical to the 
deteriorating health of the waterways in my district, is nearly ready 
to go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the distinguished gentlewoman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. The project will safely move more water south 
of Lake Okeechobee, instead of forcing polluted fresh water into 
brackish rivers to the east and west, causing immeasurable damage to 
our environment and our local economy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and support the 
commonsense, bipartisan Brown-Frankel-

[[Page H6704]]

Crenshaw-Posey amendment that would allow the Army Corps to complete 
its work on authorizing several important projects that are in the 
final stages of approval.

                              {time}  1345

  I spoke on the floor earlier today about the importance of acting now 
on initiatives that will help address the environmental crisis 
occurring in our area. Today we have that chance. My constituents and 
our waterways cannot wait.
  Defeat the previous question and support the Brown amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, we can 
bring up this amendment right now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, 
the manager, for yielding the time. He knows how important this whole 
bill is to the Texas gulf region.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that there are many things we would like to 
fix in this bill, but I know that there are many Texans who are waiting 
for this bill to pass; and I was delighted to work with the Texas 
delegation to strengthen the bill by encouraging non-Federal entities 
to invest in their harbor maintenance and step in when the Army Corps 
of Engineers cannot. I am also delighted that we have addressed the 
question of dredging, and we should do it even better.
  I thank the Rules Committee for consenting to my amendment that deals 
with consultation, with stakeholders and water districts, local city, 
county government. I know my local governments are waiting to have the 
Army Corps of Engineers actually listen to them as well as Historically 
Black Colleges and minority institutions.
  I am also looking forward to making sure that the $20 billion in 
projects in the DeFazio amendment is included and not rejected.
  And finally, I hope that we can work together, Mr. Speaker, on 
ensuring minority- and women-owned businesses and the billions of 
dollars that are used by the Army Corps of Engineers are actually 
getting the opportunity to work. I ask my colleagues to recognize the 
importance of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for bringing 
this important legislation to the House floor. Smart investments in 
water infrastructure are critical to the Nation's economic well-being. 
Water infrastructure is vital to my home State of Texas.
  For example, waterways and ports support 207,970 Texas jobs. 
Additionally, it generates $34 billion dollars in economic activity to 
the Texas economy. As the Representative of the 18th Congressional 
District, which is adjacent to the Port of Houston, I understand how 
critically important it is to make smart investments to create jobs and 
keep our economy growing.
  Texas's commercial deepwater ports connect 152,000 miles of rail, 
460,000 miles of pipelines, and 45,000 miles of interstate highways. In 
addition, the State of Texas has 11 deepwater ports, but hurricane 
damage and age threaten their ability to handle the next generation of 
post-Panama vessels.
  Mr. Speaker, over half of Texas port facilities require maintenance 
to fully accommodate the next generation of maritime shipping vessels. 
Without these investments, Texas and the Nation will be at a 
competitive disadvantage in the global economy. That is why I support 
H.R. 3080.
  I also want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order my 
amendment. This amendment provides that in making recommendations 
pursuant to Section 118 of the Act, the Secretary shall consult with 
key stakeholders, including State, county, and city governments, and, 
where applicable, State and local water districts, and in the case of 
recommendations concerning projects that substantially affect 
underrepresented communities the Secretary shall also consult with 
historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities, and other minority-serving institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, it is an essential tool in our desire 
to improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as 
the environment at large.
  I am sure we will never forget the critical impact from Hurricane 
Sandy that crippled the Northeast area from Massachusetts to North 
Carolina. And not long before Hurricane Sandy, as we were working to 
learn how to prevent another Hurricane Katrina that crippled the great 
City of New Orleans. Our nation was still healing from Hurricane Ike 
and Hurricane Rita which crippled Houston, Texas.
  As my colleagues are aware, a healthy environment sustains a 
productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic 
growth. This highlights the importance of not only giving greater 
attention to our underserved communities but also how we can help our 
citizens by educating them on the areas in which they live. That is why 
my amendment requires the Secretary of the Army to consult with key 
stakeholders, including State, county, and city governments, and, where 
applicable, State and local water districts, and in the case of 
recommendations concerning projects that substantially affect 
underrepresented communities.
  I regret that the Rules Committee did not make in order my amendment 
that directs the Secretary of the Army to encourage the participation 
of minority- and women-owned businesses in such projects and requires 
the GAO to submit a report to Congress within 2 years on the 
participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in such projects.
  I recognize the value of a diverse supplier base and its impact on 
the community and population at large. Therefore, I will continue to 
work directly with the Secretary of the Army to establish an 
opportunity for Minority and Women Owned Businesses to participate on 
specific projects and to ensure that the United States Army Corp of 
Engineers continues to creatively seek new supplier sources, 
particularly among minority and women owned businesses, to fulfill the 
business opportunities at a number of Ports throughout our great 
nation.
  Lastly, I appreciate the Committee making in order an amendment 
cosponsored with Congressman DeFazio of Oregon that conditions the 
application of Section 103 of the bill on a reduction in the backlog of 
Corps of Engineers projects to less than $20 billion in construction 
costs. This amendment highlights the fact that it is a lack of funding 
not the environmental review process that has led to a backlog of 
authorized projects that are not being constructed. We have spent 
enough energy arguing over the budget and the National Environmental 
Policy (NEPA) streamlining, but not enough time in making the hard 
decisions and investments that are going to create economic growth and 
create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3080 is not a perfect bill. But no compromise 
legislation ever is. But this bill is a good start and merits my 
support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill used to be known as the Water Resources 
Development Act. Now it is called the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act. While it is with many of these new reforms that I take 
issue, I look forward to working with my friends on the other side of 
the aisle to make sure that we are here in 2 years to again update our 
water resources and infrastructure, hopefully a bill with less ill-
advised reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I am going to 
offer an amendment to allow for the inclusion of the bipartisan Brown 
amendment, which would authorize projects that receive a final Chief of 
Engineers' Report up to 1 year following the enactment of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for ample and 
open debate and makes in order amendments from both sides of the aisle. 
Further, it advances a bill that was reported out of the committee with 
unanimous bipartisan support.
  This bill is good for American workers, is good for American 
producers, and is good for American shippers. As my friend from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) knows, this bill is also good for the State of Florida.
  Florida has 18 public seaports. These seaports are critical 
components to our economy. They are responsible for supporting more 
than half a million Florida jobs and for generating $66 billion in 
total economic value. The activity of these seaports contributed $1.7 
billion to Florida's State and local budgets. Furthermore, this bill 
advances key ecosystem restoration projects in the Florida Everglades 
and supports the economic development that the Everglades provides in 
our State.
  I thank Chairman Shuster for working with me and other Florida 
Members to ensure that the State is well

[[Page H6705]]

positioned to move forward. Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall 
and my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
have given us a bipartisan product that reforms the Federal 
bureaucracy, is fiscally responsible, strengthens accountability, and 
creates jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I say to my colleagues in the 
House, if you support reforming the Federal bureaucracy, if you are 
looking to manage our spending, if you are looking to increase 
transparency while investing in our infrastructure, and if you are 
looking to create American jobs, support this bill. Vote for the rule. 
Vote for the bill. Move the country forward.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 385 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 6 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if 
     offered by Representative Brown of Florida or a designee. 
     That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as 
     follows:

  Amendment to the Rules Committee Print for H.R. 3080 Offered by Ms. 
                            Brown of Florida

       Page 162, before line 1, insert the following:

     SEC. 402. CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Any project for water resources 
     development, conservation, or other purposes for which a 
     favorable final report of the Chief of Engineers is completed 
     during the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plan, and subject to the 
     conditions, described in the final report of the Chief.
       (b) Offset.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise the report 
     submitted under section 301 to identify further projects and 
     separable elements that in the aggregate have an estimated 
     Federal cost to complete (as of the date of the report) that 
     is equal to the total cost of all projects authorized under 
     subsection (a).
       Page 139, line 4, insert ``or any revision of the report,'' 
     after ``this subsection,''.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 194, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 554]

                               YEAS--225

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo

[[Page H6706]]


     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. NOLAN, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Mr. BARBER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271, 
noes 147, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 555]

                               AYES--271

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--147

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moran
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1423

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 554: On ordering the 
previous question--providing for consideration of H.R. 3080, the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  On rollcall No. 555: On agreeing to the resolution--providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act of 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 3080.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 385 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3080.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1426


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the

[[Page H6707]]

consideration of the bill (H.R. 3080) to provide for improvements to 
the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Fortenberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will submit for the Record an exchange of letters between the 
Committee on Budget, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud today that we are considering one of my 
highest priorities as the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee--H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2013, or WRRDA.
  WRRDA is the most policy- and reform-focused legislation of its kind 
in the last two decades. The new name reflects the landmark reforms. We 
have added an ``R,'' for Water Resources Reform and Development Act, 
because of the number of reforms that we have in here. It is the most 
fiscally responsible WRRDA in history, and there are no earmarks. It 
does not cede our constitutional congressional authority to the 
executive branch. We made sure that we maintained that. We have worked 
together in a bipartisan way on this bill since day one, developing 
this bill with input from Members and stakeholders through listening 
sessions, roundtables and hearings.
  I want to thank my partners and original cosponsors, Ranking Member 
Rahall, Water Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs, and also Water 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Tim Bishop, for their work on this piece of 
legislation.
  I want to thank all of the members of the committee and all of the 
staff members for their hard work and desire to work together on this 
important infrastructure and reform legislation.
  I am also proud that WRRDA has received more than 70 letters of 
support from stakeholders, a list of which I will submit for the 
Record.
  This bill was passed out of committee on September 19 on a voice 
vote. It is about strengthening our infrastructure so that we can 
remain competitive.

                              {time}  1430

  It is about economic growth. It is about trade. It is about jobs, not 
just the jobs that will be created when we are dredging ports and 
rebuilding locks and dams, but the jobs that will help our 
manufacturers when they manufacture their products and send them into 
the world markets, making sure they get there in a competitive way. 
Also, making sure that those products coming into our ports and harbors 
are getting onto the shelves of our local stores, allowing the 
consumers to buy these products at a lower cost, allowing them to keep 
more of their hard-earned dollars.
  Congress has not enacted a WRRDA since 2007 and we can't afford to 
delay. Without improvement, our water transportation system becomes 
obsolete every day and we become less competitive. If we cannot 
compete, we lose jobs to those who can.
  Our bill cuts red tape, reforms the bureaucracy, accelerates project 
delivery. It sets hard deadlines on the time and cost of studies. It 
also consolidates or eliminates unnecessary studies and requires 
concurrent reviews. And our bill streamlines environmental reviews. I 
want to repeat, it streamlines them; doesn't eliminate them, but 
streamlines them.
  Our bill is also fiscally responsible. This WRRDA bill deauthorizes 
$12 billion of old, inactive projects that were authorized prior to 
this current law and fully offsets new authorizations. In addition, it 
sunsets new authorizations to prevent future backlogs at the Corps of 
Engineers.
  This WRRDA has no earmarks. Our bill establishes a new, transparent 
process for future bills to review and prioritize water resources 
development activities, with strong constitutional oversight and 
without handing over our constitutional authority to the executive 
branch. I want to repeat that. I think it is very important that this 
body, that Congress, holds on to its constitutional authority and not 
give it over to the executive branch, as we have done for decades.
  We have been recognized by leading outside watchdog groups for having 
a bill with no earmarks and for keeping congressional oversight without 
ceding that authority to the Corps. I am extremely proud of the 
accomplishments, and we should all be.
  WRRDA breaks down barriers that hold back the development of our 
water resources infrastructure. It maximizes the ability of non-Federal 
interests to contribute their own funds to move studies and projects 
forward. It also expands the ability of non-Federal interests to 
contribute funds to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits, 
and it establishes a public-private partnership program in water 
infrastructure. With the leadership of Rodney Davis, that is in this 
WRRDA legislation.
  This bill improves our ability to compete by authorizing needed 
investments in America's ports. As I mentioned, this is a jobs bill, 
not just construction jobs to improve our ports, but to help our 
manufacturers and to help Americans be able to keep more of their hard-
earned dollars.
  Our bill supports our underserved and emerging ports to also help 
them become more competitive. It reforms and preserves the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to better 
ensure those fees collected from users for these systems are utilized 
for their intended purposes.
  These are all important and necessary reforms, but at its heart WRRDA 
ensures that we don't lose sight of the importance of strong 
infrastructure and keeping us competitive in the world. Our bill 
supports our water transportation network to make sure that it provides 
the foundation for job growth and fosters a more robust economy.
  I ask all Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, to join me 
in supporting this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2013.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster, I am writing concerning H.R. 3080, 
     the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 
     (WRRDA), which was marked-up by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013.
       In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 3080, the 
     Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This 
     is being done with the understanding that it does not in any 
     way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment 
     of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or 
     similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 3080, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during Floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 2013.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 
     (WRRDA), which was ordered to be reported. by the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013. I 
     appreciate your willingness to support expediting floor 
     consideration of this legislation.
       I acknowledge that by forgoing action on this legislation, 
     the Committee on the Budget will not in any way be prejudiced 
     with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation 
     and I will include our letters on H.R. 3080 in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2013.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review 
     the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 3080, the Water 
     Resources

[[Page H6708]]

     Reform and Development Act of 2013. As you are aware, the 
     bill was primarily referred to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, while the Committee on 
     Natural Resources received an additional referral.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House in an expeditious manner, and, 
     accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 3080 from further 
     consideration by the Committee on Natural Resources. I do so 
     with the understanding that by discharging the bill, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim on this or similar matters. Further, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources reserves the right to seek the 
     appointment of conferees, if it should become necessary.
       I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters 
     into the bill report filed by the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, as well as in the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of this measure on the House floor.
       Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look 
     forward to continued cooperation between our respective 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2013.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 
     (WRRDA), which was ordered to be reported by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013. 1 
     appreciate your willingness to support expediting the 
     consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
       I acknowledge that by discharging the bill, the Committee 
     on Natural Resources does not waive any future jurisdictional 
     claim on this or similar matters. In addition, I recognize 
     that the Committee on Natural Resources reserves the right to 
     seek the appointment of conferees.
       I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation 
     and I will include our letters on H.R. 3080 in the bill 
     report filed by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, as well as in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this measure on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 17, 2013.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster, I am writing concerning H.R. 3080, 
     the ``Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013,'' 
     which may be scheduled for floor consideration as early as 
     next week.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code 1986. Section 201 
     of this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code by modifying 
     the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditure authority. 
     However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     This is being done with the understanding that it does not in 
     any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the 
     appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 3080, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dave Camp,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2013.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee On Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 
     (WRRDA), which was ordered to be reported by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013. I 
     appreciate your willingness to support expediting the 
     consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
       I acknowledge that by forgoing action on this bill, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means will not in any way be prejudiced 
     with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation 
     and I will include our letters on H.R. 3080 in the bill 
     report filed by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, as well as in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this measure on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                 Letters of Support for WRRDA H.R. 3080

       American Association of Port Authorities; American 
     Association of Port Authorities; American Coal Ash 
     Association; American Concrete Pavement Association; American 
     Concrete Pipe Association; American Concrete Pumping 
     Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; 
     American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; American Council 
     of Engineering Companies; American Council of Engineering 
     Companies; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Iron and 
     Steel Institute; American Road and Transportation Builders 
     Association.
       American Society of Civil Engineers; American Society of 
     Civil Engineers; American Society of Concrete Contractors; 
     American Soybean Association; American Waterways Operators; 
     America's Infrastructure Alliance; Associated Equipment 
     Distributors; Associated Equipment Distributors; Association 
     of Equipment Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors of 
     America.
       Build Up Greater Cleveland; California State Assembly; CH2M 
     Hill; City of Sacramento; City of West Sacramento; Concrete 
     Reinforcing Steel Institute; County of Santa Barbara; The 
     Everglades Foundation; The Everglades Trust; The Fertilizer 
     Institute; Friends of the North Natomas Library; Georgia 
     Ports Authority; Geosynthetic Materials Association; Greater 
     Cleveland Partnership; Great Lakes Commission; Great Lakes 
     Maritime Task Force; Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition.
       Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute; International 
     Union of Operating Engineers; International Union of 
     Operating Engineers; International Union of Painters and 
     Allied Trades; Laborers International Union of North America; 
     Lake Carriers' Association; Mason Contractors Association of 
     America; NACE International--The Corrosion Society; National 
     Asphalt Pavement Association; National Association of 
     Counties; National Association of Flood and Stormwater 
     Management Agencies; National Association of Home Builders; 
     National Association of Manufacturers; National Association 
     of Manufacturers--Key Vote; National Association of 
     Waterfront Employers.
       National Conference of State Legislatures; National 
     Concrete Masonry Association; National Construction Alliance 
     II; National Precast Concrete Association; National Ready 
     Mixed Concrete Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete 
     Association; National Slag Association; National Society of 
     Professional Engineers; National Stone, Sand, and Gravel 
     Association; National Utility Contractors Association; 
     National Waterways Conference, Inc.; North America's Building 
     Trades Unions; Pennsylvania Farm Bureau; Portland Cement 
     Association; Portland Cement Association.
       Port of Corpus Christi; Port of Pittsburgh Commission; 
     Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; RAMP--Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition; Reclamation 
     District No. 17; Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency; 
     Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange; Slag Cement 
     Association; Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency; Texas 
     Transportation Commission; Transportation Construction 
     Coalition; Transportation Trades Department; AFL-CIO Trenton 
     Corporation; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
     America; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Chamber of Commerce--
     Key Vote; U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Multi-Industry Letter; 
     Water Resources Coalition; Water Resources Coalition; 
     Waterways Association of Pittsburgh; Waterways Council, Inc.

  Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
H.R. 1380, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. I 
commend Chairman Shuster, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gibbs, and our 
ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for the superb bipartisan way in which this 
legislation and the whole process has been handled.
  This legislation does provide important direction to the Army Corps 
of Engineers to meet its mission objectives and reform their planning 
and construction processes while also investing in our water 
transportation infrastructure and creating jobs.
  It has been 6 long years since we have passed Corps of Engineers 
water resources legislation. While Congress has had its back turned on 
our water infrastructure, Mother Nature has not been complacent. Since 
passage of the last WRRDA in 2007, the Nation has been challenged with 
floods, hurricanes, and droughts. Our aging locks, dams, and ports have 
too often been neglected. This bill before us today stops the ``finger 
in the dike'' solutions to our water infrastructure challenges and 
instead invests in these corridors of commerce.
  It should be pointed out that H.R. 3080 is not your traditional type 
of WRRDA. It does not contain Member-directed projects, the traditional 
earmarks, but at least the bill does take a step forward in reclaiming 
our constitutional authority.
  It is clear that in today's challenging fiscal times we have to find 
innovative

[[Page H6709]]

ways to get water projects funded and completed. The pending measure 
identifies the role of non-Federal sponsors in supporting and moving 
projects ahead. It provides a process to address the $60 billion 
construction backlog--that is with a ``B,'' billion--and addresses 
initial reform to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund program.
  At its core, though, as the chairman has stated, this is a jobs bill. 
The investments contained in H.R. 3080 mean jobs in our maritime 
economy, as larger containerships will be able to call at our deepened 
ports to offload their cargo while filling their decks with American 
exports. It creates jobs moving commodities from farms, coal mines, and 
steel mills more efficiently down the inland waterways that crisscross 
our Nation. These investments also help protect our flood-prone 
complainants so that homes and businesses remain safe when the rivers 
unexpectedly rise.
  I would like to thank, again, all members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on both sides of the aisle: Chairman Shuster, 
Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs, and especially our ranking member on our 
side of the aisle, Representative Tim Bishop, who has worked very hard 
on this legislation and knows its intricacies very well. Their hard 
work and dedication has developed a collaborative and bipartisan bill 
of which we all can be proud. I hope it is a model for future pieces of 
legislation. It certainly should be a model for this entire Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the pending measure.
  Without maintaining our waterways and harbors the Nation's ability to 
meet the global challenges for trade and commerce will be severely 
restricted. The only way to protect our citizens and avoid falling 
behind global trade competition is to invest in our water resources and 
infrastructure by passing H.R. 3080 today.
  As I mentioned, this is not the bill that I would have written. But I 
would add that this is not the exact bill that Chairman Shuster would 
have written either had he acted alone. He chose instead to bring 
before the House a bill that received unanimous support in our 
Committee. As a result, many of the provisions in H.R. 3080 are likely 
to eventually feel the weight of law instead of serving as just another 
exercise in rhetoric on the House floor.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources, someone who has great responsibility in crafting this 
legislation.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, now is the time for the Congress to reengage 
in the development of the Nation's water resources and play a bigger 
role in prioritizing projects and activities carried out by the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  Congress cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility in 
determining what projects should go forward and should reassert its 
constitutional authority.
  H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, is 
one of the most policy- and reform-focused pieces of legislation 
related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  H.R. 3080 is a bipartisan bill that was developed by working across 
the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing in America's future.
  H.R. 3080 contains no earmarks, cuts Federal red tape, streamlines 
the project delivery process, and strengthens our water transportation 
networks to promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth.
  H.R. 3080 is a jobs bill. $1.4 trillion worth of goods associated 
with 30 million jobs in international trade are impacted. Thousands of 
jobs are created and supported by the construction and maintenance of 
our waterways and locks and dams.
  This bill is fiscally responsible by more than fully offsetting new 
project authorizations with deauthorizations of old, inactive projects.
  This bill establishes a path forward for enacting a WRRDA bill every 
2 years without conceding any congressional authority to the executive 
branch.
  This committee held numerous listening sessions, public roundtables, 
and official hearings in developing the legislation. We have heard from 
the public, industry, stakeholders, and from our colleagues in Congress 
while developing this legislation and have incorporated their ideas 
into H.R. 3080.
  Just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not 
necessarily mean it is a better project. In fact, a large, costly 
project with so many add-ons that never gets funded is a benefit to no 
one.
  In what used to take the Army Corps 3 to 5 years to do a study has 
now become the norm for the Corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years to 
produce a study. It is no wonder it is taking so much time, since the 
Corps has to review, in detail, many different alternatives.
  In one case, a Chief's Report was sent to the Congress last year. The 
study for the project was authorized in 1999. The original purpose of 
the project was for navigation improvements. But when the Chief's 
Report was delivered to the Congress last year, the total project cost 
was $650 million, but only $250 million was for the actual construction 
of the navigation improvements. The rest of the project costs, almost 
$400 million, are attributed to environmental enhancements, not just 
environmental mitigation.
  In another case, the Corps of Engineers delivered to Congress a 
Chief's Report for which there is no non-Federal cost-share partner. 
That study took 7 years to develop, but since there is no non-Federal 
sponsor, why should Congress authorize the project? The funding spent 
on that study could have been spent more wisely on projects where there 
are non-Federal sponsors and local support.
  Too often, we allow Federal agencies, including the Army Corps of 
Engineers, to literally study these projects to death. H.R. 3080 
accelerates the Corps of Engineers study delivery process by limiting 
studies to 3 years and $3 million. In addition, we accelerate the study 
delivery process by requiring concurrent reviews at the district-, 
division-, and headquarters-level personnel.
  Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies and 
for the length of time it takes to carry them out. The Corps reviews 
far too many alternatives and then sends to Congress a project request 
that far exceeds, in scope and costs, what was initially intended.
  Too often, non-Federal interests and their contributions are forced 
to sit on the sidelines while our international competitors race past 
us. H.R. 3080 empowers non-Federal interests and ensures projects will 
be completed faster and cheaper with local support.
  Too often, resources from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are 
diverted to other activities unrelated to keeping the U.S. ports 
competitive in a global marketplace. H.R. 3080 creates the incentive to 
spend the funds for their intended purpose in a manner that all ports 
agree upon.
  One of the most important elements of this legislation is that it 
ensures the legislative branch engages in the Water Resources 
Development Act process at least once every Congress.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. GIBBS. I appreciate Messrs. Shuster, Rahall, and Bishop's 
bipartisan support. By working together, we can accomplish solid goals 
to get this done.
  I urge the reforms pass.
  I want to thank my subcommittee staff--Geoff Bowman, John Anderson, 
Jon Pallow--and my personal staff--Corry Marshall and Joe Price--for 
their efforts.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud and happy to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), our superb, super-
superb ranking member.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2013. This critical, bipartisan legislation allows 
Congress to renew its commitment to our Nation's water infrastructure 
for the first time since 2007.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster and 
Chairman Gibbs for the open and inclusive process with which the 
committee drafted WRRDA. I would also like to express my gratitude to 
the chairman and to Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership in 
returning the

[[Page H6710]]

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to its long-standing 
traditions of bipartisanship and collaboration.
  H.R. 3080 is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill that either side 
of the aisle would have drafted on its own. However, it represents a 
bipartisan effort based on valuable input from Members and 
stakeholders, constructive negotiation, and mutual respect. This ought 
to serve as a model for how this Congress conducts the American 
people's business.
  This bill is about many things, but most importantly, it is about job 
creation, not just good construction jobs that will come with the 
authorization of Chief's Reports contained in the bill, but also the 
jobs that rely on a robust network of large and small ports and inland 
waterways to move goods throughout the United States.
  H.R. 3080 also provides some relief from the challenges facing the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by setting targets so that a greater 
amount of fund proceeds are used for their intended purposes--harbor 
maintenance. The bill also provides for the maintenance of our Nation's 
small ports.
  However, we Members must be vigilant that the changes proposed in 
this bill do not further erode the ability of the Corps to carry out 
construction projects, such as those necessary to meet the post-Panamax 
vessels that will come once the Panama Canal expansion is complete.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at the progress we have made together on 
improving water infrastructure in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 20\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia has 25 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), vice chairman of the full 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and also the chair of 
the 21st Century Freight Transportation.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I first want to say that I 
rise in strong support of this bipartisan jobs and infrastructure 
legislation, and I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman 
Gibbs and Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop for working together to 
bring this very important bill to the floor today.
  This is one of the most fiscally responsible infrastructure bills 
that this Congress has ever seen. I think it is fair to say that in my 
25 years of service in this body that I have one of the most fiscally 
conservative voting records possible, so I am proud to support this 
type of legislation.

                              {time}  1445

  Every day tons of goods are transported across our waterways. Without 
basic infrastructure in place, much of these goods would be transported 
on our already overly congested highways. According to the National 
Waterways Foundation, a 15-barge tow can transport the same amount of 
goods as 1,050 tractor-trailer trucks. Moving goods on the water is 
also the most fuel efficient and environmentally sound method of 
transportation.
  In addition, this legislation streamlines project delivery, 
potentially saving the Federal Government and our taxpayers billions of 
dollars.
  While I would never support a project that is harmful to the 
environment, I do not think we should drag these projects out for years 
and years and spend megamillions of dollars on studies and drive up 
these costs to ridiculous levels. This legislation sets hard timelines 
and caps costs for studies that have to be completed for infrastructure 
projects.
  Because H.R. 3080 removes so much red tape and bureaucracy, it helps 
us complete these projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. This 
bill, as I said, is a fiscally responsible one. Not only does it not 
contain any earmarks, as has been mentioned, it deauthorizes $12 
billion worth of inactive projects that are no longer needed or 
feasible, which offsets all of the new authorizations made in this 
legislation.
  This bill also authorizes the important flood control projects that 
we need to prevent natural disasters. We saw what can happen when 
Katrina hit New Orleans a few years ago. That disaster caused an 
estimated $150 billion in damage, according to USA Today. We need to 
make smart investments today so we are not foolishly spending billions 
of dollars after a disaster strikes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very conservative and reasonable 
legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on our freight 
panel.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect, but it is a 
good step forward. I have concerns about the environmental streamlining 
sections. There are commonsense things we could do to advance projects 
more efficiently, but limiting public input is not one of them. The 
best way to expedite projects is to ensure there is agreement among 
stakeholders and to identify potential problems early, which is one of 
the main benefits of the NEPA process. The real obstacle is lack of 
adequate funding.
  I am pleased the bill increases the amount that can be spent out of 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and expands the eligibility for use 
of these funds.
  The bill also requires the Corps to make specific project 
recommendations as part of the study funded in the Sandy supplemental 
appropriations bill on reducing the risk of flood and storm damage 
along the North Atlantic coast. This is an important provision, but we 
should do much more.
  We are still not doing enough to prepare for climate change, rising 
sea levels, and extreme weather events. Whether or not you believe 
these events are linked to global warming, the fact is that extreme 
weather events are happening more often, and we would be fools not to 
respond to that fact. It has been 7 years since Congress last passed a 
WRDA bill. We are long overdue in reauthorizing these critical 
infrastructure projects.
  This bill is a bipartisan compromise, and I will support it with the 
hope that we can improve it as it moves through the process.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3080. This 
legislation is the only fiscally responsible and reform-focused water 
resources and development bill to ever be considered by this House. 
This bill, as the chairman has pointed out, contains no earmarks, 
places us on a path of a more limited role for the Federal Government 
in water infrastructure development, and lays the groundwork for 
private sector and State level oversight.
  H.R. 3080 promotes public-private partnerships and expands the 
ability of the private sector to contribute necessary funds to expedite 
and move projects forward. It also places a strict time limit on the 
amount of time and money that the Federal Government is allowed to 
spend on feasibility studies. It took the Federal Government 10 years 
to complete a study on how to fix Jacksonville's Mile Point navigation 
problem and allow for greater cargo movement. That project is slated to 
create 3,500 jobs.
  The Port Everglades channel dredging study took 17 years and cost 
upwards of $10 million to complete. Project study delays like these are 
unacceptable, and have far-reaching negative economic consequences.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of H.R. 3080 and want to express my appreciation to the committee 
leadership, both the chairmen and ranking members of both the full 
committee and the subcommittee. As the senior Texan on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I applaud the chairmen and 
ranking members for their leadership in advancing this legislation to 
this point.
  While I ultimately support the passage of this bill, I am concerned 
about the streamlining provisions of this bill. If properly funded, 
necessary projects

[[Page H6711]]

can be completed with appropriate environmental considerations and 
public participation. I am discouraged that the environmental 
protections are being weakened under this guise.
  Within this bill, I supported language to increase commercial 
navigation capabilities for the Texas ports and waterways. With the 
expansion of the Panama Canal, these improvements would allow for an 
increased role in global trade and interstate commerce.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2013. As the Senior Texan on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and cosponsor of this 
legislation, I am glad to once again be addressing water resources 
legislation on the House Floor. Such legislation has not been passed by 
this esteemed Body since 2007, when I served as Chairwoman of the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee that helped craft and usher the 
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 into law over a 
presidential veto. With this background, I understand the challenge of 
composing and advancing such legislation to this point. I applaud the 
leadership demonstrated by the Chairman and Ranking Members of both the 
Full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee for bringing this bill to the 
Floor today.
  While I ultimately support the passage of this legislation, I am 
concerned about the weakening of environmental protections and the 
ability of the public to participate in that process as a result of the 
streamlining provisions of this bill. The Army Corps of Engineers 
project construction backlog and astronomical figure it carries 
demonstrates that project efficiency must be improved. I understand the 
desire to expedite Army Corps of Engineers study and project 
completions, yet do not believe that the environmental safeguards such 
as the National Environmental Policy Act are the cause of those delays. 
If properly funded, necessary projects can be completed with 
appropriate environmental considerations. I am discouraged that 
environmental protections are being weakened under this guise.
  As Co-Chair of the Texas Maritime Caucus, I have supported language 
in this bill to increase commercial navigation capabilities for Texas' 
ports and waterways. I am excited about Texas' ports and the role that 
they play in cultivating the Texas economy, the National economy, and 
the global economy. With expansive coastlines, established intermodal 
infrastructure, and strategically beneficial location, maritime 
commerce has a bright future in Texas. Moreover, the American economy 
has a brighter future because of Texas' transportation investments and 
capabilities.
  I am glad to have worked in a bipartisan fashion to include language 
in this legislation for an assessment of the Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway. This assessment will be a valuable tool for the State of 
Texas to determine its current and future operation and maintenance 
needs for navigation improvements to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 
allowing it to be utilized more efficiently and productively in 
maritime commerce.
  Further, I supported the inclusion of projects at the Sabine-Neches 
Waterway, Texas and at Freeport Harbor, Texas--both of which are 
authorized in this legislation. The Sabine-Neches Waterway project will 
contribute to the economic effectiveness of commercial navigation in a 
system of navigation channels in the Sabine-Neches estuary of Texas and 
Louisiana. The Freeport Harbor project provides for a deep-draft 
waterway from the Gulf of Mexico to the City of Freeport through the 
original mouth of the Brazos River. It will contribute to the economic 
efficiency of commercial navigation in the region and will 
significantly improve Freeport Harbor's ability to compete in 
international maritime commerce.
  These projects will help bring nearly a billion dollars of Federal 
funds to Texas' ports and waterways. In turn, these improvements will 
be a boon for Texas' economy and the National economy. Further, with 
the expansion of the Panama Canal, these improvements will allow Texas' 
ports to play an increased role in the global economy. The increased 
economic benefit and movement of goods will be felt throughout Texas, 
including in my home district in Dallas, home to two Class One rail 
lines, an intermodal facility, numerous interstate highways, and a 
strong consumer marketplace.
  It is my hope that the passage of this legislation will revive the 
biannual WRDA authorization schedule. Monitoring the streamlining 
provisions of this bill, as well as assessing the expenditures of the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be ripe for reconsideration during 
the next Congress--as will many other issues. It is my belief that the 
overall objectives and purposes of water resources legislation are 
vital to America and should be considered on a biannual basis. The 
importance of this bill should not be lost in politics.
  In closing, I want to once again thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Members of both the Full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee for their 
leadership in advancing this legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our committee chair, 
Mr. Shuster, and the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, from my state of West 
Virginia. I rise in very strong support of the Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act, or WRRDA.
  West Virginia is in the Ohio River Basin, where coal makes up 59 
percent of the shipped tonnage. Waterways and ports support 9,900 local 
jobs and directly contribute $1.6 billion to the West Virginia economy. 
Domestic power plants rely on our rivers to maintain a steady supply of 
coal, and our country's coal exports have nearly doubled in the last 4 
years. Efficient and effective water transportation has never been more 
important to West Virginia's economy. Projects like the Marmet Lock and 
Dam in my district demonstrate the importance of these projects.
  I am especially pleased that this WRRDA bill takes steps to preserve 
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund so we can reduce the $8 billion backlog 
of construction projects on our rivers. This will create jobs and spur 
growth.
  WRRDA's passage today will be a significant victory for West Virginia 
jobs, for American jobs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
for this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3080, 
and I thank the chairmen and the ranking members on both the committee 
and subcommittee. I especially thank the chairmen and ranking members 
for supporting provisions requested that will help the State of 
California.
  Section 131 requires the Army Corps of Engineers to review and report 
on improving water supply options at Corps dams in arid regions such as 
California.
  Section 135 allows the Corps to use Federal funds to prevent and 
manage aquatic invasive species on Corps projects, including quagga 
mussels, shore crab, and foreign algae, not only a major California 
problem but a problem for many rivers and dams. They are very costly. 
This section will allow the Corps to assist our local agencies in 
combating invasive species.
  Section 125 requires the Corps to reissue regulations regarding levee 
vegetation and incorporate regional characteristics and levee 
performance.
  Some of the water agencies are complaining that the Corps may be a 
little heavyhanded, not looking at good science when requiring removal 
of trees and bushes from our levees, and it would require the Corps to 
work with local agencies to solve the problem in a regionally 
appropriate and scientifically proven way.
  Section 106 and 109 provide more flexibility for local agencies to 
sponsor Corps projects. That means accept funding.
  Section 201 allows for expanded use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
Fund.
  We are asking for an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from South Carolina, Governor Sanford.
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. I thank him and the other members 
of the committee for their work on this important bill, because it is 
certainly about cost. I mean, you can't do anything efficiently if you 
have got a 15-year permitting process.
  It is certainly about competition. We are in a competition for jobs, 
capital, and way of life, and our ability to get product in and out 
depends on a vital and healthy infrastructure system. Ports like 
Charleston ultimately are not State ports, not regional ports, but 
ultimately national ports given how important, for instance, port depth 
will be.
  But I think ultimately there is a much bigger consideration, which is 
a constitutional question on the balance of power. To me, what this 
bill fundamentally is about is reclaiming some

[[Page H6712]]

authority that has been ceded to the executive branch that is 
fundamental to the overall balance of power that is so important to 
conservatives across this Congress, or across this Nation. Ultimately, 
that consideration, I think, employs even far greater weight than the 
cost of infrastructure and components that are important as well.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a valued member of our Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support and as a cosponsor of WRRDA. This bill 
shows that the T&I Committee is working together, finding areas of 
agreement, building consensus, and, yes, compromising in order to get 
things done for the American people. I thank Chairman Shuster and 
Ranking Member Rahall for demonstrating how Congress should operate in 
constructing a bill that rebuilds America and creates jobs.
  Earlier this year, Congressman Whitfield and I issued H.R. 1149 to 
fix our inland waterways, and WRRDA incorporates a number of WAVE 4 
provisions, including project delivery process reforms, project 
prioritization, development of a 20-year capital investment plan, and 
Olmsted project reform.
  In addition, this bill contains important provisions to stop the 
movement of Asian carp to the Great Lakes, and I urge support of 
Representative McCollum's amendment that I am cosponsoring which would 
strengthen these provisions.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I'd like to begin by commending Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs and 
Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop for their efforts on H.R. 3080, the 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA). As a member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and as a co-
sponsor, I rise in support of this bi-partisan legislation.
  It's important to recognize that in the current political climate, 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is working together 
to find areas of agreement, build consensus, and yes, compromise in 
order to get things done on behalf of the American people.
  This is exactly what they sent us here to do; it's what they expect 
this Congress to do.
  Today's Big Four agreement exemplifies this commitment to working 
together. And it is indicative of Chairman Shuster's and Ranking Member 
Rahall's leadership style on the Committee. I'm hopeful that we will 
continue to work in a bi-partisan manner as we turn to the rail and 
highways & transit reauthorizations in the future.
  I'd like to thank the Big Four for working with me to include several 
important provisions in this legislation, including language to 
deauthorize Dime Pier in Chicago, IL and deauthorize Lucas-Berg Pit in 
Worth, IL.
  Dime Pier, which is located just south of Navy Pier in Chicago, is 
almost 100 years old and is no longer used for the purposes of 
navigation. WRRDA would formally deauthorize the pier, effectively 
allowing the City to redevelop that area of the lakefront.
  Lucas-Berg Pit is a former gravel pit, located in my district, 
acquired by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 
Chicago and designated by the Army Corps in the 1970s as a site for the 
placement of dredged materials from the Cal-Sag Channel. For a variety 
of reasons, including its proximity to the community, the site simply 
isn't suitable for the placement of these materials. WRRDA recognizes 
this reality and deauthorizes the use of the site.
  I'm also pleased that WRRDA contains a number of provisions included 
in H.R. 1149, the Waterways Are Vital for the Economy, Energy, 
Efficiency, and Environment Act of 2013 (WAVE4), which Mr. Whitfield 
and I introduced earlier this year.
  In particular, Title II of WRRDA includes project delivery process 
reforms, project prioritization, the development of a 20-year Corps 
capital investment plan with the Inland Waterways Users Board, and a 
modification to the cost sharing requirement on the Olmsted Lock and 
Dam project--items all addressed by WAVE4.
  The Olmsted Lock and Dam cost sharing modification provision, Section 
216 of the bill, is especially important. Unfortunately, Olmsted is 
significantly over budget and behind schedule, currently consuming most 
of the revenue out of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. This has 
prevented virtually any other major project in the system from moving 
forward. Section 216 of the bill increases the federal share of the 
project, thus allowing more revenue in the Trust Fund to flow to other 
projects while Olmsted moves to completion.
  I would also like to thank Ms. McCollum for offering an amendment--
which I am cosponsoring--to prevent the spread of Asian carp. The Great 
Lakes provide an estimated 7 billion dollars of fishing activity to the 
region each year, activity that would be damaged by the spread of Asian 
carp. We must take immediate action to preserve the Great Lakes 
environment and all of the economic activity--from fishing and 
recreation to shipping and transportation--that helps make the Midwest 
economy strong. Under this amendment, federal agencies would partner 
with state and local governments to provide expertise and advice on 
best practices for eliminating Asian carp through activities like 
contract fishing and pesticide application.
  While this bill is critically important, like all legislation it is 
not perfect. For example, one important provision currently not 
included in the legislation is the increased revenue necessary for the 
Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Given the legitimate needs and the 
condition of the network, industry is supportive of a user-fee 
increase. My legislation, WAVE 4, proposes a 6 cents-per-gallon 
increase, and I am hopeful Congress can address this issue in the 
coming months.
  I would like to close by again thanking Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs 
and Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop for their hard work on WRRDA this 
year. This bill is based on compromise and collaboration, and 
accordingly I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Shuster 
and Chairman Gibbs and Mr. Rahall and Mr. Bishop for bringing this 
important legislation to the floor, and I also want to thank their 
staff.
  This innovative legislation is vitally important to the economic 
well-being of our country because we have to have a strong inland 
waterway system in order to be competitive in the global marketplace.
  Setting a priority for inland waterway projects, reforming the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers' project delivery methods, and freeing up money 
in the Inland Waterway Trust Fund for these projects is vitally 
important, and that is what this legislation does.
  I also want to thank the committee for including some of the WAVE 4 
language used to improve the inland waterway system. That bill was 
introduced in the House and in the Senate. Some of the provisions are 
in here.
  I also want to thank the committee for including language supporting 
our Nation's small ports and harbors; also for their commitment to 
repair the aging levees that shield many of our local communities from 
devastating floods, hurricanes, and other disasters. I also want to 
thank the committee for making sure that our freedom to fish is 
protected.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this bill is extremely important, and I 
urge support of the bill.
  There is much in it to like; there are a few things that I think we 
ought to tweak as we move along. The levee vegetation issue is 
addressed. It should be modified slightly. There will be an effort to 
do that later.
  The crediting issue is still out and about. It should be modified. It 
is extremely important to allow projects to move forward with local 
money, so I urge some modification in that.
  Ports are absolutely critically important. There is great progress 
made in this and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund being used for its 
intended purpose. I commend all involved in that.
  The Chief's Report issue has been significantly improved. I want to 
thank the chairman and others for bringing back to this Congress the 
power that the Constitution gives it. The Chief's Report issue is 
there. I would recommend that we modify it slightly to give a little 
bit more leeway on when and where a Chief's Report is.
  All in all, it is a great bill. Congratulations, and thanks to all 
who were involved in writing it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this water 
resources bill, and I commend the chairman of the full committee, the 
ranking

[[Page H6713]]

member, and the entire Transportation Committee for this bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a bill that is a step in the right 
direction. I represent Chattanooga, Tennessee. We have all heard of the 
Chattanooga Choo Choo, but there is another place called the 
Chickamauga Lock in Chattanooga. This bill basically does something 
that I have been working on so hard since I have been in Congress. It 
is a step in the right direction to finally work towards funding the 
Chickamauga Lock.
  What it does, basically, is it reforms the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund. This is a trust fund right now that is fundamentally broken. Why? 
Because what it does is it sends all of the money to one particular 
lock project and starves out all of the other lock projects in the 
system, including Chickamauga. This bill is a great step in the right 
direction because it basically works to fund it. In addition to that, 
it is a good bill because it restores, unlike the Senate bill, the 
power to the Congress, in determining the funding of these locks.
  Let me end by saying this. Our waterways transportation fund is 
critically important to this Nation, not as Democrats and Republicans, 
but as Americans. I know in my home city of Chattanooga, this lock, 
which is stopped in construction, needs to have construction started 
again. These are American jobs. These are American exports. These are 
American goods. This is a bill that is a step in the right direction 
for a great America.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), who has worked very hard on 
this legislation and does a superb job of representing her ports in 
southern Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this 
bill, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking members of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for extraordinary 
leadership in bringing this bipartisan and very important bill to the 
floor.
  Transportation moves our economy, and our waterways play a vital 
role. This bill is about jobs for America, and as a Floridian, I am 
pleased to support this legislation that promotes our ports and 
protects our most precious wetlands, the Everglades.
  Today's proposal will allow Florida's east coast ports in Miami, Fort 
Lauderdale, and Jacksonville to advance in preparation for the widening 
of the Panama Canal. Accommodation of larger and heavier loaded post-
Panamax freight ships is expected to create tens of thousands of jobs 
with a multibillion-dollar impact to Florida's economy.
  Today's bill also authorizes important projects that help restore 
Florida's most important watershed, the Everglades, with a four-to-one 
return on every dollar spent.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. This restoration means improving water 
quality for millions of people, protecting our natural habitat, 
increasing property values, expanding recreational opportunities, and 
boosting tourism for Florida. As this bill progresses, I hope we can 
work together to extend the period of authorization, as in years past.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bipartisan bill. It is good for 
Florida, and it is good for our country. I urge its support.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 13\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013.
  Among many other vital water projects in Texas, this bill authorizes 
funding for the deepening of the Sabine-Neches, where 100 million tons 
of cargo transit annually. The Sabine-Neches Waterway is a major 
economic contributor to both Texas and America, providing $106 billion 
in revenue for our Nation's economy.
  America's aging infrastructure is a threat to a healthy national 
economy. Thirteen million jobs rely on water infrastructure, and it is 
up to Congress to ensure that America's ports, waterways, and water 
systems remain the very best in the world.
  I applaud Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their 
diligence, and also my colleagues on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for their tremendous work.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and thank her for her 
tremendous input and help on this legislation as we developed the bill.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 2013 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
  Our Nation's infrastructure is critical to a thriving economy. In 
Florida alone, civil works projects improve navigation at our many 
ports, assist with flood control, restore the Everglades ecosystem, and 
help protect our pristine beaches, which are central to our $65-
billion-a-year tourism industry. Yet Congress has, unfortunately, 
passed only one WRRDA bill in the last 13 years, so this legislation is 
certainly long overdue and much needed. I am grateful for the 
committee's leadership in championing this effort.
  WRDA 2000 launched the visionary Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan, or CERP. This 30-year Federal-State partnership is the largest 
environmental restoration project in our Nation's history. After much 
delay, projects are now underway. This bill authorizes four additional 
much-needed components.
  One of those is the Broward Water Preserve, located in my 
congressional district. This project will help capture, store, and 
distribute surface water runoff from the Everglades and assist with 
flood protection and groundwater recharge.
  I am also pleased the manager's amendment will allow non-Federal 
sponsors to prefund projects prior to authorization, and I appreciate 
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall's flexibility that this 
amendment affords my community. This will assist Port Everglades, a 
major economic engine in south Florida.
  Port Everglades generates nearly $26 billion a year in economic 
activity, but needs to be deepened from 42 feet to 48 feet to allow it 
to be competitive in attracting deeper draft cargo ships in the post-
Panama Canal expansion market.
  The Army Corps, after considerable urging from the Florida 
delegation, is close to completing a long-delayed dredge study to make 
this happen. Despite years of intense efforts, the final study is not 
yet ready for authorization by this bill.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for 
their commitment to returning to a more regular WRRDA process. We 
simply cannot wait another 6 or 7 years to authorize the next step of 
public infrastructure projects. We need to start the next WRRDA bill in 
a timely fashion.
  In Florida alone, there are four critical projects almost ready for 
authorization, including Port Everglades, two other Florida ports 
projects, and the Central Everglades Planning Project. All four of 
these initiatives are critical to our State and should not have to wait 
many years to receive authorization simply because of either Congress' 
or the Army Corps' delay.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill that will focus 
on our ability to create jobs and make sure we can move our economy 
forward.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013.
  I am proud to cosponsor this bill. Kentucky's Fourth District is home 
to 276 miles of the Ohio River and three locks and dams. As such, we 
are willing hosts to millions of tons of interstate commerce.
  Pursuant to our Constitution, there is a Federal role in 
transportation and infrastructure. Transportation is one of the few 
things that Congress actually should spend money on. In fact,

[[Page H6714]]

the constitutionality of this issue was settled two centuries ago 
during our Nation's infancy, in 1824, with the landmark Supreme Court 
decision ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden. A congressional precedent for 
maintaining national infrastructure was established with the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of that same year. As long as our country has been in 
existence, transportation has been a priority, especially waterborne 
transportation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Chaka Fattah, a very powerful member of the House 
Appropriations Committee.
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I want 
to first thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Tim Bishop 
for their hard work. The committee has developed a product that is 
worthy of House support, and I rise in support of it.
  We are almost at the 80th anniversary of the Mississippi River 
Control Council. We have seen a lot of progress in my part of the 
country in terms of waterways. I like the work that the committee has 
done on the Harbor Maintenance Fund.
  I serve on the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, as the 
ranking member has indicated. The Army Corps has taken some hits on 
this matter. Really, it is the responsibility of Congress to put us in 
a position to move forward. Some of the delays that have been 
occasioned by the environmental assessment have been much too long, and 
I think that the committee's efforts to shorten that is good. I have 
some concerns about limitations on dollars, but I know that, as this 
bill goes forward, it will be perfected even more.
  So I rise in support, and I hope that many Members of the House will 
find it within their purview to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 30 seconds to 
the majority leader of the House, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman from Pennsylvania for 
his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor as I rise in support 
of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013.
  Mr. Chair, our economy remains weak, and many working families are 
struggling. Many are having a hard time paying their bills, and others 
are struggling to find work. The American people deserve an efficient, 
effective, and accountable government that is focused on finding 
bipartisan solutions that will reignite our economy so those who are 
looking for a job are able to find one. The legislation before us today 
will provide a big step in that direction.
  This is a fiscally responsible bill that will create jobs and ensure 
that America remains competitive in the global economy. It will 
encourage investing in our national water transportation networks, 
while cutting red tape and streamlining the infrastructure project 
delivery process.
  Our waterways and ports support over $1.4 trillion worth of goods 
each year, and over the next few decades our trade volume is expected 
to grow exponentially. Every State in this country and millions of 
hardworking American families depend on the many parts of our waterway 
infrastructure to be strong economic arteries.
  Other countries around the world have been investing in their 
commercial infrastructure to improve their standing in the global 
marketplace and so that they can gain a competitive edge. As a result, 
improving and strengthening our ports and inland waterways is not just 
an economic desire, it is an economic necessity.
  This bill authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to develop, 
maintain, and build important development projects, streamlines 
redundant environmental reviews, and establishes a transparent process 
for future activities with strong congressional oversight--and it does 
so without any earmarks. This is a commonsense bill that should garner 
bipartisan support because it will help revitalize our waterways, our 
ports, and our economy. The American people are counting on their 
elected leaders to restore trust in our government and faith in our 
economy, and this bill is an important part of achieving that goal.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Shuster, and the rest of the members on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure on both sides of the aisle for their 
hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the House to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is how Congress ought to work with one 
another, all 435 of us. I don't mean that 435 are going to vote for the 
bill, but we have worked together on this bill.
  And I want to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Shuster, whose father 
would be proud of him and would have acted in the same way, working 
together to make things happen for America in a bipartisan way. So I 
congratulate Mr. Shuster, Congressman Shuster, brother Shuster.
  I also want to congratulate Nick Joe Rahall from West Virginia, who 
has been such an expert on the areas of building America and growing 
our economy.

                              {time}  1515

  I want to thank also Dr. Tim Bishop, Tim Bishop from Long Island, who 
has worked so hard on this particular piece of legislation.
  As I have said many times, Mr. Chairman, from this floor, Congress 
has a responsibility to take bipartisan action to boost our economic 
competitiveness in a way that will create jobs. This bill has the 
potential and, in my opinion, will do exactly that.
  While the bill is not perfect--none of them are--by investing in our 
Nation's infrastructure, including ports and waterways, as this bill 
does, we can lay the groundwork for a more efficient delivery system 
for American-made products to reach markets in our country and 
overseas.
  Promoting and increasing U.S. exports is a core component of the 
House Democrats and, I might say, a bipartisan Make It in America plan 
for jobs and competitiveness.
  I hope Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan 
way, as Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall have done with this 
bill, to move additional pieces of Make It in America legislation to 
the floor so we can further promote exports, pursue a national 
manufacturing strategy, encourage the return of innovation and jobs 
from overseas, and secure a skilled workforce for the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill today for what it does to 
create jobs and improve our waterborne transportation; but I hope that, 
as the House and Senate develop a final bill, the conferees will look 
closely at the environmental review provisions to make certain that we 
can strike an appropriate balance between expediting projects, while 
understanding their impact on the environment.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
work with us to make sure that our efforts to provide certainty account 
for the size and complexity of some WRRDA projects.
  If we can continue to act in a bipartisan way, as I know Mr. Shuster 
and Mr. Rahall will do, we can send a message that Congress is ready to 
move forward and help more of our people make it in America.
  I hope we can tap into the spirit of cooperation by scheduling 
consideration of a comprehensive immigration reform legislation which, 
like this bill, has support from both sides of the aisle, from 
business, from labor, from religions groups, and from leading non-
profits. That is a challenge I think that we can meet this year.
  Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), who has worked hard in a focused and bipartisan way to bring 
this day to fruition, and I congratulate him.
  I thank Mr. Rahall, my good friend, who has worked so diligently over 
so many years to make sure that people can make it in America, and that 
America invests in itself.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the whip for his kind words.

[[Page H6715]]

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).
  Mr. HANNA. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act.
  I am privileged to represent Rome, New York, where nearly 2 centuries 
ago, our Nation embarked on its first major transportation project, the 
Erie Canal.
  This bill before us creates jobs by updating and reauthorizing water 
infrastructure projects. It reforms the outdated process that allows 
projects to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  This legislation cuts $12 billion from a backlog of outdated 
projects. It is fiscally responsible and doesn't include a single 
earmark, a much-needed departure from past water resources development 
bills.
  By passing WRRDA, we facilitate trade, keep products moving across 
America, and create jobs in our communities. Congress has an 
opportunity before it today to help America do what it does best: 
compete. We should seize it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
WRRDA bill. The bill provides the much-needed oversight of the Army 
Corps of Engineers, streamlines the environmental review process, and 
consolidates duplicative analyses of projects that have delayed 
important infrastructure improvements, sometimes for as long as 15 
years. These types of delays have cost our economy billions of dollars 
and have put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
  I am also pleased that this bill will provide additional funding for 
smaller ports, like in Mount Vernon, Indiana. The Mount Vernon Port has 
several businesses headquartered on its property and is vitally 
important to the economy of southwest Indiana. A functioning water 
transportation system is critical for their success now and in the 
future.
  I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, 
Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bishop for 
working together on this important piece of legislation that makes 
government work better for our taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster.
  I rise today as well in support of this bill because it is a jobs 
bill, and it is not just a jobs bill because the government spends 
money to create jobs. It is a jobs bill because it builds 
infrastructure that we need in this country to remain competitive and 
get our goods to market throughout the world.
  Having grown up in Corpus Christi, Texas, served by the Port of 
Corpus Christi, a deepwater port on the Intracoastal Waterway, I know 
the needs and how important it is to have ports and waterways that are 
here to serve our Nation.
  That is one of the reasons I am working with my colleague from across 
the aisle, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and a variety of other Texas Members 
to support the Texas Port Conference to raise awareness of how critical 
ports and waterways are to the jobs throughout this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to get behind this jobs bill to get America back 
to work.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my 
thanks to Chairman Shuster and also to Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs. 
They have done a wonderful job with this bill. It is a bipartisan bill.
  I rise today as a cosponsor and a proud supporter of WRRDA. I like to 
actually call it WRRDA, since we have got the extra R. Reform matters; 
and in this bill it shows that we can move things forward and we can 
make a difference.
  But I have got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is good to be back here 
governing this week and focusing on commonsense policies like this one 
here today.
  Why is WRRDA critical?
  Because our waterways provide a cost-effective, fuel-efficient way to 
move our goods, and we must maintain and support U.S. infrastructure.
  I come from a district that borders the Mississippi and is blessed 
with productive farmland; 81 percent of our U.S. ag exports are 
waterborne, and with trade expected to double by 2021, we must rebuild 
our capacity.
  With a $60 billion water project backlog, I believe this program 
provides a solution to move projects forward; and, again, I am proud to 
support and cosponsor this bill. I look forward to helping this 
committee advance this important legislation through this process and 
have this bill signed into law by the President.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, may I have the time remaining on both 
sides, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his leadership in bringing the WRRDA 
bill to the floor.
  I wanted to talk specifically about the Morganza to the Gulf project. 
I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been down to Terrebonne and 
Lafourche Parish and seen this project that is so vital, not only for 
hurricane protection, but also for protecting the infrastructure that 
produces 30 percent of our Nation's oil and gas, a lot of the energy 
infrastructure for our country.
  I know the process that has been set up in this bill allows for 
Chief's Reports, once they move forward, to then go to the committee 
for hearing. The Chief's Report for this project wasn't completed until 
after the last hearing that your committee had.
  I just wanted to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to see if there was going to be another committee hearing 
in the near future to take up new projects that have gotten Chief's 
Reports since that time, and to see if Morganza to the Gulf would be 
one of the projects that we could have on that list.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would like to engage in a colloquy, but first, I yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) for the purpose 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to stress that the 
Morganza to the Gulf project is of immense importance to Louisiana's 
coastal restoration and protection efforts. It protects both fragile 
wetlands from hurricane surge and also is environmentally sound.
  The Corps estimates it will prevent an estimated $1 billion in flood-
related damages annually and protect over 53,000 structures. The Corps 
supports this project. Their own analysis indicates it will provide 
over $300 million in annual economic benefit.
  It has been under study for the last two decades, was previously 
authorized in 2000 and 2007; and as Mr. Scalise notes, recently a 
completed Chief's Report was filed which stated the project is 
economically justified, environmentally sound and acceptable, and of 
sound engineering.
  That said, there is this problem with the late filing of the Chief's 
Report. We do need this project authorized, and I ask that the 
legislation be passed and that it go to conference, where Mr. Scalise, 
Mr. Vitter, and I can all work with the chairman on this.
  I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to please hold these hearings 
and to review all projects that have received a Chief's Report.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I reserve my answer until I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) for a colloquy.

[[Page H6716]]

  The CHAIR. The gentlemen from Louisiana's time has expired.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  It is the exact situation for Boston. We have our Chief's Report. It 
was 2 weeks past the deadline, and I know that we have already spoken. 
I know that you are more than willing to help us do what we need to do, 
and I appreciate that. I am just here to say thank you.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) for 
the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, like everybody else here today, let me 
thank you for you leadership, not only on this bill, but on the overall 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is truly bipartisan.
  Secondly, I want to talk about the flood-control project impacting 
residents of my district that I have been working on for more than a 
decade.
  The Chief's Report is in: Orestimba Creek and San Joaquin River Basin 
near the city of Newman, located in my district. The Army Corps has 
officially endorsed the authorization of a plan for flood-risk 
management by constructing a levee along the city of Newman's 
northwestern perimeter known as the Chevron Levee.
  This project is a local partnership with the city of Newman and the 
County of Stanislaus and was initiated over a decade ago.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. Without construction of this levee, the people of Newman 
and the surrounding area will be at continual risk of flooding 
resulting from the overflow of Orestimba Creek. In association with the 
construction of the levee, the city of Newman will develop and 
implement an advance warning system.
  Mr. Chairman, included in this legislation we are considering today 
are several Chief's Reports that were received in time for the 
committee to review. I ask that your commitment to working with me to 
ensure the Chief's Report on Orestimba can be reviewed in this process.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman, and all of my colleagues. At this 
point I would like to respond to them, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  One of the key principles in developing WRRDA was increasing 
transparency, accountability and congressional oversight without ceding 
constitutional congressional responsibility to the executive branch.
  WRRDA authorizes 23 vital water resources projects that have 
completed the technical review by the Corps of Engineers and have been 
recommended by the Corps of Engineers.
  The committee held a full committee hearing to review all the pending 
Chief's Reports on June 5, 2013. My position has been clear. In order 
to maintain our constitutional congressional authority, Congress must 
review the Chief's Reports and specifically authorize them. We cannot 
hand over our authority to the administration and the Corps of 
Engineers to self-authorize.
  Chief's Reports have been finalized on the three reports that the 
gentleman has questioned and will be reviewed and considered by the 
committee as we continue to work through WRRDA.
  To provide strong congressional oversight, I commit to holding a 
hearing at the appropriate time in the process so that the very 
important issues are fully considered and have the opportunity to be 
addressed.
  With that, I thank the gentlemen for engaging in colloquy, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a very valuable member of our 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who has had tremendous 
input on this legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), 
the ranking member, and I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the chairman, as well as the subcommittee chair and ranking 
member.
  This is a recognition of the extraordinary importance of Federal 
investment in the infrastructure of the United States of America to 
engage in both domestic and international commerce. Sometimes that 
seems to be lacking around here. We seem to lump everything the Federal 
Government does into one big pot, and if you have got something you 
don't like, it kind of all gets associated together.
  This is a program that will be paid for out of the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund. Yes, there is a trust fund--sort of, kind of. It has got $7 
billion of theoretical balance in it. Unfortunately, our friends on the 
Appropriations Committee have seen fit to spend that $7 billion on 
other things because it is not a real trust fund.
  This legislation will begin to move us back toward utilizing those 
dedicated tax dollars in a dedicated way to maintaining the port and 
maritime infrastructure of the United States of America. I mean, here 
we are today, the Corps of Engineers has stopped dredging all small 
ports. I will tell you what; that is kind of a disaster in my State, 
and it is a disaster all around the country.
  I have one port where they have to take the boats out of the water 
onto a dock, and they are having trouble even now getting into that 
port at high tide to get the boats up onto the dock. I have other 
channel entrances that are shoaling and becoming dangerous. We are 
going to lose lives because the Corps doesn't have the money to do the 
work. We have jetties that are failing. If we fix them now, $10 
million, $15 million; if they go totally a failure, $50 million. Now, 
what sense does that make? But we are the United States of America. We 
can't afford to do the $10 to $15 million now. We have dams and locks 
that are failing. Are we going to wait until they fail or are we going 
to do the repairs now?
  This bill begins to move us in the direction of doing the repairs 
that are needed to better move commerce, people, and goods in this 
country. It is long, long overdue. And this bill has a 10 percent set-
aside which will be dedicated to the small ports.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This year, I had to get my State to partner with the 
Federal Government so the Federal Government would bring the four 
dredges with the Corps crews down to dredge my small ports, paid for by 
the State of Oregon. My State doesn't have a lot of money, but we 
partnered and we did that. There are innovative solutions that will 
work, too. But long term, we need the full investment. We need the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund dollars to be spent on needed harbor 
maintenance.
  As I mentioned earlier, I have a jetty at Coos Bay that is failing. 
We could fix it now for less or a lot more later. We have a jetty on 
the Columbia River that is failing. We can fix it now for less or a lot 
more later. That is repeated all around the country.
  And I am glad to see today the bipartisan work here and the agreement 
on the critical infrastructure role that only the Federal Government 
can play using funds raised federally on imports into the United States 
of America, a tariff that is placed on those that is dedicated to these 
functions. It is a paid-for program. We need it now.
  I congratulate Members for their good work.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Lankford), the distinguished Policy Committee chairman.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, i would like to bring up my support for 
this bill but also to be able to talk about the limited funds that the 
Corps of Engineers have. They have very limited funds because the 
United States of America obviously has limited funds, what we actually 
receive from the taxpayers.
  There is a study within this bill itself that is being proposed that 
looks at the low-priority projects and the things that are not within 
the core mission of

[[Page H6717]]

the Corps of Engineers. That study doesn't need to be a study to 
nowhere. It does need to be a study to look at the low-priority 
inventory and then just go in a drawer and say, Gosh, we have low-
priority inventory that we can't afford to maintain that sits closed 
and a local municipality can't open it. So we need to be able to 
establish the next step on that.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman.
  I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on it. I agree with him. We 
need to move forward to get these properties off the Corps' books, so 
we will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure we expedite 
this and make sure the Corps is eliminating things that are not 
important to their mission.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). This particular gentleman is a 
member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and has been a 
leader on that committee in discussions about financing this Nation's 
infrastructure, whether it be water port infrastructure or highway 
infrastructure, and I commend him for that leadership.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel like I am just a member of the T&I Alumni 
Association. I deeply cherish the time that I spent on the committee, 
on the Water Resources Subcommittee, and I appreciate the hard work 
that the committee has moving forward, trying to find some areas of 
agreement in a sometimes fractured House and focus on the big picture: 
What is going to put America in the best position going forward?
  I am going to have an amendment coming forward talking a little bit 
about some of the backlog and some of the NEPA efforts, but one of the 
fundamental problems we have now is that we are not providing the 
resources to move the projects forward. There is a backlog of $60 
billion, and there are opportunities here to add to it. The point we 
want to focus on is being able to deal meaningfully with it so we don't 
have projects that go stale, that are outmoded, that are past their 
shelf life.
  Another thing that I hope to be able to work with the committee on in 
the future deals with the principles and guidelines for the Corps that 
were established in 1983. This was a project of mine for years on the 
committee. We finally updated them, but they have been stalled by some 
hold, I think, through the appropriations process that have stymied 
them, so they are not going forward.
  These principles and guidelines, if they were adopted in 1983, were 
clearly in the process in the mid-seventies. We have learned a lot over 
the course of almost 40 years; and I am hopeful that we can focus on 
the big picture, get the resources that are necessary to do the job 
right and then be able to have the flexibility to make sure that the 
Corps has up-to-date tools to do its jobs better.
  I look forward to further debate. I appreciate the gentleman's 
courtesy and the hard work that the committee has done.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I am here to support H.R. 3080 and to 
compliment the ranking member and the chairman for the work they have 
done on this valuable bill. I support it because it creates jobs and 
deauthorizes $12 billion in backlogged projects that are outdated and 
do not have construction funds obligated.
  I do want to point out that there are some issues with the text of 
the bill that my constituents have brought to my attention. For 
example, one dam in the Second District of New Mexico is awaiting 
approval from the D.C. Corps of Engineers office but likely will not 
get approval until January, with a projected contract awarded in March 
2014. I have been assured by the chairman and committee staff that the 
deauthorization language will not target projects like this one, 
projects that are in a study, design, or reevaluation phase.
  I thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee for his efforts 
to pass this vital infrastructure bill and for ensuring that the cuts 
are targeted toward wasteful and unnecessary projects, not those that 
impact public safety and our economic well-being.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico and am committed 
to work with him.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus), a very valued member of our committee.
  Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of this 
important committee for their work on this bill, and I would also like 
to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson) for his leadership 
as part of this bill in addressing the enormous challenges that 
invasive species present to our country's waters.
  In southern Nevada--you think of that as a desert, but there is a lot 
of water there--the spread of the quagga mussels is a growing threat to 
Lake Mead, which contributes nearly $1 billion to the local economy and 
supplies 90 percent of southern Nevada's water supply. The spread of 
quagga mussels in this critical reservoir has led to expensive 
countermeasures by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is spending nearly 
$1 million a year to prevent quaggas from infiltrating the Boulder Dam 
intakes. The Southern Nevada Water Authority was also forced to 
redesign the water intake 3 project, which is currently underway, to 
prevent quagga mussels from growing there as well. If unchecked, the 
mussels can clog the intakes to prevent water from reaching the 
residents and the visitors to southern Nevada. Likewise, Lake Tahoe, 
which borders Nevada and California, is on the edge of waterways where 
quagga mussels have been found and are taking hold. Should quagga 
mussels establish colonies in Lake Tahoe, the annual impact would be 
over $22 million a year.
  The amendment that is part of this bill would direct the GAO to 
examine the current efforts to address the spread of invasives and to 
help develop a long-term strategy. So I would urge my colleagues to not 
only support the bill, but also the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, I want to thank Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs, 
and Ranking Members Rahall and Bishop for their hard work on this 
legislation. I also want to thank them for accepting the Nolan 
Amendment during Committee Markup that expands the use of the Noxious 
Weed program to cover aquatic invasives providing an additional tool to 
address the growing threat of invasive species to our environment and 
our economy. I want to thank my colleague from California, Mr. 
Thompson, for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to 
support our Amendment.
  The amendment itself is simple, but the underlying issue it addresses 
is complicated and critical because aquatic invasives impact 
communities across the country, including Las Vegas. In Southern Nevada 
we are facing enormous challenges with the spread of Quagga Mussels 
into our local waters, in particular, Lake Mead. Lake Mead is a crown 
jewel of the National Park Service system welcoming 8 million visitors 
every year, and contributing up to $1 billion dollars to the local and 
regional economy.
  In addition to the recreational opportunities from boating and 
fishing, Lake Mead is also essential to the vitality of Las Vegas and 
Southern Nevada, providing 90% of our water. The spread of Quagga 
mussels in this critical reservoir has led to expensive countermeasures 
by the Bureau of Reclamation, which is spending nearly $1 million a 
year to prevent Quaggas from infiltrating the Boulder Dam intakes. In 
addition to countermeasures to prevent mussel infestation in Las Vegas' 
water intakes number 1 and 2 in Lake Mead, the Southern Nevada Water 
Authority has had to change the design of the water intake 3 project, 
currently underway, to prevent Quagga colonies from growing there as 
well. If unchecked, the mussels can clog the intakes, preventing water 
from reaching residents and visitors in Southern Nevada.
  In addition to impacts in Southern Nevada, I am concerned about the 
mussels spreading to other parts of our country. Lake Tahoe, which 
borders Nevada and California, is on the edge of the waterways where 
Quagga mussels have taken hold. According to a 2009 Army Corps 
analysis, should Quaggas establish colonies in Lake Tahoe, the annual 
economic impact would be $22 million dollars.
  These are issues we cannot afford to ignore.
  Our amendment directs the GAO to examine the current state of efforts 
to address the

[[Page H6718]]

spread of invasives, and to develop a long-term strategy to address 
this growing concern.
  Again I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield Chairman 
Shuster an additional 2 minutes of my time for him to control.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as we conclude this debate, I want to once 
again commend Chairman Shuster, Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs, and our 
ranking member, Mr. Bishop of New York, for the tremendous effort that 
has been made to bring this legislation where it is today.
  It started out with Chairman Shuster's leadership early on in this 
Congress at the Member level. It spread to the staff level, and it has 
continued every day. It has been a transparent process and a process in 
which we have been in communication with one another. And as I said in 
the very beginning, I hope this will be a signal of how this committee 
will bring future pieces of legislation to the floor, and I just hope 
that it will be a signal to the entire Congress how we should be 
working closer together in a bipartisan fashion.
  This legislation has a wide array of supporters. I have a list here 
of some five pages of labor, industry, and business supporters that 
have written members of our committee in strong support of the pending 
legislation. They include: the American Coal Ash Association, the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce. Friends from labor, including carpenters, 
transportation trades, AFL-CIO, Laborers' International, and many other 
labor organizations have come together in support of this legislation.
  And as I summarize and conclude my comments, I want to quote the 
president of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, Mr. 
Ed Wytkind. He wrote members of our committee:

       Real investment in harbor maintenance is vital to the 
     health of an industry that supports 500,000 jobs, plays a 
     critical role in expanding U.S. exports, and is the gateway 
     to international trade and humanitarian aid. H.R. 3080 will 
     help improve our maritime infrastructure and keep pace with 
     our international competitors, and will also create thousands 
     of good-paying construction and maritime jobs during what 
     remains a slow economic recovery. I urge you to vote in favor 
     of this important legislation.

  I will conclude by again thanking Chairman Shuster for his superb 
leadership and join with all my colleagues in urging passage of this 
vital piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  I also thank members from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Rahall, 
Mr. Bishop of New York, and their staff for all their hard work and for 
working together to produce a bipartisan bill, a bill that is full of 
policy, full of reform, a bill that is fiscally responsible and, I must 
say, is the most fiscally responsible WRRDA in the history of WRRDA. 
There are no earmarks, but we made sure that we did not cede any of our 
constitutional congressional authority to the executive branch, which I 
believe is very important for this body and for the Congress.
  As I have said, we have worked together in a bipartisan fashion in 
talking to the stakeholders at roundtables and in hearings and coming 
up with a piece of legislation, and I am very proud we have it on the 
floor today.
  Again, our thanks to Ranking Member Rahall, Ranking Member Bishop, 
and the entire staff on the minority for working with us so closely.
  Also, I would like to thank our staff for the long hours that they 
have put in, and my counterpart, Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs, for his 
efforts and his staff member Joe Price who worked so hard and also John 
Anderson, Geoff Bowman, Jonathan Pawlow, and Tracy Zea from the Water 
Resources Subcommittee.
  And in the front office, starting with the leadership of Chris 
Bertram, the staff director, and a special thanks to the deputy staff 
director and my long-time staff member Steve Martinko for ramrodding 
this through the committee--I appreciate his support--Beth Spivey, Matt 
Sturges, Jim Tymon, Jennifer Hall, Clare Doherty, Jim Billimoria, 
Justin Harclerode, Michael Marinaccio, Caryn Moore, Denny Wirtz, and 
Keith Hall. All of these folks put in so many hours to make sure that 
we have on the floor here today a very good product, one that I am 
proud to stand behind, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to vote in favor of H.R. 3080.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, and to commend committee 
Chairman Shuster and ranking member Rahall, as well as subcommittee 
chairman Gibbs and ranking member Tim Bishop, for their efforts in 
crafting and bringing to the floor this very important water 
infrastructure bill.
  Mr. Chair, according to the American Association of Port Authorities, 
U.S. seaports move 99.4% of the country's overseas cargo by volume. 
Every one of the 50 states relies on seaports for imports and exports, 
totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods moving through U.S. seaports 
each day. And our ports support the employment of more than 13 million 
Americans.
  As the Representative from the 8th Congressional District of 
Massachusetts, I represent the Port of Boston. In fact, my District 
Office is actually located on a pier within the industrial port.
  Observing the day to day operations of the Port, and also being a 
Member of the Congressional Ports Caucus, I know firsthand that ports 
and waterways are vital to our economic prosperity.
  For instance, the Port of Boston generates $2.4 billion in economic 
benefits annually and 34,000 jobs are connected to port activities. 
With the expected 2015 completion of the Panama Canal expansion 
project, those numbers should only increase as larger container ships 
utilize our ports on both coasts.
  Mr. Chair, the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, recently 
recommended and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will 
allow the Port of Boston to keep pace with what lies ahead and with our 
global competitors.
  I look forward to working with the authors of this bill to move this 
important project forward.
  Mr. Chair, we all have a stake in the success of our ports and 
waterways and need to more frequently address our critical water 
infrastructure and flood control projects. That is why I also applaud 
the authors for including in the bill a Sense of Congress that we 
consider a water resources bill no less than every two years.
  Getting this bill to the floor required making difficult choices. I 
Want to again thank its authors for their efforts.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support 
of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, a 
bipartisan bill that is an important step toward creating good jobs 
here at home and growing our economy while improving our waterways 
infrastructure and addressing significant risks to public safety.
  The House WRRDA bill makes crucial investments in ports and waterways 
and is an important vehicle to improve our nation's flood protection 
systems. Maintaining and investing in these resources is essential to 
economic prosperity and public safety both because there are a 
substantial number of jobs linked to waterways and ports and because 
flood damage poses a serious risk to the livelihoods and economies of 
communities across the country.
  Although I am voting in favor of this bill and believe that passage 
of it is critical, I am deeply concerned by misguided environmental 
streamlining provisions in the bill that ultimately will weaken the 
National Environmental Protection Act. Although the major reason for 
the Army Corps of Engineers' project delay is a backlog in projects and 
a lack of funding for those projects, the troublesome provisions in 
this bill instead purport to address that issue by unwisely undermining 
the effectiveness of NEPA reviews through unreasonable time 
restrictions and limitations on the quality of information available to 
both reviewing agencies and the public. In addition, the bill 
undermines the integrity of several other foundational environmental 
laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Ultimately, these provisions 
will weaken environmental protections and undermine other elements in 
the bill that are designed to improve efficiency. It is critical that 
concerns over these provisions be addressed in the conference committee 
on this bill so that we can ensure final

[[Page H6719]]

passage of a bill that create jobs, improves our waterways 
infrastructures, and protects the environment.
  Once again, I urge support for WRRDA and look forward to working with 
my colleagues to improve the bill further to secure final passage of a 
bill that helps create jobs across the country in an environmentally 
responsible way.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Water 
Resources, Reform, and Development Act. WRDA is an important bill for 
my area. We have critical flood control projects and our Port of 
Houston, which is the largest port for foreign tonnage in the country, 
is an economic engine for the entire region.
  I prefer the Senate language in some ways, especially the funding for 
dredging at our ports. But, the bill in front of us represents the hard 
work of both sides of the T&I committee and I appreciate the leadership 
that they have shown on this issue and I look forward to supporting it.
  I am pleased that Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall included 
language in the managers amendment that my colleagues and I from the 
Houston area requested regarding assumption of maintenance. This 
language is important because we want to incentivize entities like 
Ports to take on some of the responsibilities for deepening and 
widening channels and other projects, but we have to make sure that the 
federal government lives up to their responsibility to assume the 
maintenance. I want to make sure that the language that was included is 
the best way to accomplish this and I look forward to working with the 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Port of Houston, and our committee 
leadership to make any necessary changes and I am pleased that they are 
working with us toward achieving our policy intent.
  I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3080, the 
``Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013,'' better known as 
``WRRDA.'' This legislation is long overdue, and although it is a good 
down-payment, this body needs to take far more drastic steps to repair 
and replace our nation's aging and increasingly uncompetitive water 
infrastructure--which will require more than $1 trillion in investment 
over the next couple of decades.
  Americans across the country will benefit commercially and 
economically from the improvements to infrastructure and the jobs 
provided by those projects. The competitive benefits and the economic 
jolt provided by WRRDA is an important investment in our future. It 
means that manufacturers can ship more cheaply and more quickly, and 
can more easily return jobs to our shores than if they had to struggle 
to bring their goods to the market. It also means that well-trained and 
hard-working men and women will go back to work, which will provide 
needed inertia to an economy that has been heavily battered by the last 
few weeks of brinksmanship.
  I will be supporting this bill because I believe that our current 
infrastructure backlog is desperately in need of legislative action. 
However, I have a number of misgivings about this bill, which I hope my 
colleagues will address during a conference between the chambers. 
Though my concerns are many, I can sum them up simply: H.R. 3080 does 
not do enough to eliminate the infrastructure deficit or to ensure that 
we do so in the most responsible way.
  One problem I have is that H.R. 3080 makes across the board cuts to 
previously authorized projects--$12 billion out of a roughly $60 
billion backlog. This ``Sequester'' style cut is a bad legislative 
approach. The solution to a problem often requires a more deft touch 
than simply lopping off whatever portion seems right. Americans are 
already fed up with this sort of austerity from the across the board 
cuts that went into effect at the beginning of 2013, which has wreaked 
havoc upon important programs and on the American economy. I urge my 
colleagues to make their decisions based on a more thorough review of 
the merits of individual projects, instead of just demanding $12 
billion in cuts and turning the scissors over to the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  Another problem I have lies with the ``streamlining approach'' found 
in this legislation which does little to actually eliminate the delays 
that keep important projects in limbo. I am especially concerned about 
the portions of H.R. 3080 which dramatically alter the environmental 
safeguards built into existing law. One of those changes, which would 
cut the time that communities have to review final agency approval of 
water infrastructure projects from six years to 150 days--a cut of 
nearly 95 percent--could undermine the rights of citizens to hold their 
government accountable for the impact that projects may have on their 
community. However, even after the environmental review process is 
completed, these projects still face potentially endless delays because 
of how the appropriations process leads to grossly inadequate funding 
levels. That is why I support and I urge my colleagues to support the 
DeFazio Amendment, which will require the tremendous backlog of 
projects to be reduced before the environmental safeguards are touched.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080, because although its flaws 
are many, it will put the shovel in the ground to dig us out of the 
ditch we are in. Americans are passing trillions in debt--in the form 
of outdated roads and water resources--on to the next generation. This 
may not be everything we need, but it is a good start.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, a water resources bill in 2013 is 
critical to the success of America, and crucial to our economic growth 
and job creation. The last water resources bill was signed into law six 
years ago, making this one long overdue. I would like to thank Mr. 
Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership in moving this 
legislation forward.
  American international trade accounts for more than one quarter of 
our Gross Domestic Product. More than 99 percent of our overseas trade 
moves through America's seaports. Cargo moving through our seaports is 
responsible for more than 13 million American jobs and generates in 
excess of $200 billion annually in federal, state, and local tax 
revenues. We need to keep America's economic recovery moving forward by 
ensuring that when American workers make products, we can efficiently 
move them through our ports to overseas markets.
  To that end, I hope my colleagues across the aisle will support the 
WRRDA bill so that our navigation channels and ports are operating at 
their optimal levels. Of all U.S. overseas exports, 99.4 percent are 
waterborne and go through ports.
  For America to remain on top the global economy, we need to be 
competitive internationally so that global consumers increasingly 
purchase American-made goods.
  This bill takes an important first step in addressing an issue of key 
concern to not only the Port of Houston and Galveston in Texas, but to 
all of our nations' ports, the collection and use of the federal Harbor 
Maintenance Tax. The WRRDA bill also includes numerous reforms to help 
meet the maritime transportation needs of our nation today and in the 
future.
  America's public ports and their private sector partners plan to 
invest more than $46 billion in seaport infrastructure in the next five 
years. It is important that we pass this historic legislation by 
investing in America's transportation infrastructure. Maintaining 
America's link to the global marketplace by creating and maintaining 
modern and efficient seaport and waterway infrastructure will provide 
significant benefits to our nation's economic vitality, job growth, and 
international competitiveness, as well as create sizable tax revenues 
from cargo and trade activities.
  Ports serve as America's gateway to the global economy. The nation's 
economic prosperity rests on the ability of containerized and bulk 
cargo arriving unimpeded at U.S. ports to support the ``just in time'' 
delivery system that underpins the manufacturing and retail sectors.
  According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), ports, 
waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more 
than $700 billion in merchandise annually, according to the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), and an attack on this system could have a 
widespread impact on global shipping, international trade, and the 
global economy. The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship 
lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 
countries. It is also home to a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the 
largest in the nation and second largest worldwide.
  As a result, it is an ideal port for examining security practices in 
the maritime environment. At the Port of Houston, and other ports 
across the country, balancing security concerns with the need to 
facilitate the free flow of people and commerce remains an ongoing 
challenge for both the public and private sectors.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member 
Rahall, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop in working with the 
Texas Delegation on behalf of our constituents to strengthen the bill 
by encouraging non-federal entities to invest in their harbor 
maintenance and step in when the Army Corps of Engineers cannot.
  This legislative provision particularly benefits ports like the Port 
of Houston which have invested substantial amounts of their own funds 
to complete critical infrastructure in order to provide for safe 
navigation of larger vessels, and to assure its terminals remain 
competitive in the world market. This success complements my efforts to 
secure necessary funding for harbor dredging in the FY' 2014 Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act.
  Furthermore, I would like to thank the Committee leadership for 
supporting the Jackson Lee Amendment #9 on the roster and including the 
amendment En Bloc. This amendment

[[Page H6720]]

provides that in making recommendations pursuant to Section 118 of the 
Act, the Secretary shall consult with key stakeholders, including 
State, county, and city governments, and, where applicable, State and 
local water districts, and in the case of recommendations concerning 
projects that substantially affect underrepresented communities the 
Secretary shall also consult with historically Black colleges and 
universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other minority-
serving institutions.
  Mr. Chair, as you are aware, it is an essential tool in our desire to 
improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the 
environment at large.
  I am sure we will never forget the critical impact from Hurricane 
Sandy that crippled the Northeast area from Massachusetts to North 
Carolina. And not long before Hurricane Sandy, as we were working to 
learn how to prevent another Hurricane Katrina that crippled the great 
City of New Orleans. Our nation was still healing from Hurricane Ike 
and Hurricane Rita which crippled Houston, Texas.
  Thereby highlighting the importance of not only giving greater 
attention to our underserved communities but also how we can help our 
citizens by educating them on the areas in which they live. As my 
colleagues are aware, a healthy environment sustains a productive and 
healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth.
  Consulting with key stakeholders, including State, county, and city 
governments, and, where applicable, State and local water districts, 
and in the case of recommendations concerning projects that 
substantially affect underrepresented communities the Secretary shall 
also consult with historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal 
Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions is 
imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and 
environment.
  The coordination with the aforementioned groups is vital to ensuring 
that economically disadvantaged and minority groups are not placed at a 
disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued 
preservation of their communities as we look to environmental and 
socioeconomic resources located within the project area and the general 
locations of the alternatives under consideration. Further, any issues 
of concern regarding the potential environmental or socioeconomic 
impacts of the project, including any issues that may substantially 
delay or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval 
that is needed for the project study.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of our rivers 
and harbors of the United States, and how citizens can improve their 
surroundings.
  I want to also acknowledge and recognize Congressman DeFazio of 
Oregon for offering an amendment, in which I cosponsored that 
conditions the application of Section 103 of the bill on a reduction in 
the backlog of Corps of Engineers projects to less than $20 billion in 
construction costs. This amendment highlights the fact that it is a 
lack of funding not the environmental review process that has led to a 
backlog of authorized projects that are not being constructed. We have 
spent enough energy arguing over the budget and the National 
Environmental Policy (NEPA) streamlining, but not enough time in making 
the hard decisions and investments that are going to create economic 
growth and create jobs. I urge Congress to support Rep. DeFazio's 
amendment #2.
  Mr. Chair, I believe the WRRDA bill would have been stronger with the 
inclusion of an amendment I offered to the Rules Committee that directs 
the Secretary of the Army to encourage the participation of minority- 
and women-owned businesses in such projects and requires the GAO to 
submit a report to Congress within 2 years on the participation of 
minority- and women-owned businesses in such projects.
  I recognize the value of a diverse supplier base and its impact on 
the community and population at large. Therefore, I will work directly 
with the Secretary of the Army to establish an opportunity for Minority 
and Women Owned Businesses to work directly with the United States Army 
and the United States Corp of Engineers on specific projects that will 
ensure that the United States Army and the United States Corp of 
Engineers continues to creatively seek new supplier sources to fulfill 
the business opportunities at a number of Ports throughout our great 
nation and that minority and women owned businesses are given the 
opportunity to compete for these specific project business 
opportunities.
  In closing, it is important to note that since the establishment of 
our Nation, our inland waterways and seaports have linked America 
directly to the global economy. This remains true today. Goods from all 
over the world reach our store shelves after arriving here through our 
ports, and products grown and made in the U.S.A. get to market overseas 
using our water transportation network.
  The importance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission to 
maintain our port and waterways infrastructure will only increase with 
time. Expansion of the Panama Canal is expected to be completed in 
2014, allowing more and larger ships to call on America's ports. Our 
trade volume is expected to double within a decade, and to double again 
by 2030. We have to be ready for this expected growth in order to 
remain globally competitive.
  The economic benefits of the Corps' mission are not limited to 
navigation and commerce. Levees, dams, reservoirs, and other measures 
within the Corps' mission scope provide flood protection for homes and 
businesses, protecting property and life.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of passage of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act today, although I have serious 
concerns with the changes to public and environmental review made in 
the bill.
  This long-overdue authorization of Army Corps projects is critical to 
continue infrastructure maintenance and construction and environmental 
restoration in our nation's waterways. In my home state of Maryland, 
the Corps' work is essential for the operations of the Port of 
Baltimore, which supports thousands of jobs. Additionally, its 
environmental protection and oyster recovery work bolsters our efforts 
to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
  However, I am deeply concerned that the bill goes too far in its 
attempts to expedite project review. While we all support prompt 
analysis of federal projects, the NEPA process is critical to ensuring 
that proposed projects are cost-effective, environmentally sound, and 
in the best interest of the surrounding communities. Corps projects in 
particular are often large and complex, with impacts across waterways 
and ecosystems. We must provide adequate time for public and agency 
review and comment to avoid lasting environmental damage and costly 
litigation.
  While I will vote today to move this bill forward, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the conference process to preserve a 
robust review and oversight process for all proposed projects.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, maintaining and investing in our national 
water infrastructure is an important responsibility of Congress. 
Critical to our coastal and inland communities alike, these resources 
keep our national transportation networks running and our economy 
growing. The Water Resources Development Act protects our neighborhoods 
from floods, provides for environmental restoration and protection, and 
helps keep commerce moving, all while ensuring community engagement, 
access, and transparency in project decision making. Regrettably, the 
bill before us erodes many of the safeguards designed to protect the 
very lives and communities impacted by these projects. Despite the 
enormous benefits of passing a water resources bill into law, we should 
not do so at the cost of decades-old protections for our states, cities 
and towns. If we weaken the laws that require us to evaluate the full 
range of options for projects and alternatives, we may undermine the 
success of future projects, endangering their fiscal soundness and 
environmental stewardship.
  In Rhode Island, the Army Corps of Engineers has worked diligently to 
protect our coastlines, stem shoreline erosion, institute flood 
protections and improve inland navigation. Over the past 50 years, most 
of the navigation work on Rhode Island's waterways has been constructed 
by the Army Corps. Since the passage of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), these projects rightfully went through rigorous 
review and solicited comments from affected communities, businesses and 
governments.
  For more than four decades laws like NEPA have contributed to cleaner 
water, cleaner air, and a safer and healthier environment. Their 
authors recognized that healthy communities beget healthy economies, 
passing these bills into law with strong bipartisan support. In fact, 
Congress has been a greater hindrance to the advancement of Army Corps 
projects than environmental review. While the last WRDA bill passed by 
Congress in 2007 authorized the construction of projects costing more 
than $22 billion, Congress appropriated just $1.5 billion for the 
Corps' construction budget last year.
  The NEPA process informs federal decisions and provides a critical 
check to communities on federal planning. In many cases, NEPA offers 
the only opportunity for the public to have a say in federal actions 
that may have profound impacts on their health, safety, livelihood, and 
wellbeing. It has saved money, time, vital resources, historical sites, 
endangered species, and public lands, while ensuring public disclosure 
and engagement.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in working to prevent any 
degradation of the NEPA process going forward. Without such action, we 
are set on a path to undermine public input

[[Page H6721]]

into the federal decision-making process, increase taxpayer costs, and 
harm the environment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my frustration. For 
many of us, the 2007 WRDA bill included the authorization for critical 
projects in our districts. Since the passage of that bill, the Army 
Corps of Engineers have begun interpreting the language and technical 
errors came to light.
  Last night, through the Rules process, I attempted to right 2 exact 
wrongs by making technical corrections to the specific language in the 
2007 WRDA bill with 2 precise amendments at no additional cost to the 
American taxpayer.
  One of my amendments would have made a necessary technical change to 
the language of the Southwest Coastal Louisiana Feasibility Study to 
include the entire city of Delcambre, LA. As the study perimeters are 
currently written, they include only areas within 3 particular 
Parishes. However, there is one community, the city of Delcambre, LA 
that is divided by the Vermilion Parish line with half of the city and 
its structures in Vermilion, thus covered by the study, and the other 
half in Iberia Parish, not covered in the study. As the Corps began to 
move forward with study implementation, they made the decision to 
essentially cut the community, and structures, in half. This is not a 
sensible approach to ensuring a community's protection from hurricane 
destruction.
  The second amendment would make a technical change to the Acadiana 
Gulf of Mexico Access Channel (AGMAC) an existing project, in order to 
reduce costs and improve the beneficial use of dredge material.
  AGMAC was designed to allow for more efficient marine access from the 
Port of Iberia and other Acadiana Ports to the Gulf of Mexico by 
enlarging the existing channel to a project depth of twenty feet. 
Congress authorized the AGMAC project in the 2007 WRDA bill.
  My amendment would propose removing the entire phrase related to 
Incidental Storm Surge Protection from the 2007 WRDA description of the 
project. The original authorization amount of the project in 2007 was 
$131 million, the current cost of the project is $310 million. The main 
reason for the radical difference in cost estimates, is the Incidental 
Storm Surge Protection language that was inserted at the request of one 
specific group. My amendment would remove this specific provision, with 
the understanding from the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans, that this 
change would allow the Corps to maintain the authorized spending level 
for this project, and most importantly, permit this suspended project 
to move forward.
  Unfortunately due to an improper overreach back in 2007, a critical 
project has been on hold. This amendment would stimulate job creation, 
and the Acadiana economy by more than $50 million a year, has been 
delayed and now is the time to get it back on track.
  Millions of federal and state dollars have already been invested in 
performing feasibility studies to ensure that the AGMAC project was 
worthy of authorization. With the change proposed in my amendment, we 
can ensure that these dollars are not wasted, but instead that this 
critical project is completed.
  It is important to note that CBO found both of these amendments to be 
budget neutral. The amendment maintains the authorized spending level 
for both projects found in the WRDA 2007. There is NO additional cost 
to the American taxpayers. Instead these changes would a.) ensure that 
an entire town, not just half, is better prepared when the next 
hurricane hits the Gulf Coast, and b.) restore consistency when 
determining the use of dredge material from a navigation project.
  Mr. Chair, I understand why we have a rules process. I understand why 
we no longer have earmarks. However it is inefficient and irresponsible 
to stop an amendment that makes a NECESSARY, technical, budget neutral 
language change. I look forward to working with the Chairman to devise 
a simple and time efficient strategy forward to fix these problems.
  The Corps will continue to interpret legislative language the way it 
sees fit. If it is to the detriment of our constituents, is it expected 
that I will shrug that off and not fight that mistake? That's not what 
the people of South Louisiana elected me to do here in Washington.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3080--
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. I would like to 
commend Chairman Shuster for his continued willingness to work with all 
Members to ensure that this bill is a truly bipartisan product.
  For the first time since 2007, this House will have the opportunity 
to debate legislation that authorizes our critical water 
infrastructure. I believe that this bill represents the proper reform 
that will implement deadlines, increase transparency at the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, and take offline $12 billion in projects that have 
been inactive for a number of years.
  Mr. Chair, while these overall reforms are beneficial, there are two 
specific aspects of this bil that are important to the State of 
Georgia--as well as the entire Southeast region. First and foremost, 
this legislation authorizes the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 
(SHEP) to deepen the port from 42 feet to 47 feet. For a number of 
years, this important regional project has been delayed by a statutory 
oversight in a previous WRDA bill. However, H.R. 3080 will finally 
provide the State of Georgia the ability to commit the $201 million of 
the state share that has already been set aside.
  SHEP benefits both the State of Georgia and the country as a whole. 
It has been estimated that for every dollar invested in deepening the 
port, $5.50 would be generated for the country while providing savings 
of $174 million on shipping annually. Furthermore, the Army Corps' own 
General Re-evaluation stated that SHEP will create 11,554 jobs, over 
$551 million in labor income, and a gross regional value of over $794 
million. With the upcoming expansion of the Panama Canal, SHEP will 
only help maintain a competitive edge for deep water ports in the 
Southeast.
  Mr. Chair, there is another aspect of WRRDA for which I commend the 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for its work. Unfortunately, 
in the version of WRDA passed by the Senate in May of this year, there 
were attempts made by our colleagues in the other body to undermine the 
longstanding issue among Georgia, Alabama, and Florida regarding water 
usage in both the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint (ACF) Basin and the 
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Basin. This WRRDA bill is no place to 
interfere with ongoing negotiations, and I believe that this 
legislation's silence on this issue is the correct approach.
  For these important reasons, I support H.R. 3080.

                              {time}  1545

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of 
Rules Committee Print 113-24. That amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 3080

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


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  October 23, 2013, on page H6721, the following appeared: Be it 
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, H.R. 3080
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: H.R. 3080 Be it 
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

               TITLE I--PROGRAM REFORMS AND STREAMLINING

Sec. 101. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies.
Sec. 102. Expediting the evaluation and processing of permits.
Sec. 103. Environmental streamlining.
Sec. 104. Consolidation of studies.
Sec. 105. Removal of duplicative analyses.
Sec. 106. Expediting approval of modifications and alterations of 
              projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 107. Construction of projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 108. Contributions by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 109. Contributions by non-Federal interests for management of 
              Corps of Engineers inland navigation facilities.
Sec. 110. Additional contributions by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 111. Clarification of impacts to other Federal facilities.
Sec. 112. Clarification of previously authorized work.
Sec. 113. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 114. Technical corrections.
Sec. 115. Water infrastructure public-private partnership pilot 
              program.
Sec. 116. Annual report to Congress.
Sec. 117. Actions to be taken in conjunction with the President's 
              annual budget submission to Congress.
Sec. 118. Hurricane and storm damage reduction study.
Sec. 119. Non-Federal plans to provide additional flood risk reduction.
Sec. 120. Review of emergency response authorities.
Sec. 121. Emergency communication of risk.
Sec. 122. Improvements to the National Dam Safety Program Act.
Sec. 123. Restricted areas at Corps of Engineers dams.
Sec. 124. Levee safety.
Sec. 125. Vegetation on levees.
Sec. 126. Reduction of Federal costs.

[[Page H6722]]

Sec. 127. Advanced modeling technologies.
Sec. 128. Enhanced use of electronic commerce in Federal procurement.
Sec. 129. Corrosion prevention.
Sec. 130. Resilient construction and use of innovative materials.
Sec. 131. Assessment of water supply in arid regions.
Sec. 132. River basin commissions.
Sec. 133. Sense of Congress regarding water resources development 
              bills.
Sec. 134. Donald G. Waldon Lock and Dam.
Sec. 135. Aquatic invasive species.
Sec. 136. Recreational access.
Sec. 137. Territories of the United States.
Sec. 138. Sense of Congress regarding interstate water agreements and 
              compacts.

                   TITLE II--NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

                           Subtitle A--Ports

Sec. 201. Expanded use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Sec. 202. Assessment and prioritization of operation and maintenance.
Sec. 203. Preserving United States harbors.
Sec. 204. Consolidation of deep draft navigation expertise.
Sec. 205. Disposal sites.

                      Subtitle B--Inland Waterways

Sec. 211. Definitions.
Sec. 212. Project delivery process reforms.
Sec. 213. Efficiency of revenue collection.
Sec. 214. Inland waterways revenue studies.
Sec. 215. Inland waterways stakeholder roundtable.
Sec. 216. Preserving the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
Sec. 217. Public comment on lock operations.
Sec. 218. Assessment of operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic 
              Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
Sec. 219. Upper Mississippi River protection.
Sec. 220. Corps of Engineers lock and dam energy development.

           TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND BACKLOG PREVENTION

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Review of Corps of Engineers assets.
Sec. 303. Backlog prevention.
Sec. 304. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 305. Land conveyances.

                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Authorization of final feasibility studies.
Sec. 402. Project modifications.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

               TITLE I--PROGRAM REFORMS AND STREAMLINING

     SEC. 101. VERTICAL INTEGRATION AND ACCELERATION OF STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--To the extent practicable, a feasibility 
     study initiated by the Secretary, after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, under section 905(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) shall--
       (1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report 
     not later than 3 years after the date of initiation;
       (2) have a maximum Federal cost of $3,000,000; and
       (3) ensure that personnel from the district, division, and 
     headquarters levels of the Corps of Engineers concurrently 
     conduct the review required under that section.
       (b) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     feasibility study described in subsection (a) will not be 
     conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary, 
     not later than 30 days after the date of making the 
     determination, shall--
       (1) prepare an updated feasibility study schedule and cost 
     estimate;
       (2) notify the non-Federal feasibility cost sharing partner 
     that the feasibility study has been delayed; and
       (3) provide written notice to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate as to the reasons the requirements of 
     subsection (a) are not attainable.
       (c) Termination of Authorization.--A feasibility study for 
     which the Secretary has issued a determination under 
     subsection (b) is not authorized after the last day of the 1-
     year period beginning on the date of the determination if the 
     Secretary has not completed the study on or before such last 
     day.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that describes--
       (1) the status of the implementation of this section, 
     including a description of each feasibility study subject to 
     the requirements of this section;
       (2) the amount of time taken to complete each such 
     feasibility study; and
       (3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary 
     to support efforts to expedite the feasibility study process, 
     including an analysis of whether the limitation established 
     by subsection (a)(2) needs to be adjusted to address the 
     impacts of inflation.
       (e) Reviews.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     initiation of a study described in subsection (a) for a 
     project, the Secretary shall--
       (1) take all steps necessary to initiate the federally 
     mandated reviews that the Secretary is required to complete 
     as part of the study, including environmental reviews;
       (2) convene a meeting of all Federal, tribal, and State 
     agencies identified under section 2045(d) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348(d)), as 
     amended by this Act, and that may be required by law to 
     conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion on or to make 
     a determination concerning a permit or license for the study;
       (3) provide the agencies referred to in paragraph (2) with 
     all relevant information related to the scope and potential 
     impacts of the project, including environmental impacts; and
       (4) take all steps necessary to provide information that 
     will enable required reviews and analyses related to the 
     project to be conducted by other agencies in a thorough and 
     timely manner.

     SEC. 102. EXPEDITING THE EVALUATION AND PROCESSING OF 
                   PERMITS.

       Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or public-utility company (as defined in 
     section 1262 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 
     2005 (42 U.S.C. 16451))'' after ``non-Federal public 
     entity'';
       (B) by inserting ``or company'' after ``that entity''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``To the maximum 
     extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     expediting the evaluation of a permit through the use of 
     funds accepted and expended under this section does not 
     adversely affect the timeline for evaluation (in the Corps 
     district in which the project or activity is located) of 
     permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army 
     of other entities that have not contributed funds under this 
     section.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).

     SEC. 103. ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--
       (1) In general.--Congress declares that--
       (A) the benefits of water resources projects are important 
     to the Nation's economy and environment;
       (B) it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery 
     of water resources projects;
       (C) it is in the national interest for Federal and State 
     agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and other 
     entities involved in water resources projects--
       (i) to accelerate study completion and project delivery and 
     to reduce costs; and
       (ii) to ensure that the planning, design, engineering, 
     construction, and funding of water resources projects is done 
     in an efficient and effective manner, promoting 
     accountability for public investments and encouraging greater 
     local and private sector involvement in project financing and 
     delivery while addressing public safety and protecting the 
     environment; and
       (D) delay in the delivery of water resources studies and 
     projects--
       (i) increases project costs, flood risks, and local and 
     Federal expenditures for emergency management and recovery;
       (ii) harms the economy of the United States; and
       (iii) impedes the shipment of goods for the conduct of 
     commerce.
       (2) Policy.--Given the declarations set forth in paragraph 
     (1), it is the policy of the United States that--
       (A) recommendations to Congress regarding such projects 
     should be accelerated by coordinated and efficient 
     environmental reviews and cooperative efforts to quickly 
     resolve disputes during the development of water resources 
     projects;
       (B) the Secretary shall have the lead role among Federal 
     agencies in facilitating the environmental review process for 
     water resources projects;
       (C) each Federal agency shall cooperate with the Secretary 
     to expedite the environmental review process for water 
     resources projects;
       (D) programmatic approaches shall be used if applicable to 
     reduce the need for project-by-project reviews and decisions 
     by Federal agencies;
       (E) the Secretary shall identify opportunities for non-
     Federal sponsors to assume responsibilities of the Secretary 
     if such responsibilities can be assumed in a manner that 
     protects public health and safety, the environment, and 
     public participation; and
       (F) the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
     shall identify and promote the deployment of innovations 
     aimed at reducing the time and money required to deliver 
     water resources projects while protecting the environment.
       (b) Streamlined Project Delivery.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2045 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 2045. STREAMLINED PROJECT DELIVERY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Environmental impact statement.--The term 
     `environmental impact statement' means the detailed statement 
     of environmental impacts required to be prepared pursuant to 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.).
       ``(2) Environmental review process.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `environmental review process' 
     means the process of preparing an environmental impact 
     statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, 
     or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for a project study.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `environmental review process' 
     includes the process for and completion of any environmental 
     permit, approval, review, or study required for a project 
     study under any Federal law other than the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

[[Page H6723]]

       ``(3) Federal jurisdictional agency.--The term 'Federal 
     jurisdictional agency' means a Federal agency with 
     jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion, statement, 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision required for a 
     project study under applicable Federal laws, including 
     regulations.
       ``(4) Project.--The term 'project' means a Corps of 
     Engineers water resources project.
       ``(5) Project sponsor.--The term `project sponsor' means 
     the non-Federal interest as defined in section 221(b) of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).
       ``(6) Project study.--The term 'project study' means a 
     feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to 
     section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2282).
       ``(b) Applicability.--The procedures in this section are 
     applicable to all project studies initiated after the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 
     of 2013 and for which an environmental impact statement is 
     prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and may be applied, to the extent 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary, to other project 
     studies initiated after such date of enactment and for which 
     an environmental review process document is prepared under 
     such Act.
       ``(c) Lead Agencies.--
       ``(1) Federal lead agency.--The Corps of Engineers shall be 
     the Federal lead agency in the environmental review process 
     for a project study.
       ``(2) Non-federal project sponsor as joint lead agency.--At 
     the discretion of the Secretary and subject to the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a non-Federal project sponsor that 
     is an agency defined in subsection (a)--
       ``(A) may serve as a joint lead agency with the Corps of 
     Engineers for purposes of preparing any environmental review 
     process document under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       ``(B) may assist in the preparation of any such 
     environmental review process document required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the Secretary 
     provides guidance in the preparation process, participates in 
     preparing the document, independently evaluates that 
     document, and approves and adopts the document before the 
     Secretary takes any subsequent action or makes any approval 
     based on that document.
       ``(3) Adoption and use of documents.--Any environmental 
     review process document prepared in accordance with this 
     subsection shall be adopted and used by any Federal agency in 
     making any approval of a project subject to this section as 
     the document required to be completed under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to 
     the same extent that the Federal agency may adopt or use a 
     document prepared by another Federal agency under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       ``(4) Roles and responsibility of federal lead agency.--
     With respect to the environmental review process for any 
     project, the Federal lead agency shall have authority and 
     responsibility--
       ``(A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper, 
     within the authority of the Federal lead agency, to 
     facilitate the expeditious resolution of the environmental 
     review process for the project study; and
       ``(B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental 
     impact statement or other document for a project study 
     required to be completed under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is completed in 
     accordance with this section and applicable Federal law.
       ``(d) Participating and Cooperating Agencies.--
       ``(1) Identification.--The Federal lead agency shall 
     identify, as early as practicable in the environmental review 
     process for a project study, any Federal or State agency, 
     local government, or Indian tribe that may--
       ``(A) have jurisdiction over the project;
       ``(B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
     analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or
       ``(C) be required to make a determination on issuing a 
     permit, license, or other approval or decision for the 
     project study.
       ``(2) Invitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall invite any 
     such agency identified under paragraph (1) to become a 
     participating or cooperating agency in the environmental 
     review process for the project study.
       ``(B) Deadline.--An invitation to participate issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall establish a deadline by which a 
     response to the invitation shall be submitted, which may be 
     extended by the Federal lead agency for good cause.
       ``(3) Federal cooperating agency.--Any Federal agency that 
     is invited by the Federal lead agency to participate in the 
     environmental review process for a project study shall be 
     designated as a cooperating agency by the Federal lead agency 
     unless the invited agency informs the Federal lead agency, in 
     writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the 
     invited agency--
       ``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     project;
       ``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     project study; and
       ``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project 
     study.
       ``(4) Effect of designation.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--A participating or cooperating agency 
     shall comply with the requirements of this section and any 
     schedule established under this section.
       ``(B) Implication.--Designation under this subsection shall 
     not imply that the participating or cooperating agency--
       ``(i) supports a proposed project; or
       ``(ii) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with 
     respect to evaluation of, the project.
       ``(5) Concurrent reviews.--Each participating or 
     cooperating agency shall--
       ``(A) carry out the obligations of that agency under other 
     applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the 
     required environmental review process unless doing so would 
     prevent such agency from conducting needed analysis or 
     otherwise carrying out their obligations under those other 
     laws; and
       ``(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and 
     procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of the environmental review process in a timely, 
     coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.
       ``(e) Programmatic Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue guidance 
     regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the 
     environmental review process that--
       ``(A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues;
       ``(B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at 
     each level of review;
       ``(C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with 
     participating and cooperating agencies, including the 
     creation of a list of all data that is needed to carry out 
     the environmental review process; and
       ``(D) complies with--
       ``(i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       ``(ii) all other applicable laws.
       ``(2) Requirements.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that 
     paragraph, consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, 
     local governments, Indian tribes, and the public on the use 
     and scope of the programmatic approaches;
       ``(B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among 
     relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, 
     and Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, 
     especially with respect to reviews with a broad geographical 
     scope;
       ``(C) ensure that the programmatic reviews--
       ``(i) promote transparency, including of the analyses and 
     data used in the environmental review process, the treatment 
     of any deferred issues raised by a Federal or State agency, 
     local government, Indian tribe, or the public, and the 
     temporal and special scales to be used to analyze those 
     issues;
       ``(ii) use accurate and timely information in the 
     environmental review process, including--

       ``(I) criteria for determining the general duration of the 
     usefulness of the review; and
       ``(II) the timeline for updating any out-of-date review;

       ``(iii) describe--

       ``(I) the relationship between programmatic analysis and 
     future tiered analysis; and
       ``(II) the role of the public in the creation of future 
     tiered analysis; and

       ``(iv) are available to other relevant Federal and State 
     agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and the public;
       ``(D) allow not less than 60 days of public notice and 
     comment on any proposed guidance; and
       ``(E) address any comments received under subparagraph (D).
       ``(f) Coordinated Reviews.--
       ``(1) Coordination plan.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Federal lead agency, after 
     consultation with each participating and cooperating agency 
     and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 
     applicable, shall establish a plan for coordinating public 
     and agency participation in and comment on the environmental 
     review process for a project study.
       ``(B) Incorporation.--In developing the plan established 
     under subparagraph (A), the Federal lead agency shall take 
     under consideration the scheduling requirements under section 
     101 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
     2013.
       ``(2) Schedule.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal lead agency, after 
     consultation with each participating and cooperating agency 
     and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 
     applicable, shall establish, as part of the coordination plan 
     established in paragraph (1)(A), a schedule for completion of 
     the environmental review process for the project study. In 
     developing the schedule, the Federal lead agency shall take 
     under consideration the scheduling requirements under section 
     101 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
     2013.
       ``(B) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the 
     schedule, the Federal lead agency shall consider factors such 
     as--
       ``(i) the responsibilities of participating and cooperating 
     agencies under applicable laws;
       ``(ii) the resources available to the participating and 
     cooperating agencies and the non-Federal project sponsor or 
     joint lead agency, as applicable;
       ``(iii) the overall size and complexity of the project;
       ``(iv) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; 
     and
       ``(v) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that may be affected by the project.
       ``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be consistent with any other 
     relevant time periods established under Federal law.
       ``(D) Modification.--The Federal lead agency may--
       ``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph 
     (A) for good cause; or
       ``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the 
     affected participating and cooperating agencies and the non-
     Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable.
       ``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule established 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be--

[[Page H6724]]

       ``(i) provided to each participating and cooperating agency 
     and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 
     applicable; and
       ``(ii) made available to the public.
       ``(3) Comment deadlines.--The Federal lead agency shall 
     establish the following deadlines for comment during the 
     environmental review process for a project study:
       ``(A) Draft environmental impact statements.--For comments 
     by agencies and the public on a draft environmental impact 
     statement, a period of not more than 60 days after such 
     document is made publicly available, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the Federal lead agency, all participating and cooperating 
     agencies, and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead 
     agency, as applicable; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency 
     for good cause.
       ``(B) Other comment periods.--For all other comment periods 
     established by the Federal lead agency for agency or public 
     comments in the environmental review process, a period of not 
     more than 30 days after the date on which the materials for 
     which comment is requested are made available, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the Federal lead agency, all participating and cooperating 
     agencies, and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead 
     agency, as applicable; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency 
     for good cause.
       ``(4) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--
       ``(A) Prior approval deadline.--If a participating or 
     cooperating agency is required to make a determination 
     regarding or otherwise approve or disapprove the project 
     study prior to the record of decision or finding of no 
     significant impact, such participating or cooperating agency 
     shall make such determination or approval not later than 30 
     days after the Federal lead agency publishes notice of the 
     availability of a final environmental impact statement or 
     other final environmental document, or not later than such 
     other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever 
     occurs first.
       ``(B) Other deadlines.--With regard to any determination or 
     approval of a participating or cooperating agency that is not 
     subject to subparagraph (A), each participating or 
     cooperating agency shall make any required determination or 
     otherwise approve or disapprove the project study not later 
     than 90 days after the date that the Federal lead agency 
     approves the record of decision or finding of no significant 
     impact for the project study, or not later than such other 
     date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs 
     first.
       ``(C) Record closed.--In the event that any participating 
     or cooperating agency fails to make a determination or 
     approve or disapprove the project study within the applicable 
     deadline described in subparagraph (A), the Federal lead 
     agency may close the record and find the record sufficient 
     for the project study as it relates to such agency 
     determination or approval.
       ``(g) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
       ``(1) Cooperation.--The Federal lead agency and 
     participating and cooperating agencies shall work 
     cooperatively in accordance with this section to identify and 
     resolve issues that may delay completion of the environmental 
     review process or result in the denial of any approval 
     required for the project study under applicable laws.
       ``(2) Federal lead agency responsibilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal lead agency shall make 
     information available to the participating and cooperating 
     agencies as early as practicable in the environmental review 
     process regarding the environmental and socioeconomic 
     resources located within the project area and the general 
     locations of the alternatives under consideration.
       ``(B) Data sources.--Such information under subparagraph 
     (A) may be based on existing data sources, including 
     geographic information systems mapping.
       ``(3) Participating and cooperating agency 
     responsibilities.--Based on information received from the 
     Federal lead agency, participating and cooperating agencies 
     shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues of 
     concern regarding the potential environmental or 
     socioeconomic impacts of the project, including any issues 
     that may substantially delay or prevent an agency from 
     granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the 
     project study.
       ``(4) Accelerated issue resolution and elevation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon the request of a participating or 
     cooperating agency or non-Federal project sponsor, the 
     Secretary shall convene an issue resolution meeting with the 
     relevant participating and cooperating agencies and the non-
     Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, 
     to resolve issues that may--
       ``(i) delay completion of the environmental review process; 
     or
       ``(ii) result in denial of any approval required for the 
     project study under applicable laws.
       ``(B) Meeting date.--A meeting requested under this 
     paragraph shall be held not later than 21 days after the date 
     on which the Secretary receives the request for the meeting, 
     unless the Secretary determines that there is good cause to 
     extend that deadline.
       ``(C) Notification.--Upon receipt of a request for a 
     meeting under this paragraph, the Secretary shall notify all 
     relevant participating and cooperating agencies of the 
     request, including the issue to be resolved and the date for 
     the meeting.
       ``(D) Elevation of issue resolution.--If a resolution 
     cannot be achieved within 30 days after a meeting under this 
     paragraph and a determination is made by the Secretary that 
     all information necessary to resolve the issue has been 
     obtained, the Secretary shall forward the dispute to the 
     heads of the relevant agencies for resolution.
       ``(E) Convention by secretary.--The Secretary may convene 
     an issue resolution meeting under this subsection at any 
     time, at the discretion of the Secretary, regardless of 
     whether a meeting is requested under subparagraph (A).
       ``(h) Streamlined Documentation and Decisionmaking.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal lead agency in the 
     environmental review process for a project study, in order to 
     reduce paperwork and expedite decisionmaking, shall prepare a 
     condensed final environmental impact statement under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       ``(2) Condensed format.--A condensed final environmental 
     impact statement for a project study in the environmental 
     review process shall consist only of--
       ``(A) an incorporation by reference of the draft 
     environmental impact statement;
       ``(B) any updates to specific pages or sections of the 
     draft environmental impact statement as appropriate; and
       ``(C) responses to comments on the draft environmental 
     impact statement and copies of the comments.
       ``(3) Timing of decision.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, in conducting the environmental review 
     process for a project study, the Federal lead agency shall 
     combine a final environmental impact statement and a record 
     of decision for the project study into a single document if--
       ``(A) the alternative approved in the record of decision is 
     either a preferred alternative identified in the draft 
     environmental impact statement or is a modification of such 
     preferred alternative developed in response to comments on 
     the draft environmental impact statement; and
       ``(B) the Federal lead agency has a written commitment from 
     parties responsible for implementation of the measures 
     applicable to the approved alternative that are identified in 
     the final environmental impact statement that they will 
     implement those measures.
       ``(i) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt 
     or interfere with--
       ``(1) any practice of seeking, considering, or responding 
     to public comment; or
       ``(2) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority 
     that a Federal or State agency, local government, Indian 
     tribe, or non-Federal project sponsor has with respect to 
     carrying out a project study or any other provision of law 
     applicable to a project.
       ``(j) Timing of Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial 
     review of a permit, license, or other approval issued by a 
     Federal agency for a project study shall be barred unless it 
     is filed not later than 150 days after publication of a 
     notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, 
     license, or other approval is final pursuant to the law under 
     which the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is 
     specified in the Federal law which allows judicial review. 
     Nothing in this subsection shall create a right to judicial 
     review or place any limit on filing a claim that a person has 
     violated the terms of a permit, license, or other approval.
       ``(2) New information.--The Secretary shall consider new 
     information received after the close of a comment period if 
     the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement under title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations. The preparation of a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement or other environmental 
     document when required by this section shall be considered a 
     separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a 
     claim for judicial review of such action shall be 150 days 
     after the date of publication of a notice in the Federal 
     Register announcing such action.
       ``(k) Categorical Exclusions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) survey the use by the Corps of Engineers of 
     categorical exclusions in projects;
       ``(B) publish a review of the survey that includes a 
     description of--
       ``(i) the types of actions that were categorically excluded 
     or may be the basis for developing a new categorical 
     exclusion; and
       ``(ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary 
     for new categorical exclusions; and
       ``(C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and non-
     Federal project sponsors for new categorical exclusions.
       ``(2) New categorical exclusions.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, if the 
     Secretary identifies, based on the review under paragraph 
     (1), a category of activities that merit establishing a 
     categorical exclusion not in existence on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose that new 
     categorical exclusion, to the extent that the categorical 
     exclusion meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion 
     under section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or successor regulation).
       ``(l) Implementation Guidance.--The Secretary shall prepare 
     guidance documents that describe the processes that the 
     Secretary will use to implement this section.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents contained in 
     section 1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     is amended by striking the item relating to section 2045 and 
     inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 2045. Streamlined project delivery.''.
       (c) Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies.--For the repair, 
     reconstruction, or rehabilitation of a water resources 
     project that is in operation or under construction when 
     damaged by an event or incident that results in a declaration 
     by the President of a major disaster

[[Page H6725]]

     or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 
     the Secretary shall treat such repair, reconstruction, or 
     rehabilitation activity as a class of action categorically 
     excluded from the requirements relating to environmental 
     assessments or environmental impact statements under section 
     1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, if such 
     repair or reconstruction activity is in the same location 
     with the same capacity, dimensions, and design as the 
     original water resources project as before the declaration 
     described in this section.

     SEC. 104. CONSOLIDATION OF STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 905(b) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(b)) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 905(a)(1) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``perform a 
     reconnaissance study and''.
       (b) Contents of Feasibility Reports.--Section 905(a)(2) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``A feasibility report shall include a 
     preliminary analysis of the Federal interest and the costs, 
     benefits, and environmental impacts of the project.''.
       (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall continue to carry 
     out a study for which a reconnaissance level investigation 
     has been initiated before the date of enactment of this Act 
     as if this section, including the amendments made by this 
     section, had not been enacted.

     SEC. 105. REMOVAL OF DUPLICATIVE ANALYSES.

       Section 911 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2288) is repealed.

     SEC. 106. EXPEDITING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS AND 
                   ALTERATIONS OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                   INTERESTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after providing notice 
     and an opportunity for comment, shall establish a process for 
     the review of section 14 applications in a timely and 
     consistent manner.
       (b) Section 14 Application Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``section 14 application'' means an application 
     submitted by an applicant to the Secretary requesting 
     permission for the temporary occupation or use of a public 
     work, or the alteration or permanent occupation or use of a 
     public work, under section 14 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
     preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, 
     and for other purposes'', approved March 3, 1899 (commonly 
     known as the ``Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 
     1899'') (33 U.S.C. 408).
       (c) Benchmark Goals.--
       (1) Establishment of benchmark goals.--In carrying out 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (A) establish benchmark goals for determining the amount of 
     time it should take the Secretary to determine whether a 
     section 14 application is complete;
       (B) establish benchmark goals for determining the amount of 
     time it should take the Secretary to approve or disapprove a 
     section 14 application; and
       (C) to the extent practicable, use such benchmark goals to 
     make a decision on section 14 applications in a timely and 
     consistent manner.
       (2) Benchmark goals.--
       (A) Benchmark goals for determining whether section 14 
     applications are complete.--To the extent practicable, the 
     benchmark goals established under paragraph (1) shall provide 
     that--
       (i) the Secretary reach a decision on whether a section 14 
     application is complete not later than 15 days after the date 
     of receipt of the application; and
       (ii) if the Secretary determines that a section 14 
     application is not complete, the Secretary promptly notify 
     the applicant of the specific information that is missing or 
     the analysis that is needed to complete the application.
       (B) Benchmark goals for reviewing completed applications.--
     To the extent practicable, the benchmark goals established 
     under paragraph (1) shall provide that--
       (i) the Secretary generally approve or disapprove a 
     completed section 14 application not later than 45 days after 
     the date of receipt of the completed application; and
       (ii) in a case in which the Secretary determines that 
     additional time is needed to review a completed section 14 
     application due to the type, size, cost, complexity, or 
     impacts of the actions proposed in the application, the 
     Secretary approve or disapprove the application not later 
     than 180 days after the date of receipt of the completed 
     application.
       (3) Notice.--In any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it will take the Secretary more than 45 days to review a 
     completed section 14 application, the Secretary shall--
       (A) provide written notification to the applicant; and
       (B) include in the written notice a best estimate of the 
     Secretary as to the amount of time required for completion of 
     the review.
       (d) Failure To Achieve Benchmark Goals.--In any case in 
     which the Secretary fails make a decision on a section 14 
     application in accordance with the process established under 
     this section, the Secretary shall provide written notice to 
     the applicant, including a detailed description of--
       (1) why the Secretary failed to make a decision in 
     accordance with such process;
       (2) the additional actions required before the Secretary 
     will issue a decision; and
       (3) the amount of time the Secretary will require to issue 
     a decision.
       (e) Notification.--
       (1) Submission to congress.--The Secretary shall provide a 
     copy of any written notice provided under subsection (d) to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate.
       (2) Public availability.--The Secretary shall maintain a 
     publicly available database, including on the Internet, on--
       (A) all section 14 applications received by the Secretary; 
     and
       (B) the current status of such applications.

     SEC. 107. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       (a) Construction of Water Resources Development Projects.--
     Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``FLOOD CONTROL'' 
     and inserting ``WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT''; and
       (2) by striking ``flood control'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``water resources development''.
       (b) Completion of Studies and Design Activities.--Section 
     211(c) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2013''.
       (c) Authority To Carry Out Improvements.--Section 211(d)(1) 
     of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A)(i) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--A non-Federal interest may carry out 
     construction for which studies and design documents are 
     prepared under subsection (b) only if--

       ``(I) the Secretary approves the project for construction; 
     and
       ``(II) the project is specifically authorized by 
     Congress.''; and

       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Studies and design activities under subsection (c).--
     Any non-Federal interest that has received from the Secretary 
     under subsection (c) a favorable recommendation to carry out 
     a water resources development project, or separable element 
     thereof, based on the results of completed studies and design 
     documents for the project or element may carry out the 
     project or element if--
       ``(i) a final environmental impact statement under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) has been filed for the project or element; and
       ``(ii) the project is specifically authorized by 
     Congress.''.
       (d) Reimbursement.--Section 211(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     701b-13(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) if the project is specifically authorized by 
     Congress.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     respectively; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``At the request'' and inserting ``In 
     accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), at the request''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or toward the non-Federal share of any other 
     authorized water resources development study or project of 
     such non-Federal interest''.
       (e) Other Matters.--Section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.--
     Whenever a non-Federal interest constructs improvements to a 
     harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible 
     for maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)) 
     if--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines, before construction, that 
     the improvements, or separable elements thereof, are 
     economically justified and environmentally acceptable;
       ``(2) the Secretary certifies that the project is 
     constructed in accordance with applicable permits and the 
     appropriate engineering and design standards;
       ``(3) the Secretary does not find that the project, or 
     separable element thereof, is no longer economically 
     justified or environmentally acceptable; and
       ``(4) the project is specifically authorized by Congress.
       ``(i) Implementation.--All laws and regulations that would 
     apply to the Secretary if the Secretary were carrying out a 
     project shall apply to the non-Federal interest carrying out 
     a project under this section.
       ``(j) Notification of Committees.--The Secretary shall 
     notify in writing the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate prior 
     to initiation of negotiations with a non-Federal interest 
     regarding the utilization of the authorities under this 
     section.''.
       (f) Repeals.--The following provisions are repealed:
       (1) Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).
       (2) Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) and the item relating to that section 
     in the table of contents contained in section 1(b) of that 
     Act.
       (3) Section 404 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2232 note; 104 Stat. 4646) and the item 
     relating to that section in the table of contents contained 
     in section 1(b) of that Act.

[[Page H6726]]

     SEC. 108. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``from States and political subdivisions 
     thereof,'' and inserting ``from a non-Federal interest (as 
     defined in section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-5b))'';
       (2) by striking ``, which includes planning and design'';
       (3) by inserting ``, including a project for navigation on 
     the inland waterways,'' after ``study or project'';
       (4) by striking ``by States and political subdivisions 
     thereof,'' and inserting ``by a non-Federal interest'';
       (5) by striking ``: Provided further, That the term 
     `States' means the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United 
     States, and Federally recognized Indian tribes''; and
       (6) by inserting ``: And provided further, That the term 
     `work' means the planning, design, or construction of an 
     authorized water resources development study or project, or 
     the repair, restoration, or replacement of an authorized 
     water resources development project that has been damaged by 
     an event or incident that results in a declaration by the 
     President of a major disaster or emergency pursuant to the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)'' after ``contributing 
     interests''.
       (b) Notification for Contributed Funds.--Prior to the 
     initiation of negotiations for accepting contributed funds 
     under section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved June 
     22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), the Secretary shall provide 
     written notice to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--The following provisions are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 111(b) of the Energy and Water Development and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (125 Stat. 858).
       (2) Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 4, 1915 (33 U.S.C. 560).

     SEC. 109. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS FOR 
                   MANAGEMENT OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS INLAND 
                   NAVIGATION FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 225 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2328) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 225. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS FOR 
                   MANAGEMENT OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS FACILITIES.'';

       (2) in subsection (a) by striking ``managing recreation 
     facilities'' and inserting ``operating, maintaining, and 
     managing inland navigational facilities, recreational 
     facilities,''; and
       (3) in subsection (b) by striking ``and management of 
     recreation facilities'' and inserting ``, maintenance, and 
     management of inland navigation facilities, recreational 
     facilities,''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in 
     section 1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     is amended by striking the item relating to section 225 and 
     inserting the following:
       ``225. Contributions by non-Federal interests for 
           management of Corps of Engineers facilities.''.

     SEC. 110. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2280) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In order to insure'' and inserting ``(a) 
     In General.--In order to insure''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Contributions by Non-Federal Interests.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), in accordance with section 5 
     of the Act entitled `An Act authorizing the construction of 
     certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 
     and for other purposes', approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 
     701h), the Secretary may accept funds from a non-Federal 
     interest for any authorized water resources development 
     project that has exceeded its maximum cost under subsection 
     (a), and use such funds to carry out such project, if the use 
     of such funds does not increase the Federal share of the cost 
     of such project.''.

     SEC. 111. CLARIFICATION OF IMPACTS TO OTHER FEDERAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       In any case where the modification or construction of a 
     water resources development project carried out by the 
     Secretary adversely impacts other Federal facilities, the 
     Secretary may accept from other Federal agencies such funds 
     as may be necessary to address the adverse impact, including 
     by removing, relocating, or reconstructing such facilities.

     SEC. 112. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED WORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out measures to 
     improve fish species habitat within the boundaries and 
     downstream of a water resources project constructed by the 
     Secretary that includes a fish hatchery if the Secretary--
       (1) has been explicitly authorized to compensate for fish 
     losses associated with the project; and
       (2) determines that the measures are--
       (A) feasible;
       (B) consistent with authorized project purposes and the 
     fish hatchery; and
       (C) in the public interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the non-Federal 
     interest shall contribute 35 percent of the total cost of 
     carrying out activities under this section, including the 
     costs relating to the provision or acquisition of required 
     land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal 
     areas, and relocations.
       (2) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest 
     shall contribute 100 percent of the costs of operation, 
     maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation of the 
     measures carried out under this section.

     SEC. 113. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``The ability'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--The ability''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Determination.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2013, the Secretary shall issue guidance 
     on the procedures described in clause (i).''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Restrictions.--The Secretary is authorized to carry 
     out activities under this section in fiscal years 2014 
     through 2023.''.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements With Indian Tribes.--The 
     Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with an 
     Indian tribe (or a designated representative of an Indian 
     tribe) to carry out authorized activities of the Corps of 
     Engineers to protect fish, wildlife, water quality, and 
     cultural resources.

     SEC. 114. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Limitation; Statutory Construction.--Section 
     221(a)(4)(E) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b(a)(4)(E)) is amended by striking clause (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a specific 
     provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to 
     receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a 
     water resources project, the Secretary shall apply--

       ``(I) the specific provision of law instead of this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(II) at the request of the non-Federal interest, the 
     specific provision of law and such provisions of this 
     paragraph as the non-Federal interest may request.

       ``(iii) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph may be construed to affect the applicability of 
     subparagraph (C).''.
       (b) Water Resources Project Defined.--Section 221(b) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) is amended--
       (1) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) and the matter 
     following paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (3) by striking ``(b) Definition'' and all that follows 
     through ``The term'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The term''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Water resources project.--The term `water resources 
     project' includes projects studied, reviewed, designed, 
     constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to 
     Federal participation under the authority of the civil works 
     program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of 
     navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, 
     recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife 
     conservation, water quality, environmental infrastructure, 
     resource protection and development, and related purposes.''.
       (c) Correction.--Section 221(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b(c)) is amended by striking ``enforcible'' and 
     inserting ``enforceable''.
       (d) Federal Allocation.--Section 2008(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2340(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection 
     shall apply without regard to whether the original 
     partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
       (e) In-Kind Credit.--Section 221(a)(4)(C) of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(C)) is amended 
     by striking ``In any case'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following:
       ``(i) Construction.--

       ``(I) In general.--In any case in which the non-Federal 
     interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the 
     cost of construction carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before execution of a partnership agreement and that 
     construction has not been carried out as of the date of 
     enactment of this clause, the Secretary and the non-Federal 
     interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-
     Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall do so 
     prior to the non-Federal interest initiating construction or 
     issuing a written notice to proceed for the construction.
       ``(II) Eligibility.--Construction that is carried out after 
     the execution of an agreement under subclause (I) and any 
     design activities that are required for that construction, 
     even if the design activity is carried out prior to the 
     execution of the agreement, shall be eligible for credit.

       ``(ii) Planning.--

[[Page H6727]]

       ``(I) In general.--In any case in which the non-Federal 
     interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the 
     cost of planning carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before execution of a feasibility cost sharing agreement, the 
     Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an 
     agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry 
     out such planning and shall do so prior to the non-Federal 
     interest initiating that planning.
       ``(II) Eligibility.--Planning that is carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest after the execution of an agreement 
     under subclause (I) shall be eligible for credit.''.

     SEC. 115. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP 
                   PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program to evaluate the cost effectiveness and project 
     delivery efficiency of allowing non-Federal interests to 
     carry out authorized water resources development projects for 
     coastal harbor improvement, channel improvement, inland 
     navigation, flood damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, and hurricane and storm damage reduction.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the pilot program 
     established under subsection (a) are--
       (1) to identify cost-saving project delivery alternatives 
     that reduce the backlog of authorized Corps of Engineers 
     projects; and
       (2) to evaluate the technical, financial, and 
     organizational benefits of allowing a non-Federal interest to 
     carry out and manage the design or construction (or both) of 
     1 or more of such projects.
       (c) Subsequent Appropriations.--Any activity undertaken 
     under this section is authorized only to the extent 
     specifically provided for in subsequent appropriations Acts.
       (d) Administration.--In carrying out the pilot program 
     established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) identify for inclusion in the program at least 15 
     projects that are authorized for construction for coastal 
     harbor improvement, channel improvement, inland navigation, 
     flood damage reduction, or hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction;
       (2) notify in writing the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of 
     each project identified under paragraph (1);
       (3) in consultation with the non-Federal interest 
     associated with each project identified under paragraph (1), 
     develop a detailed project management plan for the project 
     that outlines the scope, financing, budget, design, and 
     construction resource requirements necessary for the non-
     Federal interest to execute the project, or a separable 
     element of the project;
       (4) at the request of the non-Federal interest associated 
     with each project identified under paragraph (1), enter into 
     a project partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest 
     under which the non-Federal interest is provided full project 
     management control for the financing, design, or construction 
     (or any combination thereof) of the project, or a separable 
     element of the project, in accordance with plans approved by 
     the Secretary;
       (5) following execution of a project partnership agreement 
     under paragraph (4) and completion of all work under the 
     agreement, issue payment, in accordance with subsection (g), 
     to the relevant non-Federal interest for that work; and
       (6) regularly monitor and audit each project carried out 
     under the program to ensure that all activities related to 
     the project are carried out in compliance with plans approved 
     by the Secretary and that construction costs are reasonable.
       (e) Selection Criteria.--In identifying projects under 
     subsection (d)(1), the Secretary shall consider the extent to 
     which the project--
       (1) is significant to the economy of the United States;
       (2) leverages Federal investment by encouraging non-Federal 
     contributions to the project;
       (3) employs innovative project delivery and cost-saving 
     methods;
       (4) received Federal funds in the past and experienced 
     delays or missed scheduled deadlines;
       (5) has unobligated Corps of Engineers funding balances; 
     and
       (6) has not received Federal funding for recapitalization 
     and modernization since the project was authorized.
       (f) Detailed Project Schedule.--Not later than 180 days 
     after entering into a project partnership agreement under 
     subsection (d)(4), a non-Federal interest, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, shall submit to the Secretary a detailed 
     project schedule for the relevant project, based on estimated 
     funding levels, that specifies deadlines for each milestone 
     with respect to the project.
       (g) Payment.--Payment to the non-Federal interest for work 
     completed pursuant to a project partnership agreement under 
     subsection (d)(4) may be made from--
       (1) if applicable, the balance of the unobligated amounts 
     appropriated for the project;
       (2) other amounts appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, 
     except that the total amount transferred to the non-Federal 
     interest may not exceed the estimate of the Federal share of 
     the cost of construction, including any required design; and
       (3) revenue generated by the project.
       (h) Technical Assistance.--At the request of a non-Federal 
     interest participating in the pilot program established under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may provide to the non-Federal 
     interest, if the non-Federal interest contracts with and 
     compensates the Secretary, technical assistance with respect 
     to--
       (1) a study, engineering activity, or design activity 
     related to a project carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     under the program; and
       (2) obtaining permits necessary for such a project.
       (i) Identification of Impediments.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) except as provided in paragraph (2), identify any 
     procedural requirements under the authority of the Secretary 
     that impede greater use of public-private partnerships and 
     private investment in water resources development projects;
       (B) develop and implement, on a project-by-project basis, 
     procedures and approaches that--
       (i) address such impediments; and
       (ii) protect the public interest and any public investment 
     in water resources development projects that involve public-
     private partnerships or private investment in water resources 
     development projects; and
       (C) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this section, issue rules to carry out the procedures and 
     approaches developed under subparagraph (B).
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to allow the Secretary to waive any requirement 
     under--
       (A) sections 3141 through 3148 and sections 3701 through 
     3708 of title 40, United States Code;
       (B) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); or
       (C) any other provision of Federal law.
       (j) Public Benefit Studies.--
       (1) In general.--Before entering into a project partnership 
     agreement under subsection (d)(4), the Secretary shall 
     conduct an assessment of whether, and provide justification 
     in writing to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate that, 
     the proposed agreement provides better public and financial 
     benefits than a similar transaction using public funding or 
     financing.
       (2) Requirements.--An assessment under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) be completed in a period of not more than 90 days;
       (B) take into consideration any supporting materials and 
     data submitted by the relevant non-Federal interest and other 
     stakeholders; and
       (C) determine whether the proposed project partnership 
     agreement is in the public interest by determining whether 
     the agreement will provide public and financial benefits, 
     including expedited project delivery and savings for 
     taxpayers.
       (k) Non-Federal Funding.--A project carried out under the 
     pilot program established under subsection (a) may consist of 
     the non-Federal interest financing the non-Federal share of 
     the project.
       (l) Applicability of Federal Law.--Any provision of Federal 
     law that would apply to the Secretary if the Secretary were 
     carrying out a project shall apply to a non-Federal interest 
     carrying out a project under this section.
       (m) Cost Share.--Nothing in this section affects a cost-
     sharing requirement under Federal law that is applicable to a 
     project carried out under the pilot program established under 
     subsection (a).
       (n) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the results of 
     the pilot program established under subsection (a), including 
     any recommendations of the Secretary concerning whether the 
     program or any component of the program should be implemented 
     on a national basis.
       (o) Non-Federal Interest Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``non-Federal interest'' includes non-Federal government 
     entities and private entities.

     SEC. 116. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate an annual report, to be entitled ``Report 
     to Congress on Future Water Resources Development'', that 
     identifies the following:
       (1) Feasibility reports.--Each feasibility report that 
     meets the criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (2) Proposed feasibility studies.--Any proposed feasibility 
     study submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest 
     pursuant to subsection (b) that meets the criteria 
     established in subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (3) Proposed modifications.--Any proposed modification to 
     an authorized water resources development project or 
     feasibility study that meets the criteria established in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) that--
       (A) is submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest 
     pursuant to subsection (b); or
       (B) is identified by the Secretary for authorization.
       (b) Requests for Proposals.--
       (1) Publication.--Not later than May 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed 
     feasibility studies and proposed modifications to authorized 
     water resources development projects and feasibility studies 
     to be included in the annual report.
       (2) Deadline for requests.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each notice required by this subsection a requirement that 
     non-Federal interests submit to the Secretary any proposals 
     described in paragraph (1) by not later than 120 days after 
     the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register 
     in order for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in 
     the annual report.
       (3) Notification.--On the date of publication of each 
     notice required by this subsection, the Secretary shall--

[[Page H6728]]

       (A) make the notice publicly available, including on the 
     Internet; and
       (B) provide written notification of such publication to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate.
       (c) Contents.--
       (1) Feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies, and 
     proposed modifications.--
       (A) Criteria for inclusion in report.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the annual report only those feasibility reports, 
     proposed feasibility studies, and proposed modifications to 
     authorized water resources development projects and 
     feasibility studies that--
       (i) are related to the missions and authorities of the 
     Corps of Engineers;
       (ii) require specific authorization by Congress in law or 
     otherwise;
       (iii) are not authorized by Congress;
       (iv) have not been included in any previous annual report; 
     and
       (v) if authorized, could be carried out by the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (B) Description of benefits.--For each proposed feasibility 
     study and proposed modification to an authorized water 
     resources development project or feasibility study included 
     in the annual report, the Secretary shall describe the 
     potential benefit of the proposed feasibility study or 
     modification, including, to the extent applicable, whether 
     the water resources development project that is the subject 
     of the proposed feasibility study, or the proposed 
     modification, will--
       (i) reduce risks to human life or public safety or 
     property;
       (ii) benefit the national economy;
       (iii) stimulate the creation of jobs;
       (iv) reduce the need for future disaster relief;
       (v) promote the development and delivery of domestic energy 
     resources;
       (vi) improve the competitiveness of United States exports;
       (vii) improve water-related transportation for interstate 
     or international commerce;
       (viii) restore or protect, or mitigate the impacts of a 
     water resources development project on, the environment; or
       (ix) promote the use of cost-effective and sustainable 
     solutions to water resources challenges.
       (2) Transparency.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     annual report, for each feasibility report, proposed 
     feasibility study, and proposed modification to an authorized 
     water resources development project or feasibility study 
     included under paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) the name of the associated non-Federal interest, 
     including the name of any non-Federal interest that has 
     contributed, or is expected to contribute, a non-Federal 
     share of the cost of--
       (i) the feasibility report;
       (ii) the proposed feasibility study;
       (iii) the authorized feasibility study for which the 
     modification is proposed; or
       (iv) construction of--

       (I) the water resources development project that is the 
     subject of--

       (aa) the feasibility report;
       (bb) the proposed feasibility study; or
       (cc) the authorized feasibility study for which a 
     modification is proposed; or

       (II) the proposed modification to an authorized water 
     resources development project;

       (B) a letter or statement of support for the feasibility 
     report, proposed feasibility study, or proposed modification 
     to an authorized water resources development project or 
     feasibility study from each associated non-Federal interest;
       (C) the purpose of the feasibility report, proposed 
     feasibility study, or proposed modification to an authorized 
     water resources development project or feasibility study;
       (D) an estimate of the Federal, non-Federal, and total 
     costs of--
       (i) the proposed feasibility study, or proposed 
     modification to an authorized feasibility study; and
       (ii) construction of--

       (I) the water resources development project that is the 
     subject of--

       (aa) the feasibility report; or
       (bb) the authorized feasibility study for which a 
     modification is proposed, with respect to the change in costs 
     resulting from such modification; or

       (II) the proposed modification to an authorized water 
     resources development project; and

       (E) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the monetary 
     and nonmonetary benefits of--
       (i) the water resources development project that is the 
     subject of--

       (I) the feasibility report;
       (II) the proposed feasibility study; or
       (III) the authorized feasibility study for which a 
     modification is proposed, with respect to the benefits of 
     such modification; or

       (ii) the proposed modification to an authorized water 
     resources development project.
       (3) Certification.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     annual report a certification stating that each feasibility 
     report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification 
     to an authorized water resources development project or 
     feasibility study included in the annual report meets the 
     criteria in paragraph (1)(A).
       (4) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include in the annual 
     report an appendix listing the proposals submitted under 
     subsection (b) that were not included in the annual report 
     under paragraph (1)(A) and a description of why the Secretary 
     determined that those proposals did not meet the criteria for 
     inclusion under such paragraph.
       (d) Special Rule for Initial Annual Report.--
     Notwithstanding any other deadlines required by this section, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, publish in the Federal Register a notice required 
     by subsection (b)(1);
       (2) include in such notice a requirement that non-Federal 
     interests submit to the Secretary any proposals described in 
     subsection (b)(1) by not later than 90 days after the date of 
     publication of such notice in the Federal Register in order 
     for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in the 
     first annual report developed by the Secretary under this 
     section; and
       (3) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit an annual report to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (e) Publication.--Upon submission of the annual report to 
     Congress, the Secretary shall make the annual report publicly 
     available, including through publication on the Internet.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Annual report.--The term ``annual report'' means the 
     report required by subsection (a).
       (2) Feasibility report.--The term ``feasibility report'' 
     means a final feasibility report developed under section 905 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2282), and includes--
       (A) a report described in section 105(d)(2) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 2215(d)(2)); and
       (B) where applicable, any associated report of the Chief of 
     Engineers.
       (3) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 105 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
       (4) Non-federal interest.--The term ``non-Federal 
     interest'' has the meaning given that term in section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).

     SEC. 117. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 
                   PRESIDENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET SUBMISSION TO 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) Recommendations for Corps of Engineers Construction 
     Projects in President's Budget.--
       (1) In general.--For each fiscal year, as part of the 
     President's annual budget submission to Congress under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the 
     President shall--
       (A) identify and recommend Corps of Engineers construction 
     projects for which Congress should provide funding at the 
     full level authorized for the project; and
       (B) provide an explanation of the process used by the 
     President in making the recommendations.
       (2) Covered period.--The President shall make 
     recommendations under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year for 
     which the budget submission is prepared and each of the 
     succeeding 4 fiscal years.
       (3) Basis for making recommendations.--The President shall 
     base recommendations under paragraph (1) on the assumption 
     that $2,000,000,000 will be appropriated for Corps of 
     Engineers construction projects for each fiscal year.
       (b) Missouri River Basin.--To assist in the prioritization 
     of Federal activities carried out related to the project for 
     mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank 
     Stabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, 
     and Nebraska, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), and in 
     conjunction with the President's submission to Congress of a 
     budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that 
     provides--
       (1) an inventory of all Federal actions taken and a 
     prioritization of all Federal actions planned in furtherance 
     of the project, including an inventory of lands owned, 
     acquired, or directly controlled by the Federal Government, 
     and lands enrolled in federally assisted conservation 
     programs;
       (2) a description of the specific Federal actions proposed 
     for the upcoming fiscal year in furtherance of the project;
       (3) an assessment of the progress made in furtherance of 
     the project, including a description of how each of the 
     actions identified under paragraph (1) have impacted such 
     progress; and
       (4) an assessment of additional actions necessary to 
     achieve the results of the project.

     SEC. 118. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY.

       As part of the study for flood and storm damage reduction 
     related to natural disasters to be carried out by the 
     Secretary under title II of division A of the Disaster Relief 
     Appropriations Act, 2013, under the heading ``Department of 
     the Army--Corps of Engineers--Civil--Investigations'' (127 
     Stat. 5), the Secretary shall make specific project 
     recommendations. The Secretary may include those 
     recommendations in the report entitled ``Report to Congress 
     on Future Water Resources Development'', developed in 
     accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 119. NON-FEDERAL PLANS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLOOD RISK 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--If requested by a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall carry out a locally preferred plan that 
     provides a higher level of protection than a flood risk 
     management project authorized under this Act if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       (1) the plan is technically feasible and environmentally 
     acceptable; and
       (2) the benefits of the plan exceed the costs of the plan.
       (b) Non-Federal Costs.--If the Secretary carries out a 
     locally preferred plan under subsection (a), the cost 
     attributable to the higher level of protection provided under 
     the plan shall be paid by the non-Federal interest.

     SEC. 120. REVIEW OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall undertake a review of 
     implementation of section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and

[[Page H6729]]

     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), to evaluate the 
     alternatives available to the Secretary to ensure--
       (1) the safety of affected communities to future flooding 
     and storm events;
       (2) the resiliency of water resources development projects 
     to future flooding and storm events;
       (3) the long-term cost effectiveness of water resources 
     development projects that provide flood control and hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction benefits; and
       (4) the policy goals and objectives that have been outlined 
     by the President as a response to recent extreme weather 
     events, including Hurricane Sandy, that relate to preparing 
     for future floods are met.
       (b) Scope of Review.--In carrying out the review, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) review the historical precedents and implementation of 
     section 5 of such Act, including those actions undertaken by 
     the Secretary, over time, under that section--
       (A) to repair or restore a project; and
       (B) to increase the level of protection for a damaged 
     project to address future conditions;
       (2) evaluate the difference between adopting, as an 
     appropriate standard under section 5 of such Act, the repair 
     or restoration of a project to pre-flood or pre-storm levels 
     and the repair or restoration of a project to a design level 
     of protection, including an assessment for each standard of--
       (A) the implications on populations at risk of flooding or 
     damage;
       (B) the implications on probability of loss of life;
       (C) the implications on property values at risk of flooding 
     or damage;
       (D) the implications on probability of increased property 
     damage and associated costs;
       (E) the implications on local and regional economies; and
       (F) the estimated total cost and estimated cost savings;
       (3) incorporate the science on expected rates of sea-level 
     rise and extreme weather events; and
       (4) incorporate the work completed by the Hurricane Sandy 
     Rebuilding Task Force, established by Executive Order 13632 
     (December 7, 2012).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     review.

     SEC. 121. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION OF RISK.

       (a) In General.--In any river basin where the Secretary 
     carries out flood risk management activities subject to an 
     annual operating plan, the Secretary shall establish 
     procedures for providing the public and affected governments, 
     including Indian tribes, in the river basin with--
       (1) timely information regarding expected water levels;
       (2) advice regarding appropriate preparedness actions;
       (3) technical assistance; and
       (4) any other information or assistance determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary.
       (b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall utilize the procedures 
     only when precipitation or runoff exceeds those calculations 
     considered as the lowest risk to life and property 
     contemplated by the annual operating plan.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Affected government.--The term ``affected government'' 
     means a State, local, or tribal government with jurisdiction 
     over an area that will be affected by a flood.
       (2) Annual operating plan.--The term ``annual operating 
     plan'' means a plan prepared by the Secretary that describes 
     potential water condition scenarios for a river basin for a 
     year.

     SEC. 122. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM 
                   ACT.

       (a) Administrator.--
       (1) In general.--The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 
     U.S.C. 467 et seq.) is amended by striking ``Director'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2(3) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 467(3)) is amended in the paragraph heading by 
     striking ``Director'' and inserting ``Administrator''.
       (b) Inspection of Dams.--Section 3(b)(1) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 467a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``or maintenance'' 
     and inserting ``maintenance, condition, or provision for 
     emergency operations''.
       (c) National Dam Safety Program.--
       (1) Objectives.--Section 8(c)(4) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     467f(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) develop and implement a comprehensive dam safety 
     hazard education and public awareness initiative to assist 
     the public in mitigating against, preparing for, responding 
     to, and recovering from dam incidents;''.
       (2) Board.--Section 8(f)(4) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     467f(f)(4)) is amended by inserting ``, representatives from 
     nongovernmental organizations,'' after ``State agencies''.

     SEC. 123. RESTRICTED AREAS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS.

       Section 2 of the Freedom to Fish Act (Public Law 113-13; 
     127 Stat. 449) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``until the date that 
     is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act'';
       (2) in the heading of subsection (c) by inserting ``or 
     Modified'' after ``New''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``new or 
     modified'' after ``establishes any''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``until the date that is 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``until the Secretary has complied with the provisions of 
     this subsection''.

     SEC. 124. LEVEE SAFETY.

       Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended by redesignating subsection 
     (e) as subsection (f) and inserting after subsection (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) Levee Safety.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the request of a State or political 
     subdivision thereof, and in consultation with that State and 
     appropriate non-Federal interests, the Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to a State to--
       ``(A) encourage effective State or local programs intended 
     to ensure levee safety to protect human life and property;
       ``(B) assist the State or political subdivision in 
     establishing and carrying out a levee safety program; or
       ``(C) improve an existing State or local levee safety 
     program.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of technical assistance 
     provided under this subsection shall be--
       ``(A) to ensure that human lives and property that are 
     protected by new and existing levees are safe;
       ``(B) to encourage the use of appropriate engineering 
     policies and procedures for levee site investigation, design, 
     construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency 
     preparedness;
       ``(C) to encourage effective levee safety programs in a 
     State;
       ``(D) to develop and support public education and awareness 
     projects to increase public acceptance and support of levee 
     safety programs;
       ``(E) to build public awareness of the residual risks 
     associated with living in levee protected areas; and
       ``(F) to develop technical assistance materials, seminars, 
     and guidelines to improve the security of levees in the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Federal guidelines.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with States and non-Federal 
     interests, shall establish Federal guidelines relating to 
     levee safety.
       ``(B) Incorporation of federal activities.--The guidelines 
     established under subparagraph (A) shall encompass, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, activities and practices carried 
     out by appropriate Federal agencies.
       ``(C) Incorporation of state and local activities.--The 
     guidelines established under subparagraph (A) shall 
     encompass, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) the activities and practices carried out by States, 
     local governments, and the private sector to safely build, 
     regulate, operate, and maintain levees; and
       ``(ii) Federal activities that facilitate State efforts to 
     develop and implement effective State programs for the safety 
     of levees, including levee inspection, levee rehabilitation, 
     locally developed flood plain management, and public 
     education and training programs.
       ``(D) Review.--The Secretary shall allow States and non-
     Federal interests, including appropriate stakeholders, to 
     review and comment on the guidelines established under 
     subparagraph (A) before the guidelines are made final.
       ``(4) Assistance for state levee safety programs.--
       ``(A) Eligibility.--To be eligible for technical assistance 
     under this subsection, a State shall--
       ``(i) be in the process of establishing or have in effect a 
     State levee safety program under which a State levee safety 
     agency, in accordance with State law, carries out the 
     guidelines established under paragraph (3); and
       ``(ii) allocate sufficient funds in the budget of that 
     State to carry out such State levee safety program.
       ``(B) Work plans.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with each State receiving technical assistance 
     under this subsection to develop a work plan necessary for 
     the State levee safety program of that State to reach a level 
     of program performance that meets the guidelines established 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(C) Inspection programs.--The Secretary shall work with 
     States receiving technical assistance under this subsection 
     to develop State technical guidelines for levee inspection 
     programs that--
       ``(i) address hazard classifications and technically based 
     frameworks for levee assessment; and
       ``(ii) are incorporated into State levee safety programs.
       ``(D) Maintenance of effort.--Technical assistance may not 
     be provided to a State under this subsection during a fiscal 
     year unless the State enters into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to ensure that the State will maintain during that 
     fiscal year aggregate expenditures for programs to ensure 
     levee safety that are at or above the average annual level of 
     such expenditures for the State for the 2 fiscal years 
     preceding that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 125. VEGETATION ON LEVEES.

       (a) Review.--The Secretary of the Army, in accordance with 
     subsection (c), shall undertake a comprehensive review of the 
     Corps of Engineers policy guidelines on vegetation management 
     for levees (in this section referred to as the 
     ``guidelines''). The Secretary shall commence the review upon 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Factors.--
       (1) In general.--In conducting the review, the Secretary 
     shall examine the guidelines in view of--
       (A) the varied interests and responsibilities in managing 
     flood risks, including the need to provide the greatest levee 
     safety benefit with limited resources;
       (B) preserving, protecting, and enhancing natural 
     resources, including the potential benefit that vegetation on 
     levees can have in providing habitat for species of concern;

[[Page H6730]]

       (C) protecting the rights of Indian tribes pursuant to 
     treaties and statutes;
       (D) determining how vegetation impacts the performance of a 
     levee or levee system during a storm or flood event; and
       (E) such other factors as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (2) Regional and watershed considerations.--In conducting 
     the review, the Secretary shall specifically consider factors 
     that promote and allow for consideration of potential 
     variances from national guidelines on a regional or watershed 
     basis. Such factors may include regional or watershed soil 
     conditions, hydrologic factors, vegetation patterns and 
     characteristics, environmental resources, levee performance 
     history, institutional considerations, and other relevant 
     factors. The scope of a variance approved by the Secretary 
     may include an exemption to national guidelines where 
     appropriate.
       (c) Cooperation and Recommendations.--
       (1) In general.--The review shall be undertaken in 
     cooperation with interested Federal agencies and in 
     consultation with interested representatives of State and 
     local governments, Indian tribes, appropriate nongovernmental 
     organizations, and the public.
       (2) Recommendations.--Corps of Engineers Regional 
     Integration Teams, representing districts, divisions, and 
     headquarters, in consultation with State and Federal 
     resources agencies, and with participation by local agencies, 
     shall recommend to the Secretary vegetation management 
     policies for levees that conform with State and Federal laws 
     and other applicable requirements.
       (d) Revision of Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--During the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) provide the public 30 days to review and comment on the 
     guidelines;
       (B) revise the guidelines based on consideration of the 
     results of the public review; and
       (C) submit to Congress a report that contains a summary of 
     the activities of the Secretary and a description of the 
     findings of the Secretary under this section.
       (2) Content; incorporation into manual.--The revised 
     guidelines shall--
       (A) provide a practical process for approving regional or 
     watershed variances from the national guidelines, reflecting 
     due consideration of measures to maximize public safety 
     benefits with limited resources, levee performance, regional 
     climatic and hydrologic variations, environmental quality, 
     implementation challenges, and allocation of 
     responsibilities; and
       (B) be incorporated into the manual proposed under section 
     5(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved August 
     18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)).
       (e) Continuation of Work.--Concurrent with completion of 
     the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall proceed 
     without interruption or delay with those ongoing or 
     programmed projects and studies, or elements of projects or 
     studies, that are not directly related to vegetation variance 
     policy.

     SEC. 126. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL COSTS.

       Section 204(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Reducing costs.--To reduce or avoid Federal costs, 
     the Secretary shall consider the beneficial use of dredged 
     material in a manner that contributes to the maintenance of 
     sediment resources in the nearby coastal system.''.

     SEC. 127. ADVANCED MODELING TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--To the greatest extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall encourage and incorporate advanced modeling 
     technologies, including 3-dimensional digital modeling, for 
     activities related to water resources development projects 
     and studies.
       (b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall--
       (1) compile information related to advanced modeling 
     technologies, including industry best practices with respect 
     to the use of the technologies;
       (2) disseminate to non-Federal interests the information 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       (3) promote the use of advanced modeling technologies.
       (c) Advanced Modeling Technology Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``advanced modeling technology'' means an available 
     or developing technology, including 3-dimensional digital 
     modeling, that can expedite project delivery for or improve 
     the evaluation of water resources development projects that 
     receive Federal funding by--
       (1) accelerating and improving the environmental review 
     process;
       (2) increasing effective public participation;
       (3) enhancing the detail and accuracy of project designs;
       (4) increasing safety;
       (5) accelerating construction and reducing construction 
     costs; or
       (6) otherwise achieving such purposes.

     SEC. 128. ENHANCED USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN FEDERAL 
                   PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the 
     Secretary's actions to carry out section 2301 of title 41, 
     United States Code, regarding the use of electronic commerce 
     in Federal procurement.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include, with respect to the 2 fiscal years most 
     recently ended before the fiscal year in which the report is 
     submitted--
       (1) an identification of the number, type, and dollar value 
     of procurement solicitations with respect to which the public 
     was permitted to respond to the solicitation electronically, 
     which shall differentiate between solicitations that allowed 
     full or partial electronic submission;
       (2) an analysis of the information provided under paragraph 
     (1) and actions that could be taken by the Secretary to 
     refine and improve the use of electronic submission for 
     procurement solicitation responses;
       (3) an analysis of the potential benefits of and obstacles 
     to implementing fuller use of electronic submission for 
     procurement solicitation responses, including with respect to 
     cost savings, error reduction, paperwork reduction, increased 
     bidder participation, and competition, and expanded use of 
     electronic bid data collection for cost-effective contract 
     management and timely reporting; and
       (4) an analysis of the options and technologies available 
     to facilitate expanded implementation of electronic 
     submission for procurement solicitation responses and the 
     suitability of each option and technology for contracts of 
     various types and sizes.

     SEC. 129. CORROSION PREVENTION.

       (a) In General.--To the greatest extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall encourage and incorporate corrosion 
     prevention activities at water resources development 
     projects.
       (b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall ensure 
     that contractors performing work for water resources 
     development projects--
       (1) use best practices to carry out corrosion prevention 
     activities in the field;
       (2) use industry recognized standards and corrosion 
     mitigation and prevention methods when--
       (A) determining protective coatings;
       (B) selecting materials; and
       (C) determining methods of cathodic protection, design, and 
     engineering for corrosion prevention;
       (3) use certified coating application specialists and 
     cathodic protection technicians and engineers;
       (4) use best practices in environmental protection to 
     prevent environmental degradation, and to ensure careful 
     handling of all hazardous materials;
       (5) demonstrate a history of employing industry-certified 
     inspectors to ensure adherence to best practices and 
     standards; and
       (6) demonstrate a history of compliance with applicable 
     requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration.
       (c) Corrosion Prevention Activities Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``corrosion prevention activities'' means--
       (1) the application and inspection of protective coatings 
     for complex work involving steel and cementitious structures, 
     including structures that will be exposed in immersion;
       (2) the installation, testing, and inspection of cathodic 
     protection systems; and
       (3) any other activities related to corrosion prevention 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.

     SEC. 130. RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF INNOVATIVE 
                   MATERIALS.

       The Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall encourage 
     the use of durable, resilient, and sustainable materials and 
     practices, including the use of geosynthetic materials, 
     advanced composites, and innovative technologies, in carrying 
     out the activities of the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 131. ASSESSMENT OF WATER SUPPLY IN ARID REGIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct an assessment 
     of the management practices, priorities, and authorized 
     purposes at Corps of Engineers reservoirs in arid regions to 
     determine the effects of such practices, priorities, and 
     purposes on water supply during periods of drought.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     assessment.

     SEC. 132. RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS.

       Section 5019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (121 Stat. 1201) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Report.--After each fiscal year, if the Secretary did 
     not allocate funds in accordance with subsection (b), the 
     Secretary, in conjunction with the President's next 
     submission to Congress of a budget under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall submit to Congress a 
     report that describes--
       ``(1) the reasons why the Secretary did not allocate funds 
     in accordance with subsection (b) during that fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(2) the impact, on the jurisdiction of each Commission 
     specified in subsection (b), of not allocating the funds, 
     including with respect to--
       ``(A) water supply allocation;
       ``(B) water quality protection;
       ``(C) regulatory review and permitting;
       ``(D) water conservation;
       ``(E) watershed planning;
       ``(F) drought management;
       ``(G) flood loss reduction;
       ``(H) recreation; and
       ``(I) energy development.''.

     SEC. 133. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES 
                   DEVELOPMENT BILLS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Between 1986 and 2000, a water resources development 
     bill was typically enacted every 2 years.
       (2) Since 2000, only 1 water resources development bill has 
     been enacted.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     because the missions of the Corps of Engineers are unique and 
     benefit all individuals in the United States and because 
     water resources development projects are critical to

[[Page H6731]]

     maintaining economic prosperity, national security, and 
     environmental protection, Congress should consider a water 
     resources development bill not less than once every Congress.

     SEC. 134. DONALD G. WALDON LOCK AND DAM.

       It is the sense of Congress that, at an appropriate time 
     and in accordance with the rules of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, to recognize the 
     contributions of Donald G. Waldon, whose selfless 
     determination and tireless work, while serving as 
     administrator of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway for 21 
     years, contributed greatly to the realization and success of 
     the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Compact, that 
     the lock and dam located at mile 357.5 on the Tennessee-
     Tombigbee Waterway should be known and designated as the 
     ``Donald G. Waldon Lock and Dam''.

     SEC. 135. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES.

       Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 
     U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended by inserting ``and aquatic invasive 
     species'' after ``noxious aquatic plant growths''.

     SEC. 136. RECREATIONAL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not prohibit the use of 
     a floating cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary if--
       (1) the floating cabin is in compliance regulations for 
     recreational vessels issued under chapter 43 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 312 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322); and
       (2) the Secretary has authorized the use of recreational 
     vessels on such waters.
       (b) Floating Cabin Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``floating cabin'' means a vessel, as defined in section 3 of 
     title 1, United States Code, with overnight accommodations.

     SEC. 137. TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2310) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary shall waive'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Inflation Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     dollar amount specified in subsection (a) for inflation for 
     the period beginning on November 17, 1986, and ending on the 
     date of enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 138. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERSTATE WATER 
                   AGREEMENTS AND COMPACTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) States and local interests have primary responsibility 
     for developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, 
     industrial, and other purposes.
       (2) The Federal Government cooperates with States and local 
     interests in developing water supplies through the 
     construction, maintenance, and operation of Federal water 
     resources development projects.
       (3) Interstate water disputes are most properly addressed 
     through interstate water agreements or compacts that take 
     into consideration the concerns of all affected States.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress and the Secretary should urge States to reach 
     agreement on interstate water agreements and compacts;
       (2) at the request of the Governor of a State, the 
     Secretary should facilitate and assist in the development of 
     an interstate water agreement or compact;
       (3) Congress should provide prompt consideration of 
     interstate water agreements and compacts; and
       (4) the Secretary should adopt policies and implement 
     procedures for the operation of reservoirs of the Corps of 
     Engineers that are consistent with interstate water 
     agreements and compacts.

                   TITLE II--NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

                           Subtitle A--Ports

     SEC. 201. EXPANDED USE OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--For any fiscal year in which target 
     appropriations described in subsection (b) are met, the 
     Secretary may use up to 5 percent of the total amount made 
     available to the Secretary from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund for the eligible operations and maintenance costs 
     described in section 210(a)(2) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)) for that 
     fiscal year for expanded uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund.
       (b) Target Appropriations.--For purposes of this section, 
     target appropriations are met for a fiscal year if the total 
     amount made available to the Secretary from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund for that fiscal year equals or 
     exceeds, as determined by the Secretary, the following:
       (1) For fiscal year 2014, 65 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2013.
       (2) For fiscal year 2015, 67 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2014.
       (3) For fiscal year 2016, 69 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2015.
       (4) For fiscal year 2017, 71 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2016.
       (5) For fiscal year 2018, 73 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2017.
       (6) For fiscal year 2019, 75 percent of the total amount of 
     harbor maintenance taxes received in fiscal year 2018.
       (7) For fiscal year 2020, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     80 percent of total amount of harbor maintenance taxes 
     received in the previous fiscal year.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Eligible harbors and inland harbors defined.--The term 
     ``eligible harbor or inland harbor'' means a harbor or inland 
     harbor that, historically, as determined by the Secretary--
       (A) generates an amount of harbor maintenance taxes; that 
     exceeds
       (B) the value of work carried out for the harbor or inland 
     harbor using amounts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
       (2) Expanded uses.--The term ``expanded uses'' means the 
     following activities performed for an eligible harbor or 
     inland harbor:
       (A) The maintenance dredging of a berth in a harbor that is 
     accessible to a Federal navigation project and that benefits 
     commercial navigation at the harbor.
       (B) The maintenance dredging and disposal of legacy-
     contaminated sediment, and sediment unsuitable for open water 
     disposal, if--
       (i) such dredging and disposal benefits commercial 
     navigation at the harbor; and
       (ii) such sediment--

       (I) is located in and affects the maintenance of a Federal 
     navigation project; or
       (II) is located in a berth that is accessible to a Federal 
     navigation project.

       (3) Total amount of harbor maintenance taxes received.--The 
     term ``total amount of harbor maintenance taxes received'' 
     means, with respect to a fiscal year, the aggregate of 
     amounts appropriated, transferred, or credited to the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund under section 9505(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 for that fiscal year as set forth in the 
     current year estimate provided in the President's budget 
     request for the subsequent fiscal year, submitted pursuant to 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9505(c)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996)''.
       (e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     any increase in harbor maintenance programs described in this 
     section shall result from an overall increase in 
     appropriations for the civil works program of the Corps of 
     Engineers and not from similar reductions in the 
     appropriations for other programs, projects, and activities 
     carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other authorized 
     purposes.

     SEC. 202. ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF OPERATION AND 
                   MAINTENANCE.

       (a) Assessment.--Section 210 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(c) Assessment of Operation and Maintenance Needs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of 
     the harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) Types of harbors.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of 
     the harbors used for--
       ``(A) commercial navigation;
       ``(B) commercial fishing;
       ``(C) subsistence, including utilization by Indian tribes 
     (as such term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) 
     for subsistence and ceremonial purposes;
       ``(D) use as a harbor of refuge;
       ``(E) transportation of persons;
       ``(F) purposes relating to domestic energy production, 
     including the fabrication, servicing, or supply of domestic 
     offshore energy production facilities;
       ``(G) activities of the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating;
       ``(H) public health and safety related equipment for 
     responding to coastal and inland emergencies;
       ``(I) recreation purposes; and
       ``(J) any other authorized purpose.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--For fiscal year 2015, and 
     biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President's 
     annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that, with respect to 
     harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2)--
       ``(A) identifies the operation and maintenance costs 
     associated with the harbors, including those costs required 
     to achieve and maintain the authorized length, width, and 
     depth for the harbors, on a project-by-project basis;
       ``(B) identifies the amount of funding requested in the 
     President's budget for the operation and maintenance costs 
     associated with the harbors, on a project-by-project basis;
       ``(C) identifies the unmet operation and maintenance needs 
     associated with the harbors, on a project-by-project basis; 
     and
       ``(D) identifies the harbors for which the President will 
     allocate funding over the next 5 fiscal years for operation 
     and maintenance activities, on a project-by-project basis, 
     including the amounts to be allocated for such purposes.''.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance of Emerging Harbor 
     Projects.--Section 210 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2238) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Operation and Maintenance of Emerging Harbor 
     Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall make expenditures to pay for operation and 
     maintenance costs of the harbors referred to in subsection 
     (a)(2), including expenditures of funds appropriated from the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, based on an equitable 
     allocation of funds among all such harbors, regardless of the 
     size or tonnage throughput of the harbor.

[[Page H6732]]

       ``(2) Criteria.--In determining the equitable allocation of 
     funds under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) utilize the information obtained in the assessment 
     conducted under subsection (c);
       ``(B) consider the national and regional significance of 
     harbor operation and maintenance; and
       ``(C) not make such allocation based solely on the tonnage 
     transiting through a harbor.
       ``(3) Emerging harbors.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in making 
     expenditures described in paragraph (1) for each of fiscal 
     years 2015 and 2016, the Secretary shall allocate not less 
     than 10 percent of the total amount of the expenditures to 
     pay for operation and maintenance costs of emerging harbors.
       ``(B) Emerging harbor defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `emerging harbor' means a harbor referred to in subsection 
     (a)(2) that transits less than 1,000,000 tons of commerce 
     annually.
       ``(4) Emergency expenditures.--Nothing in this subsection 
     may be construed to prohibit the Secretary from making an 
     expenditure to pay for the operation and maintenance costs of 
     a specific harbor, including the transfer of funding from the 
     operation and maintenance of a separate project, if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary 
     to address the navigation needs of a harbor where safe 
     navigation has been severely restricted due to an unforeseen 
     event; and
       ``(B) the Secretary provides advance notice and information 
     on the need for the action to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       ``(5) Management of great lakes navigation system.--To 
     sustain effective and efficient operation and maintenance of 
     the Great Lakes Navigation System, including any navigation 
     feature in the Great Lakes that is a Federal responsibility 
     with respect to operation and maintenance, the Secretary 
     shall manage and allocate funding for all of the individually 
     authorized projects in the Great Lakes Navigation System as 
     components of a single, comprehensive system, recognizing the 
     interdependence of the projects.''.

     SEC. 203. PRESERVING UNITED STATES HARBORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into an agreement 
     with a non-Federal interest, at the request of the non-
     Federal interest, under which the Secretary agrees to 
     maintain a navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor 
     (in this section referred to as a ``federally authorized 
     harbor'') in accordance with section 101(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)).
       (b) Report by Non-Federal Interest.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to enter into an agreement 
     under subsection (a) with respect to a federally authorized 
     harbor, a non-Federal interest shall submit to the Secretary 
     a report justifying economic investment in maintenance of the 
     harbor.
       (2) Justification of investment.--A report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) may justify economic investment in the 
     maintenance of a federally authorized harbor based on--
       (A) projected economic benefits, including transportation 
     savings and job creation; and
       (B) other factors, including navigation safety, national 
     security, and sustainability of subsistence harbors.
       (3) Termination of certain agreements.--An agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a) with respect to a federally 
     authorized harbor shall contain terms to allow the Secretary 
     to terminate the agreement if the Secretary determines that 
     Federal economic investment in maintaining the harbor is no 
     longer justified.
       (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to preclude the operation and 
     maintenance of a federally authorized harbor under section 
     101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2211(b)).

     SEC. 204. CONSOLIDATION OF DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION EXPERTISE.

       Section 2033(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Deep draft navigation planning center of expertise.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall consolidate deep 
     draft navigation expertise within the Corps of Engineers into 
     a deep draft navigation planning center of expertise.
       ``(B) List.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     consolidation required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     list of personnel, including the grade levels and expertise 
     of the personnel, assigned to the center described in 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 205. DISPOSAL SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     subsections (b) and (c) and with the concurrence of the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is 
     authorized to reopen the Cape Arundel Disposal Site (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Site'') as an alternative 
     dredged material disposal site under section 103(b) of the 
     Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 
     U.S.C. 1413(b)).
       (b) Deadline.--The Site may remain open under subsection 
     (a) until the earlier of--
       (1) the date on which the Site does not have any remaining 
     disposal capacity;
       (2) the date on which an environmental impact statement 
     designating an alternative dredged material disposal site for 
     southern Maine has been completed; or
       (3) the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Limitations.--The use of the Site as a dredged material 
     disposal site under subsection (a) shall be subject to the 
     conditions that--
       (1) conditions at the Site remain suitable for the 
     continued use of the Site as a dredged material disposal 
     site; and
       (2) the Site not be used for the disposal of more than 
     80,000 cubic yards from any single dredging project.

                      Subtitle B--Inland Waterways

     SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     established by section 9506(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       (2) Qualifying project.--The term ``qualifying project'' 
     means any construction or major rehabilitation project for 
     navigation infrastructure of the inland and intracoastal 
     waterways that is--
       (A) authorized before, on, or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act;
       (B) not completed on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (C) funded at least in part from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund.

     SEC. 212. PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS REFORMS.

       (a) Requirements for Qualifying Projects.--With respect to 
     each qualifying project, the Secretary shall require--
       (1) for each project manager, that--
       (A) the project manager have formal project management 
     training and certification; and
       (B) the project manager be assigned from among personnel 
     certified by the Chief of Engineers; and
       (2) for an applicable cost estimation, that--
       (A) the Secretary utilize a risk-based cost estimate with a 
     confidence level of at least 80 percent; and
       (B) the cost estimate be implemented--
       (i) for a qualifying project that requires an increase in 
     the authorized amount in accordance with section 902 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), 
     during the preparation of a post-authorization change report 
     or other similar decision document;
       (ii) for a qualifying project for which the first 
     construction contract has not been awarded, prior to the 
     award of the first construction contract;
       (iii) for a qualifying project without a completed 
     feasibility report in accordance with section 905 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), 
     prior to the completion of such a report; and
       (iv) for a qualifying project with a completed feasibility 
     report in accordance with section 905 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) that has not yet 
     been authorized, during design for the qualifying project.
       (b) Additional Project Delivery Process Reforms.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) establish a system to identify and apply on a 
     continuing basis best management practices from prior or 
     ongoing qualifying projects to improve the likelihood of on-
     time and on-budget completion of qualifying projects;
       (2) evaluate early contractor involvement acquisition 
     procedures to improve on-time and on-budget project delivery 
     performance; and
       (3) implement any additional measures that the Secretary 
     determines will achieve the purposes of this subtitle, 
     including--
       (A) the implementation of applicable practices and 
     procedures developed pursuant to management by the Secretary 
     of an applicable military construction program;
       (B) the development and use of a portfolio of standard 
     designs for inland navigation locks;
       (C) the use of full-funding contracts or formulation of a 
     revised continuing contracts clause; and
       (D) the establishment of procedures for recommending new 
     project construction starts using a capital projects business 
     model.
       (c) Pilot Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may carry out pilot projects to evaluate processes and 
     procedures for the study, design, and construction of 
     qualifying projects.
       (2) Inclusions.--At a minimum, the Secretary shall carry 
     out pilot projects under this subsection to evaluate--
       (A) early contractor involvement in the development of 
     features and components;
       (B) an appropriate use of continuing contracts for the 
     construction of features and components; and
       (C) applicable principles, procedures, and processes used 
     for military construction projects.
       (d) Inland Waterways User Board.--Section 302 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Duties of Users Board.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Users Board shall meet not less 
     frequently than semiannually to develop and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary and Congress regarding the 
     inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States.
       ``(2) Advice and recommendations.--For commercial 
     navigation features and components of the inland waterways 
     and inland harbors of the United States, the Users Board 
     shall provide--
       ``(A) prior to the development of the budget proposal of 
     the President for a given fiscal year, advice and 
     recommendations to the Secretary regarding construction and 
     rehabilitation priorities and spending levels;

[[Page H6733]]

       ``(B) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding any 
     completed feasibility report in accordance with section 905 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2282) relating to those features and components;
       ``(C) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding an 
     increase in the authorized cost of those features and 
     components;
       ``(D) not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     submission of the budget proposal of the President to 
     Congress, advice and recommendations to Congress regarding 
     construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending 
     levels; and
       ``(E) advice and recommendations on the development of a 
     long-term capital investment program in accordance with 
     subsection (d).
       ``(3) Project development teams.--The chairperson of the 
     Users Board shall appoint a representative of the Users Board 
     to serve as an informal advisor to the project development 
     team for a qualifying project or the study or design of a 
     commercial navigation feature or component of the inland 
     waterways and inland harbors of the United States.
       ``(4) Independent judgment.--Any advice or recommendation 
     made by the Users Board to the Secretary shall reflect the 
     independent judgment of the Users Board.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Duties of Secretary.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) communicate not less than once each quarter to the 
     Users Board the status of the study, design, or construction 
     of all commercial navigation features or components of the 
     inland waterways or inland harbors of the United States; and
       ``(2) submit to the Users Board a courtesy copy of all 
     completed feasibility reports relating to a commercial 
     navigation feature or component of the inland waterways or 
     inland harbors of the United States.
       ``(d) Capital Investment Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the Users Board, shall develop and submit to Congress a 
     report describing a 20-year program for making capital 
     investments on the inland and intracoastal waterways based on 
     the application of objective, national project selection 
     prioritization criteria.
       ``(2) Consideration.--In developing the program under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into consideration 
     the 20-year capital investment strategy contained in the 
     Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Capital Projects 
     Business Model, Final Report published on April 13, 2010, as 
     approved by the Users Board.
       ``(3) Criteria.--In developing the plan and prioritization 
     criteria under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that investments made under 
     the 20-year program described in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) are made in all geographical areas of the inland 
     waterways system; and
       ``(B) ensure efficient funding of inland waterways 
     projects.
       ``(4) Strategic review and update.--Not later than 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, and not less 
     frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary, 
     in coordination with the Users Board, shall--
       ``(A) submit to Congress a strategic review of the 20-year 
     program in effect under this subsection, which shall identify 
     and explain any changes to the project-specific 
     recommendations contained in the previous 20-year program 
     (including any changes to the prioritization criteria used to 
     develop the updated recommendations); and
       ``(B) make revisions to the program, as appropriate.
       ``(e) Project Management Plans.--The chairperson of the 
     Users Board and the project development team member appointed 
     by the chairperson under subsection (b)(3) may sign the 
     project management plan for the qualifying project or the 
     study or design of a commercial navigation feature or 
     component of the inland waterways and inland harbors of the 
     United States.
       ``(f) Administration.--The Users Board shall be subject to 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act, other than section 14, 
     and, with the consent of the appropriate agency head, the 
     Users Board may use the facilities and services of any 
     Federal agency. For the purposes of complying with such Act, 
     the members of the Users Board shall not be considered 
     special Government employees (as defined in section 202 of 
     title 18, United States Code). Non-Federal members of the 
     Users Board while engaged in the performance of their duties 
     away from their homes or regular places of business, may be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.''.

     SEC. 213. EFFICIENCY OF REVENUE COLLECTION.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     prepare a report on the efficiency of collecting the fuel tax 
     for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of whether current methods of collection 
     of the fuel tax result in full compliance with requirements 
     of the law;
       (2) whether alternative methods of collection would result 
     in increased revenues into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; 
     and
       (3) an evaluation of alternative collection options.

     SEC. 214. INLAND WATERWAYS REVENUE STUDIES.

       (a) Inland Waterways Construction Bonds Study.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, shall conduct a study on the 
     feasibility of authorizing the issuance of federally tax-
     exempt bonds secured against the available proceeds, 
     including projected annual receipts, in the Inland Waterways 
     Trust Fund established by section 9506(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) Contents.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary and 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall examine the implications 
     of issuing such bonds, including the potential revenues that 
     could be generated and the projected net cost to the 
     Treasury, including loss of potential revenue.
       (3) Consultation.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of the Treasury, at a minimum, shall 
     consult with--
       (A) representatives of the Inland Waterway Users Board 
     established by section 302 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251);
       (B) representatives of the commodities and bulk cargos that 
     are currently shipped for commercial purposes on the segments 
     of the inland and intracoastal waterways listed in section 
     206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 
     1804);
       (C) representatives of other users of locks and dams on the 
     inland and intracoastal waterways, including persons owning, 
     operating, using, or otherwise benefitting from--
       (i) hydropower generation facilities;
       (ii) electric utilities that rely on the waterways for 
     cooling of existing electricity generation facilities;
       (iii) municipal and industrial water supply;
       (iv) recreation;
       (v) irrigation water supply; or
       (vi) flood damage reduction;
       (D) other stakeholders associated with the inland and 
     intracoastal waterways, as identified by the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of the Treasury; and
       (E) the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, 
     including the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       (4) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a joint report on the 
     results of the study to--
       (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the 
     Committee on Finance, and the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Potential Fees for Beneficiaries and Users of Inland 
     and Intracoastal Waterways Infrastructure.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and 
     submit to Congress a report on potential user fees and 
     revenues from other sources that could be collected to 
     generate additional revenues for the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund established by section 9506(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (2) Scope of study.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall evaluate an array of potential user fees and other 
     revenues options that, when combined with funds generated by 
     section 4042 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, are 
     sufficient to support one-half of annual construction 
     expenditure levels of $380,000,000 for the authorized 
     purposes of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (B) Potential revenue options for study.--In carrying out 
     the study, the Secretary, at a minimum, shall evaluate 
     potential user fees and other revenue options identified in--
       (i) the report of the Congressional Budget Office entitled 
     ``Paying for Highways, Airways, and Waterways: How Can Users 
     Be Charged?'', dated May 1, 1992;
       (ii) the draft bill submitted by the Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army (Civil Works) to Congress entitled the ``Lock User 
     Fee Act of 2008'', dated April 4, 2008;
       (iii) the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) 
     Capital Projects Business Model, Final Report, published on 
     April 12, 2010, as approved by the Inland Waterways Users 
     Board established by section 302 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251); and
       (iv) the draft bill submitted by the President to Congress 
     entitled the ``Inland Waterways Capital Investment Act of 
     2011'', dated September 2011.
       (3) Conduct of study.--In carrying out the study, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) take into consideration whether the potential user fees 
     and revenues from other sources--
       (i) are equitably associated with the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of inland and intracoastal 
     waterway infrastructure, including locks, dams, and 
     navigation channels; and
       (ii) can be efficiently collected;
       (B) consult with, at a minimum--
       (i) representatives of the Inland Waterways Users Board; 
     and
       (ii) representatives of other nonnavigation beneficiaries 
     of inland and intracoastal waterway infrastructure, including 
     persons benefitting from--

       (I) municipal water supply;
       (II) hydropower;
       (III) recreation;
       (IV) industrial water supply;
       (V) flood damage reduction;
       (VI) agricultural water supply;
       (VII) environmental restoration;
       (VIII) local and regional economic development; or
       (IX) local real estate interests; and

       (iii) representatives of other interests, as identified by 
     the Secretary; and
       (C) provide the opportunity for public hearings in each of 
     the geographic regions that contain segments of the inland 
     and intracoastal

[[Page H6734]]

     waterways listed in section 206 of the Inland Waterways 
     Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804).
       (4) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report on the results of the study to--
       (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the 
     Committee on Finance, and the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 215. INLAND WATERWAYS STAKEHOLDER ROUNDTABLE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct an inland 
     waterways stakeholder roundtable to provide for a review and 
     evaluation of alternative approaches--
       (1) to address the financial needs of the Inland Waterways 
     Trust Fund; and
       (2) to support the water infrastructure needs of the Inland 
     Waterways System.
       (b) Selection of Participants.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary submits to Congress the report required 
     by section 214(b), the Secretary shall select individuals to 
     be invited to participate in the stakeholder roundtable.
       (2) Composition.--The individuals selected under paragraph 
     (1) shall include--
       (A) representatives of affected shippers and suppliers;
       (B) representatives of State and Federal water managers; 
     and
       (C) other interested persons with direct knowledge of the 
     Inland Waterways System.
       (c) Framework and Agenda.--The Secretary shall work with a 
     group of the individuals selected under subsection (b) to 
     develop the framework and agenda for the stakeholder 
     roundtable.
       (d) Conduct of Stakeholder Roundtable.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary submits to Congress the report required 
     by section 214(b), the Secretary shall conduct the 
     stakeholder roundtable.
       (2) Issues to be discussed.--The stakeholder roundtable 
     shall provide for the review and evaluation described in 
     subsection (a) and shall include the following:
       (A) An evaluation of alternatives that have been developed 
     to address funding options for the Inland Waterways System.
       (B) An evaluation of the funding status of the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund.
       (C) Prioritization of the ongoing and projected water 
     infrastructure needs of the Inland Waterways System.
       (D) Identification of a process forward for meeting such 
     needs, with timeline for addressing the funding challenges 
     for the inland waterways trust system.
       (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary submits to Congress the report 
     required by section 214(b), the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report that contains--
       (1) a summary the stakeholder roundtable, including areas 
     of concurrence on funding approaches and areas or 
     disagreement in meeting funding needs; and
       (2) recommendations developed by the Secretary for logical 
     next steps to address the issues discussed at the stakeholder 
     roundtable.

     SEC. 216. PRESERVING THE INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) Olmsted Project Reform.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 102(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212(a)), 
     for each fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, 25 percent of the cost of construction for the 
     Olmsted Project shall be paid from amounts appropriated from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection the term ``Olmsted 
     Project'' means the project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, 
     Locks 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 
     3(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 
     Stat. 4013).
       (3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the appropriation for the Olmsted project should be not less 
     than $150,000,000 for each fiscal year until construction of 
     the project is completed.
       (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate regarding the lessons learned from 
     the experience of planning and constructing the Olmsted 
     Project and how such lessons might apply to future inland 
     waterway studies and projects.
       (b) Annual Report on Progress and Costs.--For any inland 
     waterways project that the Secretary carries out that has an 
     estimated total cost of $500,000,000 or more, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the congressional committees referred to in 
     subsection (a)(4) an annual financial plan for the project. 
     The plan shall be based on detailed annual estimates of the 
     cost to complete the remaining elements of the project and on 
     reasonable assumptions, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     any future increases of the cost to complete the project.

     SEC. 217. PUBLIC COMMENT ON LOCK OPERATIONS.

       At least 90 days before carrying out a proposed 
     modification to the operation of a lock at a project for 
     navigation on the inland waterways, the Secretary shall--
       (1) provide notice of the proposed modification in the 
     Federal Register; and
       (2) accept public comments on the proposed modification.

     SEC. 218. ASSESSMENT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF 
                   THE ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND THE GULF 
                   INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall assess the 
     operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal 
     Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
       (b) Types of Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance 
     needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf 
     Intracoastal Waterway as used for the following purposes:
       (1) Commercial navigation.
       (2) Commercial fishing.
       (3) Subsistence, including utilization by Indian tribes (as 
     such term is defined by section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) 
     for subsistence and ceremonial purposes.
       (4) Use as ingress and egress to harbors of refuge.
       (5) Transportation of persons.
       (6) Purposes relating to domestic energy production, 
     including fabrication, servicing, and supply of domestic 
     offshore energy production facilities.
       (7) Activities of the Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating.
       (8) Public health and safety related equipment for 
     responding to coastal and inland emergencies.
       (9) Recreation purposes.
       (10) Any other authorized purpose.
       (c) Report to Congress.--For fiscal year 2015, and 
     biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President's 
     annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that, with respect to the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway--
       (1) identifies the operation and maintenance costs required 
     to achieve the authorized length, width, and depth;
       (2) identifies the amount of funding requested in the 
     President's budget for operation and maintenance costs; and
       (3) identifies the unmet operation and maintenance needs of 
     the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway.

     SEC. 219. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION.

       (a) Economic Impact Study.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the impact 
     of closing the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam on the 
     economy and the environment, including an assessment of the 
     annual average tonnage moving through the Upper St. Anthony 
     Falls Lock and Dam during the preceding 5 years.
       (b) Mandatory Closure.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall close the 
     Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam if the Secretary 
     determines pursuant to the study conducted under subsection 
     (a), or based on other appropriate information made available 
     to the Secretary, that the annual average tonnage moving 
     through the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam during the 
     preceding 5 years was not more than 1,500,000 tons.
       (c) Emergency Operations.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to prevent the Secretary from carrying out 
     emergency lock operations necessary to mitigate flood damage.
       (d) Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam'' 
     means the lock and dam located on Mississippi River Mile 
     853.9 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

     SEC. 220. CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCK AND DAM ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 1117 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4236) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1117. W.D. MAYO LOCK AND DAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma may--
       ``(1) design and construct one or more hydroelectric 
     generating facilities at the W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam on the 
     Arkansas River, Oklahoma; and
       ``(2) market the electricity generated from any such 
     facility.
       ``(b) Preconstruction Requirements.--
       ``(1) Permits.--Before the date on which construction of a 
     hydroelectric generating facility begins under subsection 
     (a), the Cherokee Nation shall obtain any permit required 
     under Federal or State law, except that the Cherokee Nation 
     shall be exempt from licensing requirements that may 
     otherwise apply to construction, operation, or maintenance of 
     the facility under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et 
     seq.).
       ``(2) Review of plans and specifications.--The Cherokee 
     Nation may initiate the design or construction of a 
     hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a) only 
     after the Secretary reviews and approves the plans and 
     specifications for the design and construction.
       ``(c) Payment of Design and Construction Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept funds offered 
     by the Cherokee Nation and use such funds to carry out the 
     design and construction of a hydroelectric generating 
     facility under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Allocation of costs.--The Cherokee Nation shall--
       ``(A) bear all costs associated with the design and 
     construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(B) provide any funds necessary for the design and 
     construction to the Secretary prior to the Secretary 
     initiating any activities related to the design and 
     construction.

[[Page H6735]]

       ``(d) Assumption of Liability.--The Cherokee Nation shall--
       ``(1) hold all title to a hydroelectric generating facility 
     constructed under subsection (a) and may, subject to the 
     approval of the Secretary, assign such title to a third 
     party;
       ``(2) be solely responsible for--
       ``(A) the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 
     rehabilitation of the facility; and
       ``(B) the marketing of the electricity generated by the 
     facility; and
       ``(3) release and indemnify the United States from any 
     claims, causes of action, or liabilities that may arise out 
     of any activity undertaken to carry out this section.
       ``(e) Assistance Available.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical and construction management assistance requested by 
     the Cherokee Nation relating to the design and construction 
     of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a).
       ``(f) Third Party Agreements.--The Cherokee Nation may 
     enter into agreements with the Secretary or a third party 
     that the Cherokee Nation or the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to carry out this section.''.

           TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND BACKLOG PREVENTION

     SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to identify $12,000,000,000 in water resources 
     development projects authorized by Congress that are no 
     longer viable for construction due to--
       (A) a lack of local support;
       (B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources; 
     or
       (C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or 
     feasible;
       (2) to create an expedited and definitive process to 
     deauthorize water resources development projects that are no 
     longer viable for construction; and
       (3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources 
     development projects that are viable for construction.
       (b) Deauthorization of Projects Authorized Before WRDA 
     2007.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, and shall publish in the Federal 
     Register, a report that lists each authorized water resources 
     development project, or separable element of a project, 
     authorized for construction before November 8, 2007--
       (A) for which--
       (i) construction was not initiated before the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) construction was initiated before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but for which no funds, Federal or 
     non-Federal, were obligated for construction of the project 
     or separable element during the 5-year period ending on July 
     1, 2013; and
       (B) that is identified in accordance with paragraph (3).
       (2) Special rule for ongoing construction.--A project or 
     separable element shall not be listed pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) if the project or separable element is being 
     constructed as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Identification of projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall identify in the report 
     submitted under paragraph (1) projects and separable elements 
     that--
       (i) meet the requirements described in subparagraph (A) of 
     that paragraph; and
       (ii) in the aggregate have an estimated Federal cost to 
     complete (as of the date of the report) that is at least 
     $12,000,000,000.
       (B) Sequencing of projects.--In identifying projects and 
     separable elements under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall identify projects and separable elements according to 
     the order in which the projects and separable elements were 
     authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized projects 
     and separable elements and ending upon the aggregate 
     estimated Federal cost to complete for the projects and 
     separable elements identified satisfying the requirement 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (4) Congressional review period; deauthorization.--After 
     the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of 
     the submission of the report under this subsection, any 
     project or separable element identified in that report is 
     hereby deauthorized, unless during such period the non-
     Federal interest for the project or separable element 
     provides, under Federal law, all funds necessary to complete 
     the project or separable element.
       (c) Treatment of Project Modifications.--For purposes of 
     this section, if an authorized water resources development 
     project or separable element has been modified in an Act of 
     Congress, the date of the authorization of the project or 
     separable element shall be deemed to be the date of the most 
     recent such modification.

     SEC. 302. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.

       (a) Assessment and Inventory.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     conduct an assessment of all properties under the control of 
     the Corps of Engineers and develop an inventory of the 
     properties that are not needed for the missions of the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (b) Criteria.--In conducting the assessment and developing 
     the inventory under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use 
     the following criteria:
       (1) The extent to which the property aligns with the 
     current missions of the Corps of Engineers.
       (2) The economic impact of the property on existing 
     communities in the vicinity of the property.
       (3) The extent to which the utilization rate for the 
     property is being maximized and is consistent with 
     nongovernmental industry standards for the given function or 
     operation.
       (4) The extent to which the reduction or elimination of the 
     property could reduce operation and maintenance costs of the 
     Corps of Engineers.
       (5) The extent to which the reduction or elimination of the 
     property could reduce energy consumption by the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (c) Notification.--As soon as practicable following 
     completion of the inventory of properties under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall provide the inventory to the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the notification under subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report containing the findings of the Secretary with respect 
     to the assessment and inventory required under subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 303. BACKLOG PREVENTION.

       (a) Project Deauthorization.--
       (1) In general.--A water resources development project, or 
     separable element of such a project, authorized for 
     construction by this Act shall not be authorized after the 
     last day of the 7-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act unless during that period funds have 
     been obligated for construction of such project.
       (2) Identification of projects.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the expiration of the 7-year period referred to in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report that identifies the projects 
     deauthorized under paragraph (1).
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     expiration of the 12-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that contains--
       (1) a list of any water resources development projects 
     authorized by this Act for which construction has not been 
     completed during that period;
       (2) a description of the reasons the projects were not 
     completed; and
       (3) a schedule for the completion of the projects based on 
     expected levels of appropriations.

     SEC. 304. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized 
     after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Walnut creek (pacheco creek), california.--The portions 
     of the project for flood protection on Walnut Creek, 
     California, constructed under section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-645; 74 Stat. 488), 
     consisting of the Walnut Creek project from Sta 0+00 to Sta 
     142+00 and the upstream extent of the Walnut Creek project 
     along Pacheco Creek from Sta 0+00 to Sta 73+50.
       (2) Walnut creek (san ramon creek), california.--The 
     portion of the project for flood protection on Walnut Creek, 
     California, constructed under section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-645; 74 Stat. 488), 
     consisting of the culvert constructed by the Department of 
     the Army on San Ramon Creek from Sta 4+27 to Sta 14+27.
       (3) Hillsborough (hillsboro) bay and river, florida.--Those 
     portions of the project for navigation, Hillsborough 
     (Hillsboro) Bay and River, Florida, authorized by the Act of 
     March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1126; chapter 425), that extend on 
     either side of the Hillsborough River from the Kennedy 
     Boulevard bridge to the mouth of the river that cause the 
     existing channel to exceed 100 feet in width.
       (4) Kahului wastewater reclamation facility, maui, 
     hawaii.--The project carried out pursuant to the authority 
     provided by section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 701r) to provide shoreline protection for the Kahului 
     Wastewater Reclamation Facility, located on the Island of 
     Maui in the State of Hawaii.
       (5) Chicago harbor, illinois.--The portion of the project 
     for navigation, Chicago Harbor, Illinois, authorized by the 
     first section of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129; 
     chapter 425), and the first section of the Act of March 2, 
     1919 (40 Stat. 1283; chapter 95), and described as follows:
       (A) Beginning at the southwest corner of Metropolitan 
     Sanitary District of Greater Chicago sluice gate that abuts 
     the north wall of the Chicago River Lock.
       (B) Thence running north for approximately 290 feet.
       (C) Thence running east approximately 1,000 feet.
       (D) Thence running south approximately 290 feet.
       (E) Thence running west approximately 1,000 feet to the 
     point of origin.
       (6) Lucas-berg pit, illinois waterway and grant calumet 
     river, illinois.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
     Illinois Waterway and Grand Calumet River, Illinois, 
     authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes'', approved July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636; chapter 
     596), that consists of the Lucas-Berg Pit confined disposal 
     facility, Illinois.
       (7) Rockland harbor, maine.--The portion of the project for 
     navigation, Rockland Harbor,

[[Page H6736]]

     Maine, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 202), and 
     described as follows:
       (A) Beginning at the point in the 14-foot turning basin 
     limit with coordinates N162,927.61, E826,210.16.
       (B) Thence running north 45 degrees 45 minutes 15.6 seconds 
     east 287.45 feet to a point N163,128.18, E826,416.08.
       (C) Thence running south 13 degrees 17 minutes 53.3 seconds 
     east 129.11 feet to a point N163,002.53, E826,445.77.
       (D) Thence running south 45 degrees 45 minutes 18.4 seconds 
     west 221.05 feet to a point N162,848.30, E826,287.42.
       (E) Thence running north 44 degrees 14 minutes 59.5 seconds 
     west 110.73 feet to the point of origin.
       (8) Corsica river, queen anne's county, maryland.--The 
     portion of the project for improving the Corsica River, 
     Maryland, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, 
     and preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors, and for other purposes'', approved July 25, 1912 (37 
     Stat. 205), and described as follows: Approximately 2,000 
     feet of the eastern section of the project channel extending 
     from--
       (A) centerline station 0+000 (coordinates N506350.60, 
     E1575013.60); to
       (B) station 2+000 (coordinates N508012.39, E1574720.18).
       (9) Gloucester harbor and annisquam river, massachusetts.--
     The portions of the project for navigation, Gloucester Harbor 
     and Annisquam River, Massachusetts, authorized by section 2 
     of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, 
     repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers 
     and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved of March 2, 
     1945 (59 Stat. 12; chapter 19), consisting of an 8-foot 
     anchorage area in Lobster Cove, and described as follows:
       (A) Beginning at a bend along the easterly limit of the 
     existing project, N3063230.31, E878283.77, thence running 
     northwesterly about 339 feet to a point, N3063478.86, 
     E878053.83, thence running northwesterly about 281 feet to a 
     bend on the easterly limit of the existing project, 
     N3063731.88, E877932.54, thence running southeasterly about 
     612 feet along the easterly limit of the existing project to 
     the point of origin.
       (B) Beginning at a bend along the easterly limit of the 
     existing project, N3064065.80, E878031.45, thence running 
     northwesterly about 621 feet to a point, N3064687.05, 
     E878031.13, thence running southwesterly about 122 feet to a 
     point, N3064686.98, E877908.85, thence running southeasterly 
     about 624 feet to a point, N3064063.31, E877909.17, thence 
     running southwesterly about 512 feet to a point, N3063684.73, 
     E877564.56, thence running about 741 feet to a point along 
     the westerly limit of the existing project, N3063273.98, 
     E876947.77, thence running northeasterly about 533 feet to a 
     bend along the westerly limit of the existing project, 
     N3063585.62, E877380.63, thence running about 147 feet 
     northeasterly to a bend along the westerly limit of the 
     project, N3063671.29, E877499.63, thence running 
     northeasterly about 233 feet to a bend along the westerly 
     limit of the existing project, N3063840.60, E877660.29, 
     thence running about 339 feet northeasterly to a bend along 
     the westerly limit of the existing project, N3064120.34, 
     E877852.55, thence running about 573 feet to a bend along the 
     westerly limit of the existing project, N3064692.98, 
     E877865.04, thence running about 113 feet to a bend along the 
     northerly limit of the existing project, N3064739.51, 
     E877968.31, thence running 145 feet southeasterly to a bend 
     along the northerly limit of the existing project, 
     N3064711.19, E878110.69, thence running about 650 feet along 
     the easterly limit of the existing project to the point of 
     origin.
       (10) Ipswich river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by the first section of the Act of August 5, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 317, chapter 929) consisting of a 4-foot channel 
     located at the entrance to the inner harbor at Ipswich 
     Harbor, and described as follows:
       (A) Lying northwesterly of a line commencing at 
     N3,074,938.09, E837,154.87.
       (B) Thence running easterly approximately 60 feet to a 
     point with coordinates N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93.
       (11) East fork of trinity river, texas.--The portion of the 
     project for flood protection on the East Fork of the Trinity 
     River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185), that consists of the 2 levees 
     identified as Kaufman County Levees K5E and K5W.
       (12) Burnham canal, wisconsin.--The portion of the project 
     for navigation, Milwaukee Harbor Project, Milwaukee, 
     Wisconsin, known as the Burnham Canal, authorized by the 
     first section of the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection 
     of commerce on Lake Michigan'', approved March 3, 1843 (5 
     Stat. 619; chapter 85), and described as follows:
       (A) Beginning at channel point #415a N381768.648, 
     E2524554.836, a distance of about 170.58 feet.
       (B) Thence running south 53 degrees 43 minutes 41 seconds 
     west to channel point #417 N381667.728, E2524417.311, a 
     distance of about 35.01 feet.
       (C) Thence running south 34 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds 
     west to channel point #501 N381638.761, E2524397.639, a 
     distance of about 139.25 feet.
       (D) Thence running south 34 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds 
     west to channel point #503 N381523.557, E2524319.406, a 
     distance of about 235.98 feet.
       (E) Thence running south 32 degrees 59 minutes 13 seconds 
     west to channel point #505 N381325.615, E2524190.925, a 
     distance of about 431.29 feet.
       (F) Thence running south 32 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds 
     west to channel point #509 N380962.276, E2523958.547, a 
     distance of about 614.52 feet.
       (G) Thence running south 89 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds 
     west to channel point #511 N380952.445, E2523344.107, a 
     distance of about 74.68 feet.
       (H) Thence running north 89 degrees 04 minutes 59 seconds 
     west to channel point #512 N381027.13, E2523342.91, a 
     distance of about 533.84 feet.
       (I) Thence running north 89 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds 
     east to channel point #510 N381035.67, E2523876.69, a 
     distance of about 47.86 feet.
       (J) Thence running north 61 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds 
     east to channel point #508 N381058.84, E2523918.56, a 
     distance of about 308.55 feet.
       (K) Thence running north 36 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds 
     east to channel point #506 N381307.65, E2524101.05, a 
     distance of about 199.98 feet.
       (L) Thence running north 32 degrees 59 minutes 12 seconds 
     east to channel point #504 N381475.40, E2524209.93, a 
     distance of about 195.14 feet.
       (M) Thence running north 26 degrees 17 minutes 22 seconds 
     east to channel point #502 N381650.36, E2524296.36, a 
     distance of about 81.82 feet.
       (N) Thence running north 88 degrees 51 minutes 05 seconds 
     west to channel point #419 N381732.17, E2524294.72, a 
     distance of about 262.65 feet.
       (O) Thence running north 82 degrees 01 minutes 02 seconds 
     east to channel point #415a, the point of origin.
       (13) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Manitowoc River, Manitowoc, 
     Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 
     58; chapter 104), and described as follows: The triangular 
     area bound by--
       (A) 44.09893383N and 087.66854912W;
       (B) 44.09900535N and 087.66864372W; and
       (C) 44.09857884N and 087.66913123W.
       (b) Seward Waterfront, Seward, Alaska.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the portion of 
     the project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, identified 
     as Tract H, Seward Original Townsite, Waterfront Park Replat, 
     Plat No 2012-4, Seward Recording District, shall not be 
     subject to navigation servitude beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Entry by federal government.--The Federal Government 
     may enter upon the property referred to in paragraph (1) to 
     carry out any required operation and maintenance of the 
     general navigation features of the project referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Port of Hood River, Oregon.--
       (1) Extinguishment of portions of existing flowage 
     easement.--With respect to the properties described in 
     paragraph (2), beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the flowage easement identified as Tract 1200E-6 on the 
     Easement Deed recorded as Instrument No. 740320 is 
     extinguished above elevation 79.39 feet (NGVD 29), the 
     ordinary high water line.
       (2) Affected properties.--The properties described in this 
     paragraph, as recorded in Hood River County, Oregon, are as 
     follows:
       (A) Instrument Number 2010-1235.
       (B) Instrument Number 2010-02366.
       (C) Instrument Number 2010-02367.
       (D) Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2011-12P.
       (E) Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 2005-26P.
       (3) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to 
     the properties described in paragraph (2), the flowage 
     easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is 
     above the standard project flood elevation.
       (4) Federal liabilities.--The United States shall not be 
     liable for any injury caused by the extinguishment of the 
     easement under this subsection.
       (5) No effect on other rights.--Nothing in this subsection 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes.

     SEC. 305. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Tulsa Port of Catoosa, Rogers County, Oklahoma Land 
     Exchange.--
       (1) Land exchange.--On conveyance by the Tulsa Port of 
     Catoosa to the United States of all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall 
     convey to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 87 acres of land situated in Rogers County, 
     Oklahoma, contained within United States Tracts 413 and 427 
     and acquired for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Navigation 
     System.
       (B) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the approximately 34 acres of land situated in Rogers County, 
     Oklahoma, and owned by the Tulsa Port of Catoosa that lie 
     immediately south and east of the Federal land.
       (3) Specific conditions.--
       (A) Deeds.--
       (i) Deed to non-federal land.--The Secretary may only 
     accept conveyance of the non-Federal land by warranty deed, 
     as determined acceptable by the Secretary.
       (ii) Deed to federal land.--The Secretary shall convey the 
     Federal land to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa by quitclaim deed 
     and subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions the 
     Secretary determines necessary to--

       (I) allow the United States to operate and maintain the 
     McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System; and

[[Page H6737]]

       (II) protect the interests of the United States.

       (iii) Cash payment.--If the appraised fair market value of 
     the Federal land, as determined by the Secretary, exceeds the 
     appraised fair market value of the non-Federal land, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the Tulsa Port of Catoosa shall 
     make a cash payment to the United States reflecting the 
     difference in the appraised fair market values.
       (b) City of Asotin, Washington.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of 
     Asotin, Asotin County, Washington, without monetary 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the land described in paragraph (3).
       (2) Reversion.--If the land transferred under this 
     subsection ceases at any time to be used for a public 
     purpose, the land shall revert to the United States.
       (3) Description.--The land to be conveyed to the city of 
     Asotin, Washington, under this subsection are--
       (A) the public ball fields designated as Tracts 1503, 1605, 
     1607, 1609, 1611, 1613, 1615, 1620, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, 
     and 1631; and
       (B) other leased areas designated as Tracts 1506, 1522, 
     1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1531, and 1563.
       (c) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
     under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary and appropriate to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance 
     is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
     reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       The following final feasibility studies for water resources 
     development and conservation and other purposes are 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
     in accordance with the plan, and subject to the conditions, 
     described in the respective reports designated in this 
     section:
       (1) Navigation.--

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       C.  Date of  Report
            A.  State                   B.  Name           of  Chief of       D.  Estimated      E.  Estimated
                                                            Engineers         Federal  Cost     Non-Federal Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX, LA.......................  Sabine Neches        July 22, 2011......       $779,399,000       $359,227,000
                                   Waterway,
                                   Southeast Texas
                                   and Southwest
                                   Louisiana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FL...........................  Jacksonville Harbor- April 30, 2012.....        $27,804,000         $9,122,000
                                   Milepoint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GA...........................  Savannah Harbor      Aug. 17, 2012......       $461,000,000       $201,000,000
                                   Expansion Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. TX...........................  Freeport Harbor....  Jan. 7, 2013.......       $121,132,000       $116,342,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. FL...........................  Canaveral Harbor     Feb. 25, 2013......        $28,652,000        $11,588,000
                                   (Sect 203 Sponsor
                                   Report).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (2) Flood risk management.--

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       C.  Date of  Report
            A.  State                   B.  Name           of  Chief of       D.  Estimated      E.  Estimated
                                                            Engineers         Federal  Cost     Non-Federal Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. KS...........................  Topeka.............  Aug. 24, 2009......        $15,494,000         $8,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA...........................  American River       Dec. 30, 2010......       $943,300,000       $479,500,000
                                   Watershed, Common
                                   Features Project,
                                   Natomas Basin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. IA...........................  Cedar River, Cedar   Jan. 27, 2011......        $67,216,000        $36,194,000
                                   Rapids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. MN, ND.......................  Fargo-Moorhead       Dec. 19, 2011......       $801,542,000       $979,806,000
                                   Metro.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. KY...........................  Ohio River           May 16, 2012.......        $12,893,000         $6,943,000
                                   Shoreline, Paducah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (3) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.--

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 E.  Estimated
                                                                              D.  Estimated      Initial  Non-
                                                       C.  Date of  Report   Initial  Federal  Federal  Cost and
            A.  State                   B.  Name           of  Chief of          Cost and       Estimated  Total
                                                            Engineers        Estimated  Total      Non-Federal
                                                                            Federal  Cost for   Cost for Life of
                                                                             Life of Project        Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NC...........................  West Onslow Beach    Sept. 28, 2009.....      Initial Cost:      Initial Cost:
                                   and New River                                  $30,557,000        $17,315,000
                                   Inlet (Topsail                                 Total Cost:        Total Cost:
                                   Beach).                                       $132,372,000       $132,372,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. NC...........................  Surf City and North  Dec. 30, 2010......      Initial Cost:      Initial Cost:
                                   Topsail Beach.                                 $81,484,000        $43,900,000
                                                                                  Total Cost:        Total Cost:
                                                                                 $106,182,000       $106,182,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CA...........................  San Clemente         April 5, 2012......      Initial Cost:      Initial Cost:
                                   Shoreline.                                      $7,500,000         $4,000,000
                                                                                  Total Cost:        Total Cost:
                                                                                  $43,400,000        $43,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H6738]]

       (4) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and 
     environmental restoration.--

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       C.  Date of  Report
            A.  State                   B.  Name           of  Chief of       D.  Estimated      E.  Estimated
                                                            Engineers         Federal  Cost     Non-Federal Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MS...........................  Mississippi Coastal  Sept. 15, 2009.....       $815,090,000       $438,890,000
                                   Improvement
                                   Program (MSCIP)
                                   Hancock, Harrison,
                                   and Jackson
                                   Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (5) Environmental restoration.--

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       C.  Date of  Report
            A.  State                   B.  Name           of  Chief of       D.  Estimated      E.  Estimated
                                                            Engineers         Federal  Cost     Non-Federal Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MD...........................  Mid-Chesapeake Bay   Aug. 24, 2009......     $1,221,721,000       $657,849,000
                                   Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FL...........................  Central and          March 11, 2010.....       $297,189,000       $297,189,000
                                   Southern Florida
                                   Project,
                                   Comprehensive
                                   Everglades
                                   Restoration Plan,
                                   Caloosahatchee
                                   River (C-43) West
                                   Basin Storage
                                   Project, Hendry
                                   County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. LA...........................  Louisiana Coastal    Dec. 30, 2010......       $954,452,000       $513,936,000
                                   Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. MN...........................  Marsh Lake.........  Dec. 30, 2011......         $6,403,000         $3,564,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. FL...........................  Central and          Jan. 30, 2012......        $88,992,000        $88,992,000
                                   Southern Florida
                                   Project,
                                   Comprehensive
                                   Everglades
                                   Restoration Plan,
                                   C-111 Spreader
                                   Canal Western
                                   Project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. FL...........................  CERP Biscayne Bay    May 2, 2012........        $96,209,000        $96,209,000
                                   Coastal Wetland,
                                   Florida.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. FL...........................  Central and          May 21, 2012.......       $433,353,500       $433,353,500
                                   Southern Florida
                                   Project, Broward
                                   County Water
                                   Preserve Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. LA...........................  Louisiana Coastal    June 22, 2012......       $283,567,000       $152,690,000
                                   Area-Barataria
                                   Basin Barrier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NC...........................  Neuse River Basin..  April 23, 2013.....        $23,253,100        $12,520,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SEC. 402. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.--
       (1) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, 
     Miami-Dade County, Florida, authorized by section 1001(17) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1052), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
     project at a total cost of $152,510,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $92,007,000 and a non-Federal cost of 
     $60,503,000.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on 
     November 8, 2007.
       (b) Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.--The project 
     for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, 
     Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     at a total cost of $2,300,000,000, with a first Federal cost 
     of $2,300,000,000.
       (c) Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), 
     Indiana.--The project for flood control, Little Calumet River 
     Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4115), and modified by section 127 of Public Law 109-
     103 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
     $269,988,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $202,800,000 
     and a non-Federal cost of $67,188,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 113-
251. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gibbs

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 14, after ``company'' insert ``or natural gas 
     company''.
       Page 33, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) expedite the completion of any on-going feasibility 
     study for a project initiated before the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (2) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     justified in a completed report, proceed directly to 
     preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the 
     project in accordance with section 910 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4189).
       Page 42, after line 23, add the following:
       (g) Saving Provision.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to affect any agreement entered into under section 
     204(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2232(f)) before the date of enactment of this Act.
       Page 46, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS PRIOR TO 
                   AUTHORIZATION OF FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a non-Federal 
     interest may carry out a project for which--
       (1) a final feasibility report has been completed; and
       (2) authority for the Secretary to carry out such project 
     has not specifically been authorized by Congress.
       (b) Conditions.--The non-Federal interest--
       (1) shall, before carrying out the project, obtain any 
     permit, approval, or authorization required pursuant to 
     Federal or State law; and
       (2) shall carry out the project in accordance with the 
     plan, and subject to the conditions, described in the final 
     feasibility report.
       (c) Credit, Reimbursement, and Future Maintenance.--
       (1) Eligibility for credit or reimbursement.--Subject to 
     paragraph (4), and in accordance with section 221 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal 
     interest may be eligible for credit or reimbursement for the 
     Federal share of any work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest under this section.
       (2) Eligibility for maintenance of navigation projects.--
     Subject to paragraph (4), and in accordance with section 
     211(h) of the Water Resources Development of Act of 1996 (33 
     U.S.C. 701b-13(h), whenever a non-Federal interest constructs 
     improvements to a harbor or inland harbor under this section, 
     the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of such 
     harbor.
       (3) Limitation.--Any activities carried out under this 
     section are authorized only to the extent specifically 
     provided for in subsequent appropriations Acts.
       (4) Implementation.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall not 
     apply unless--
       (A) all laws and regulations that would apply to the 
     Secretary if the Secretary were carrying out the project were 
     applied by the non-Federal interest during construction of 
     the project; and
       (B) the project is subsequently specifically authorized by 
     Congress.

[[Page H6739]]

       (5) In-kind contributions.--Absent a specific subsequent 
     authorization by Congress, the non-Federal interest shall not 
     be reimbursed or receive credit for in-kind contributions.
       Page 75, after line 12, insert the following:
       (3) review and evaluate the historic and potential uses, 
     and economic feasibility for the life of the project, of 
     nonstructural alternatives, including natural features such 
     as dunes, coastal wetlands, floodplains, marshes, and 
     mangroves, to reduce the damage caused by floods, storm 
     surges, winds, and other aspects of extreme weather events, 
     and to increase the resiliency and long-term cost-
     effectiveness of water resources development projects;
       Page 128, beginning on line 13, strike ``section 102(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2212(a))'' and insert ``section 3(a)(6) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013)''.
       Page 163, strike lines 1 through 8.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
manager's amendment.
  In this amendment, we provide clarity related to expediting projects 
while authorizing the Corps of Engineers to move to pre-construction, 
planning, engineering, and design activities immediately following a 
completed feasibility study. This will ensure work will continue 
without stops and starts in the study process.
  We authorize non-Federal interests with the ability to carry out work 
at their own expense pursuant to an unauthorized yet completed 
feasibility study if the non-Federal interest agrees to carry out the 
work subject to any State or Federal permitting departments, and that 
the non-Federal interests carry out the project in accordance with the 
feasibility study.
  We request that the Corps of Engineers review the uses and economic 
feasibility of nonstructural alternatives in their review of existing 
authorities for clearing-out work after a storm event. We have made 
technical and conforming changes to the bill.
  We developed this amendment working closely with Members to address 
several key issues and to improve upon the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed to the amendment, 
I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from West Virginia 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, Shuster amendment No. 1 provides for the 
expediting and completion of ongoing feasibility studies and authorizes 
the Corps of Engineers to move to pre-construction planning, 
engineering, and design. It directs the Corps of Engineers to consider 
nonstructural alternatives in the rebuilding of areas impacted by 
floods and storms.
  I am in support of the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Rahall for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in support of this amendment. I particularly 
want to thank the chairman for the inclusion of language in this 
amendment that addresses two issues of concern. One is the inclusion of 
consideration of nonstructural alternatives in preventing future storm 
damage. I think that is very important, particularly in the wake of 
Hurricane Sandy, for those of us that live in the Northeast; also, the 
language that allows the non-Federal cost-share partner to begin work 
on issues that are of importance to their locality.
  I think these are very important issues to Members on our side, and I 
thank the chairman for including them.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and 
the underlying bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall and all of 
the committee for the tremendous work that was done to substantially 
improve the outlook on the use of the harbor maintenance tax because 
these moneys were not being used for dredging, as they were intended to 
be. And this has severely hurt American competitiveness.
  If we are going to grow this economy, we have to expand international 
trade, and we have to have the maritime and port infrastructure to do 
so. It is essential that these funds are used for the intended purpose.
  I also want to point out a couple of concerns I have. There are two 
issues in the 2007 WRDA bill, authorizations that require technical 
amendments that pertain to Louisiana authorizations, and I am hopeful 
that as we go forward on this, the chairman and the subcommittee 
chairman will work with me to achieve some resolution of this, because 
it is holding up Army Corps of Engineers projects, and it is something 
that would be very easy to fix, it is no cost, and adds nothing to the 
budget. They are purely technical adjustments that need to be made.
  So I am hopeful we can work through this as we go forward.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment and the 
underlying bill. I wanted to speak to one concern that I had.
  Mr. Chair, Congress has consistently limited the authority of the 
Corps of Engineers and recognized the long-established State water 
rights to protect federalism. This bill is certainly no exception.
  In my State of South Dakota, and in the Upper Missouri Basin, the 
Corps is planning to charge for water from the Missouri River. This is 
after the Dakotas gave up hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland 
during the creation of the dams along the Missouri River, for which we 
have never been fully compensated.
  The issue of the Corps charging for surplus water is a concern for 
many communities, tribes, and cities up and down the Missouri River. 
Chairman Shuster has assured me that he would work with us into the 
future to move forward on conferees to resolve this issue and to stop 
this attempt to take our water. For that, I certainly appreciate the 
efforts.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
  Mr. COTTON. I want to thank the chairman and the committee for their 
hard work on WRRDA, which I am pleased to support.
  Mr. Chairman, I have offered an amendment that addresses an issue 
with the population growth projections of the 1958 Water Supply Act, 
which are outdated, and many local water districts are now forced to 
pay substantial principal and interest to the Federal Government on 
excess water supply.
  My amendment allows the Corps and local water districts to 
collaborate on finding new markets for their excess water storage. Not 
only does this partnership allow for the best use of shared resources, 
it also saves the taxpayers millions of dollars.
  Again, I want to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the chairman, and the ranking member for their hard work on 
this bill and for supporting my amendment.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. First, I do want to thank the chairman, 
the ranking member, and also Representative McCollum.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is on the Asian carp. It is a very 
invasive species that really has a devastating effect on the Upper 
Mississippi River and the Ohio River Basin. This is a fish that can 
grow to 70 to 100 pounds. It is a voracious fish that is highly 
invasive. It can potentially destroy a $7 billion commercial fishing 
business industry in the Great Lakes. It also would have a devastating 
effect on commercial boaters, recreational boaters, and sportsmen.
  Again, I want you to understand that the nature of this fish is 
incredible. Anytime the surface of the water is disturbed, it leaps out 
of the water. As I said, it can be 70 to 100 pounds. I know that many 
of us do boating in the summertime and have little children that boat 
with us. This is a fish that is so aggressive and so voracious that it

[[Page H6740]]

can eat sometimes up to four times its own weight.
  What does this fish do? It eats everything that other fish eat. If we 
allow this to come forward, it can be devastating.
  This is a great example. I watched the last 3 weeks as both sides 
tried to get to some type of agreement, and couldn't get there. This is 
a bipartisan effort, a collective effort, collaborative effort, that 
allows both the States and the Federal agencies to work together on a 
solution to a problem that has been in existence and will continue to 
be in existence until we stop it.
  So I want to again thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and 
especially Ms. McCollum as we work together on this piece of 
legislation. I think it will have a great effect on our ability to keep 
the Great Lakes, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Ohio River Basin 
safe.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 11, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through page 12, line 3, and insert the following:
       ``(b) Effective Date.--This section shall be effective on 
     the date on which the Secretary certifies to Congress that 
     the cost to construct all water resources development 
     projects that are authorized for construction by the Chief of 
     Engineers by any Act of Congress, but are not completed, is 
     less than $20,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation as of the 
     date on which the certification is made).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delay the 
environmental shortcuts in section 103 until the Secretary certifies 
that the Corps has significantly reduced the backlog of projects that 
have already been approved, using the current environmental review 
process--already been approved.
  The reason we are doing this is to make the point that this shortcut 
process would undermine environmental protections and critical public 
participation under NEPA and other conservation laws. Combined with 
strict timelines and limited funding for feasibility studies, it 
guarantees the Corps will not have the information it needs to plan 
major projects with broad environmental impact.
  There is no evidence that the public participation environmental 
review process has caused delay. In the hearings on H.R. 3080, no 
witness identified a single project where that had been the case. When 
asked directly about why Corps projects take years to implement, the 
common answer was: lack of available appropriations at critical times 
during project development and construction.
  The problem is not NEPA. The problem is that this Congress has failed 
to appropriate enough money to keep up with the projects we authorized. 
WRDA 2007 authorized $23 billion in new projects. Few have even been 
started. The estimated cost of completion of Corps projects currently 
under construction is another $20 billion.
  In stark contrast, the most recent appropriation of the Corps' 
construction budget was $12.2 billion. If the Ryan budget is adopted--
well, it was adopted in the House, but not implemented--that number 
would be even lower, pathetically lower.
  Clearly, complying with NEPA and other environmental and public 
participation requirements is not the reason we have a backlog of 
projects worth billions of dollars.
  Congress should appropriate--and this bill is a start--the funding 
needed to allow these projects which have already been approved, using 
all existing environmental review requirements, to be completed before 
we implement any new shortcuts.
  A more thoughtful approach, as we work through this backlog over the 
next 5, 6, 10, 15 years at the current rate of spending--or 25 or 50 
years at Ryan spending--would be to bifurcate the process. If we 
identified that there was a delay, particularly for repair, 
rehabilitation, replacement, or minor projects, we could streamline 
those under the House or Senate provisions, but major projects should 
still go through a full review so that we don't end up later in endless 
litigation over those very same projects.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3080 was drafted in a bipartisan 
fashion. Our environmental streamlining provision in section 103 is a 
result of compromise.
  We have heard from many Members who are supportive of our provisions 
to implement what is commonly called the ``three by three by three 
process.'' However, in order for the Corps to have the flexibility to 
fit within the timeframes laid in section 101 of H.R. 3080, 
accelerating the environmental review process in section 103 of the 
bill is critical.
  The amendment seeks to undermine all environmental streamlining 
provisions in WRRDA. Regardless of the existence of backlog, 
streamlining environmental reviews is an essential reform, and I 
believe will help to reduce backlogs.
  Additionally, reforms in WRRDA provide opportunities for non-Federal 
interests and other private sectors to move projects forward with their 
own funds, providing incentive for accelerating these project delivery 
processes regardless of the availability of Federal funding.
  So I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman, and what he said is 
correct in terms of a situation here.
  Mr. Chairman, streamlining provisions in this bill provide nothing 
but an empty promise that projects will be built faster. The empty 
promise comes with real costs: it will lead to more damaging and costly 
projects, and it will prevent States, local governments and other 
stakeholders from making realistic plans for the future.
  The Corps currently has an estimated backlog of over 1,000 authorized 
activities that will take about $60 billion. The bill before us adds to 
the backlog. Both the Corps, itself, and the administration have 
pointed out that these proposed streamlining guidelines may actually 
slow project development and do not adequately protect communities, 
taxpayers, and the environment.
  The real cause of delay is limited funding, competition for funding 
amongst the extensive study and project construction backlog, poor 
project planning that does not focus on national priorities or on 
identifying the least possible damaging solution to water resource 
problems. Project studies take the longest when the Corps and Congress 
insist on pushing outdated, damaging, and extremely costly projects 
that inconvenience or even harm communities instead of adopting low-
impact, modern solutions that could more easily gain broad-based 
support.
  I am all for getting projects done faster, but our infrastructure 
deficit slows the economy and puts people in physical danger at worst. 
We need to address that problem. Undercutting the environmental 
protections does not address it. It merely complicates it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Is the gentleman from Oregon prepared to close?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have one more speaker.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

[[Page H6741]]

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Oregon. I thank the 
sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Blumenauer, and I am delighted, along 
with Mr. DeFazio, to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I really just want to emphasize the core values of Mr. 
DeFazio's as to what this amendment represents. The fact is there is a 
lack of funding. For those of us who are around ports, who are 
experiencing extreme flooding, there is a lack of funding that the 
environmental review process has nothing to do with, and it has not led 
to the backlog of authorized projects that are not being constructed. I 
support the timely delivery of water resources projects, but I have 
concerns as to whether the changes made in this bill in the name of 
streamlining will actually achieve that goal.
  So I ask and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this amendment, which will make the construction of already authorized 
projects a priority, which clearly had no problems with the 
environmental review process, and I would argue the fact that we should 
be encouraged to make this truly a jobs bill and support the DeFazio 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, as a cosponsor to Rep. DeFazio's amendment, that would 
delay the application of the environmental ``streamlining'' provisions 
in Section 103 until the Secretary certifies that there is sufficient 
funding to reduce the backlog of authorized Corps projects to less than 
$20 billion in construction costs, I ask my colleagues across the aisle 
to support amendment #2.
  This amendment highlights the fact that it is a lack of funding not 
the environmental review process that has led to a backlog of 
authorized projects that are not being constructed. We have spent 
enough energy arguing over the budget and the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) streamlining, but not enough time in making the hard 
decisions and investments that are going to create economic growth and 
create jobs.
  In short, while I strongly support timely delivery of water resources 
projects, I have concerns as to whether the changes made in this bill 
in the name of streamlining will actually achieve that goal.
  Particularly given the real world funding issues that we face, and I 
remain very concerned about the impacts these changes will have on the 
public participation process and the assessment of impacts to the 
environment. I urge Members to support Rep. DeFazio's amendment which 
will make the construction of already authorized projects that clearly 
had no problems with the environmental review process a priority.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) to control.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to thank you and all of the cosponsors of this amendment for 
putting this forward.
  Mr. Chairman, this would actually delay the so-called ``environmental 
streamlining'' provisions in this bill, which would fast-track the 
critical review process and significantly limit public input. This 
amendment would also preserve the current review process that helps the 
Army Corps of Engineers foresee harmful environmental impacts before 
undertaking any project.
  This safe, sustainable infrastructure is not really produced by 
cutting corners. WRRDA projects have wide-ranging consequences. I have 
several projects in my district, and I know how complex they can be. It 
is important to fully understand the effects that these projects will 
have on public health, on public safety, and on the environment.
  History, quite frankly, has shown us that robust environmental 
reviews are good for the environment, the economy, public safety, and 
taxpayers. This bipartisan amendment would protect the environment and 
would really save taxpayer dollars. So I urge a ``yea'' vote, and I 
thank the gentleman for his tremendous leadership on this.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman for his generosity, and I yield 
myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is substantial agreement here in that we 
need to put more investment into critical water infrastructure 
projects. This bill begins to do that. We want to do it in the most 
thoughtful way possible. Some of these projects will alter local or 
regional environmental resources forever, sometimes to mitigate, 
sometimes, perhaps, not so much if they are not well thought out. Many 
of these projects are designed to last for 100 years or more. It 
certainly would behoove us to spend a little bit of time fully vetting 
these projects before we authorize them and move forward.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeFazio 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the July 19, 2010, Executive Order 13547 that 
     established the ``National Policy for the Stewardship of the 
     Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes'' (in this section 
     referred to as the ``National Ocean Policy'') among other 
     things requires Federal implementation of ``ecosystem-based 
     management'' to achieve a ``fundamental shift'' in how the 
     United States manages ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes 
     resources, and the establishment of 9 new governmental 
     ``Regional Planning Bodies'' and ``Coastal and Marine Spatial 
     Plans'' in every region of the United States;
       (2) Executive Order 13547 created a 54-member National 
     Ocean Council led by the White House Council on Environmental 
     Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy that 
     includes principal and deputy-level representatives from 
     Federal entities, including the Department of Defense;
       (3) Executive Order 13547 requires National Ocean Council 
     members, including the Department of Defense, to take action 
     to implement the National Ocean Policy and participate in 
     Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning to the fullest extent;
       (4) the Final Recommendations that were adopted by 
     Executive Order 13547 state that ``effective'' implementation 
     of the National Ocean Policy will ``require clear and easily 
     understood requirements and regulations, where appropriate, 
     that include enforcement as a critical component'';
       (5) despite repeated congressional requests, the National 
     Ocean Council, which is charged with overseeing National 
     Ocean Policy implementation, has still not provided a 
     complete accounting of Federal activities taken and resources 
     expended and allocated in furtherance of National Ocean 
     Policy implementation;
       (6) the Corps of Engineers is participating on at least one 
     ``Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Regional Team''; and
       (6) the Nation's continued economic and budgetary 
     challenges underscore the necessity for sound, transparent, 
     and practical Federal policies.
       (b) Prohibition.--None of the programs or actions 
     authorized under this Act may be used to further 
     implementation of the coastal and marine spatial planning and 
     ecosystem-based management components of the National Ocean 
     Policy developed under Executive Order 13547.
       (c) Study.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report detailing all 
     activities engaged in and resources expended in furtherance 
     of Executive Order 13547 since it was issued on July 19, 
     2010, as well as any fiscal year 2014 budget requests in 
     support of National Ocean Policy implementation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H6742]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
addresses a burdensome executive order that will have vast impacts on 
both our ocean and inland economies.
  Executive Order 13547 was signed in 2010, and it requires that 
various bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the sources 
thereof. This means that a drop of rain that falls on your house could 
be subject to this overreaching policy because that precipitation will 
ultimately wind up in the ocean. The new policy guidelines under this 
executive order that were finalized in April of this year have the 
potential to change permitting criteria and regulatory requirements for 
a large number of economic sectors, including maritime shipping and 
inland river transportation.
  The Army Corps of Engineers is participating in at least one Coastal 
and Marine Spatial Planning regional team, requiring resources and 
staff time outside of their current statutory obligations and outside 
their current budgetary authority. Since the Corps has not specifically 
asked for funds for the purpose of implementing Executive Order 13547, 
then they are raiding existing accounts to fund these activities, thus 
adding to the current projects backlogs and misusing scarce taxpayer 
resources.
  Furthermore, the Senate WRDA bill includes a funding stream for 
regional planning bodies pursuant to the administration's National 
Ocean Policy, thereby creating a permanent slush fund to bankroll the 
implementation of their ocean-zoning initiative that has not even 
received congressional authorization.
  My amendment would prohibit the programs or actions authorized under 
WRRDA from being used to further implement ocean zoning under the 
executive order, and it further requires that the Secretary of the Army 
conduct and submit a study to Congress that details all of the 
activities engaged in and resources expended relating to the executive 
order and to the National Ocean Policy, as well as relevant FY 2014 
budget requests.
  I want to thank the T&I Committee for its hard work on the WRRDA 
bill. I look forward to voting for the WRRDA bill, and I urge the 
approval of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very destructive to a very good 
policy that was created by this House by the Committee on Natural 
Resources when, back in the late nineties, all of the Federal agencies 
and private sector came to Congress and said, We have a lot of 
conflicts of the sea. We need to start doing some planning in the 
ocean, like we have on land, so that we can get jobs done.
  We were losing all kinds of equipment to fisheries and mining 
operations. It was just a huge mess. No Federal agency knew what the 
other Federal agency was doing. It was all on public lands called the 
``oceans,'' and the exploration of the oceans was very underserved.
  The underlying bill that this amendment attacks was created by the 
committee in order to create a commission made up, in fact, of people 
from Texas for the oil industry. One of the things they said is, Stop 
that conflict. Let's have smart ocean planning. Let's help use and 
conserve our finite resources and grow our ocean economy.
  This is the way to do it, but this amendment wipes it all back. It 
goes back to the Dark Ages. It goes back to the flat Earth opinion 
about ocean planning, which is: don't do it.
  The aquaculture industry, which is a $1.2 billion industry, has said 
this would be very destructive, that the Flores amendment would be a 
major setback for our industry. The aquaculture is growing, and we rely 
on efficient permitting and long-term planning so our industry can grow 
and prosper.
  If the Army Corps of Engineers can't engage in the National Ocean 
Policy planning that is geared toward helping our industry, then that 
is what sets us up for failure.
  The North American Submarine Cable Association is opposed to this 
amendment. They stated that the first and foremost undersea cable 
operators engage in coastal marine spatial planning. Did you know that 
undersea cables, not satellites, carry more than 95 percent of the 
international voice, data and Internet traffic in the United States? 
They are critical for national security, and they carry civilian and 
military and U.S. Government traffic.
  The Corps is working to improve coastal and sea floor maps and 
nautical charts, which are critical for navigation, citing offshore 
energy and recreational boating and fishing. The list goes on and on.
  Even in the gentleman's home State of Texas, there are 170,000 people 
who are employed in the ocean economy. His amendment would destroy 
their ability to have good planning.
  So I urge all of my friends to oppose this amendment, which is 
opposed by the private sector and public sectors, and it is just not 
smart thinking.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Flores amendment is, quite frankly, an affront to 
states' rights. By preventing the Army Corps of Engineers from 
coordinating ocean and coastal planning with Federal and State 
partners, it will inhibit the ability of States like Rhode Island, my 
home State, from managing resources in a way that fits their needs and 
priorities.
  We have long recognized that our ocean resources do not adhere to 
State boundaries. Accordingly, their management must be regionally 
based. In the Northeast, our Regional Ocean Council has allowed our 
States to pool resources and our businesses to have a voice in 
decision-making. The Flores amendment may inhibit regional efforts, 
including ongoing Hurricane Sandy recovery and restoration planning to 
protect against future storm damage.
  Put simply, it is an attempt to impose restrictions and requirements 
on coastal States and districts that will prevent our counties, cities, 
along with State Governors, from working collaboratively with their 
Federal partners on projects critical to coastal economies.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FARR. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In 2010, maritime economic activities supported 2.7 million jobs and 
$258 billion in GDP. These resources are too important to our economies 
not to be managed with the best science practices available.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to protect the rights of States to 
manage their own resources and to vote ``no'' on this misguided 
amendment.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. FARR. I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I think there is a little misunderstanding here. This is not about a 
new agency or giving agencies new regulatory authority or direction. I 
will use a simple example.
  We have great prospects for wave energy off the Northwest coast. We 
had a really great wave period doing research at Oregon State. I have a 
couple of private companies interested, but there are at least three 
Federal agencies involved. Simply what this executive order does is 
require that those agencies coordinate and they don't stovepipe, they 
don't work in silos. So when

[[Page H6743]]

the wave developer goes to FERC, FERC will also have in the room NOAA, 
Marine Fisheries; the Pacific Fisheries Management Council will be 
involved; the other Federal agencies that have jurisdiction will be 
involved, and we won't end up going through one process with one 
agency, getting to the end of that, and then having another agency 
saying, ``Wait a minute. You didn't talk to us.''
  This just happened with the bridge over the Columbia River to 
Washington State where the Coast Guard came in very late and said, 
``Wait a minute. We have height concerns about passage under this 
bridge.'' Had it been coordinated terrestrially inland in the same way 
that the President is imposing for agencies to work in the ocean, we 
will have a better, more comprehensive process that serves all 
interests.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, in closing, you have heard a lot of 
hyperbole about my amendment. My amendment is a simple amendment, and 
that is to stop an unconstitutional executive order that has been 
considered four times by Congress, including the 110th Congress and 
111th Congress which were controlled by the other side. During none of 
those Congresses was the law that is now part of this executive order 
ever approved by those Congresses. This is the bureaucracy in this 
chart that has been created unconstitutionally by this executive order. 
Congress clearly doesn't intend to do that because it has studied this 
for four Congresses and elected not to.
  You also heard that there are shareholders that don't support what I 
propose to do in this amendment. Unfortunately, that is not true 
either. We have got everybody from farmers to energy to commercial 
fisheries to recreational fishing interests that support this amendment 
and are fully on the side of it.
  They have said that stakeholders came to Congress and said there were 
problems and that they wanted this executive order. That is not true, 
because we had a hearing in the 112th Congress and the stakeholders, I 
specifically asked them: Did any of you want the provisions that are 
included by this executive order? To an entity, they said, no, they 
didn't care for it.
  Also, I would like to say that this amendment has also passed four 
other times. In the 112th Congress, I added this amendment to the CJS 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013. It passed on a bipartisan 
basis, 246-174. I offered a similar amendment to the Offshore Energy 
and Jobs Act that passed by a bipartisan vote of 233-190. I also 
offered a related amendment to the FY 2014 Energy and Water 
appropriations bill that passed by a voice vote.
  This is a commonsense amendment. We are just saying, A, if Congress 
hasn't authorized this activity, and, B, if Congress hasn't 
appropriated any money for this activity, then this activity shouldn't 
take place. That is what the Constitution calls for. That is what this 
amendment does.
  With that, I would urge approval of the amendment and approval of the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


               Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 385, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 
15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 printed in House Report 113-251, 
offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Mullin of Oklahoma

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON SURFACE ELEVATIONS AT DROUGHT EFFECTED 
                   LAKES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) due to the ongoing drought in many parts of the United 
     States, State agencies are finding it difficult to maintain 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-licensed lake levels; 
     and
       (2) local agencies should be able to modify licensees when 
     drought conditions arise and persist.
       (b) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the FERC shall initiate an assessment 
     of the effects of drought conditions on FERC-licensed lakes, 
     which shall include an assessment of--
       (A) existing FERC-licensed lakes with stipulated lake 
     levels and rule curves in areas of previous, current and 
     prolonged drought; and
       (B) the effect the long-term licenses have on state 
     agencies being able to meet all their obligations, including 
     hydroelectric obligations, water supply downstream, fish and 
     wildlife, and recreation.
       (2) Report.--FERC shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     assessment carried out under paragraph (1).


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 72, line 18, insert ``In making recommendations 
     pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall consult with 
     key stakeholders, including State, county, and city 
     governments, and, where applicable, State and local water 
     districts, and in the case of recommendations concerning 
     projects that substantially affect communities served by 
     historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal Colleges 
     and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions, 
     the Secretary shall also consult with such colleges, 
     universities, and institutions.'' before ``The Secretary''.


           Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Grimm of New York

       Page 72, line 18, strike ``may'' and insert ``shall''.


          Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Peters of California

       Page 76, after line 13, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):
       (b) Public Availability of Information.--To the maximum 
     extent practicable, the Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     shall make the information required under subsection (a) 
     available to the public through widely used and readily 
     available means, including on the Internet.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Stutzman of Indiana

       Page 86, after line 24, insert the following:
       (f) Interim Rule.--Until the date on which revisions to the 
     guidelines are adopted under this section, the Secretary 
     shall not require the removal of existing vegetation as a 
     condition or requirement for any approval or funding of a 
     project, or any other action, unless the specific vegetation 
     has been demonstrated to present an unacceptable safety risk.


        Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Pierluisi of Puerto Rico

       Page 95, line 21, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 95, after line 21, insert the following:
       (2) in subsection (a), as so designated, by inserting 
     ``Puerto Rico,'' before ``and the Trust Territory of the 
     Pacific Islands''; and
       Page 95, line 22, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Cotton of Arkansas

       Page 97, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. FUTURE WATER SUPPLY.

       Section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 
     390b) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Establishment of 10-year Plans for the Utilization of 
     Future Storage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection and not later than January 1, 
     2016, the Secretary may accept from an interested State or 
     local interest a submission of a plan for the utilization of 
     future use water storage under this Act.
       ``(2) Contents.--A plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a 10-year timetable for conversion of future use 
     storage to present use; and
       ``(B) a schedule of actions that the State or local 
     interest agrees to carry out over a 10-year period, in 
     cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, to seek new and 
     alternative users of future water storage that is contracted 
     to the State or local interest on the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.''.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       Page 97, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT FOR NEW PROJECT PURPOSES.

       Nothing in this Act authorizes the Secretary to carry out, 
     at a Corps of Engineers dam or reservoir, any project for a 
     purpose not otherwise authorized as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.


         Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 139. MULTIAGENCY EFFORT TO SLOW THE SPREAD OF ASIAN CARP 
                   IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND OHIO RIVER 
                   BASINS AND TRIBUTARIES.

       (a) Multiagency Effort To Slow the Spread of Asian Carp in 
     the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River Basins and 
     Tributaries.--

[[Page H6744]]

       (1) In general.--The Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, in coordination with the Chief of 
     Engineers, the Director of the National Park Service, and the 
     Director of the United States Geological Survey, shall lead a 
     multiagency effort to slow the spread of Asian carp in the 
     Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins and tributaries by 
     providing technical assistance, coordination, best practices, 
     and support to State and local governments in carrying out 
     activities designed to slow, and eventually eliminate, the 
     threat posed by Asian carp.
       (2) Best practices.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     multiagency effort shall apply lessons learned and best 
     practices such as those described in the document prepared by 
     the Asian Carp Working Group entitled ``Management and 
     Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in 
     the United States'' and dated November 2007, and the document 
     prepared by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee 
     entitled ``FY 2012 Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework'' 
     and dated February 2012.
       (b) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each year, 
     the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     in coordination with the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to 
     the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the 
     coordinated strategies established and progress made toward 
     the goals of controlling and eliminating Asian carp in the 
     Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins and tributaries.
       (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) any observed changes in the range of Asian carp in the 
     Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins and tributaries 
     during the 2-year period preceding submission of the report;
       (B) a summary of Federal agency efforts, including 
     cooperative efforts with non-Federal partners, to control the 
     spread of Asian carp in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River 
     basins and tributaries;
       (C) any research that the Director determines could improve 
     the ability to control the spread of Asian carp;
       (D) any quantitative measures that the Director intends to 
     use to document progress in controlling the spread of Asian 
     carp; and
       (E) a cross-cut accounting of Federal and non-Federal 
     expenditures to control the spread of Asian carp.


         Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

       Page 97, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES PREVENTION AND CONTROL.

       (a) Assessment.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct an assessment of the Federal costs of, 
     and spending on, aquatic invasive species.
       (b) Contents.--The assessment conducted under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) identification of current Federal spending on, and 
     projected future Federal costs of, operation and maintenance 
     related to mitigating the impacts of aquatic invasive species 
     on federally owned or operated facilities;
       (2) identification of current Federal spending on aquatic 
     invasive species prevention;
       (3) analysis of whether spending identified in paragraph 
     (2) is adequate for the maintenance and protection of 
     services provided by federally owned or operated facilities, 
     based on the current spending and projected future costs 
     identified in paragraph (1); and
       (4) review of any other aspect of aquatic invasive species 
     prevention or mitigation determined appropriate by the 
     Comptroller General.
       (c) Findings.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing the findings of the 
     assessment conducted under subsection (a).


         Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

       Page 102, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
       ``(H) activities of the Secretary of the Navy;
       Page 104, line 18, strike ``and''.
       Page 104, after line 18, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent subparagraph accordingly):
       ``(C) where appropriate, consider national security and 
     military readiness needs in consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Navy; and


        Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal of California

       Page 103, line 7, insert ``and the costs for expanded uses 
     (as such term is defined in section 201(c)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013)'' after ``the 
     harbors''.


         Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

       Page 109, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND STUDY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Low-use port.--The term ``low-use port'' means a port 
     at which not more than 1,000,000 tons of cargo are 
     transported each calendar year.
       (2) Moderate-use port.--The term ``moderate-use port'' 
     means a port at which more than 1,000,000, but fewer than 
     10,000,000, tons of cargo are transported each calendar year.
       (b) Study.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall carry out a study and submit to Congress a 
     report that--
       (1) evaluates the effectiveness of activities funded by the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in maximizing economic growth 
     and job creation in the communities surrounding low- and 
     moderate-use ports; and
       (2) includes recommendations relating to the use of amounts 
     in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to increase the 
     competitiveness of United States ports relative to Canadian 
     and Mexican ports.


         Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Schneider of Illinois

       Page 142, line 7, strike ``and''.
       Page 142, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 142, after line 9, insert the following:
       (4) a 5-year and 10-year projection of construction backlog 
     and any recommendations to Congress regarding how to mitigate 
     current problems and the backlog.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
4 in House Report 113-251 be modified by the form I have placed at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Shuster of 
Pennsylvania:

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON SURFACE ELEVATIONS AT DROUGHT EFFECTED 
                   LAKES.

       (a) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with 
     the FERC, shall initiate an assessment of the effects of 
     drought conditions on lakes managed by the Secretary that are 
     affected by FERC-licensed reservoirs, which shall include an 
     assessment of--
       (A) lake levels and rule curves in areas of previous, 
     current, and prolonged drought; and
       (B) the effect the long-term FERC licenses have on the 
     Secretary's ability to manage lakes for hydropower 
     generation, navigation, flood protection, water supply, fish 
     and wildlife, and recreation.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary, in coordination with the FERC, 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment carried 
     out under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendments en bloc, all of 
which have been approved by both the majority and the minority. These 
Members put forth thoughtful amendments, and I am pleased to be able to 
support moving them all en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects the good work of 
many Members from both sides of the aisle and, again, reflects a 
bipartisan process followed by Chairman Shuster in assembling this 
important legislation.
  It includes thoughtful language related to control of aquatic 
invasive species at the bipartisan request of several Members from the 
Great Lakes area and the west coast, language relating to promoting 
government efficiency and communicating potential risk of flooding, as 
well as several important requests for additional information related 
to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and how Congress can continue to 
address the backlog of unconstructed Corps projects.
  I support the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support of our bipartisan amendment to require GAO 
to study the impacts of aquatic invasive species, and I thank the 
committee

[[Page H6745]]

leadership for including it in the en bloc agreement.
  Aquatic invasives impose a challenge across our great country. Just 
to take one example, aquatic mussels such as quagga and zebra mussels 
have cost more than $5 billion since their introduction in the 1980s. 
Unfortunately, too often this important problem only receives attention 
after it is too late. This amendment would be proactive. It would 
require a timely report to find gaps in current efforts and minimize 
duplication of activities.
  Invasive species are a national problem with significant and 
expensive local implications. More than ever, we need knowledge and 
guidance on this issue.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, I support the en bloc amendment, which 
includes an amendment I filed.
  Since 1986, the other U.S. territories have been given partial 
relief--up to $200,000--from the local cost-sharing requirements for 
Army Corps projects. The bill increases this amount to account for 
inflation. My amendment extends this waiver to the territory of Puerto 
Rico. There are about 20 authorized flood protection, harbor, and other 
Army Corps projects pending in Puerto Rico, some of which are stalled 
due to the constrained ability of the local government to provide its 
share of project costs.
  The two reasons that justified enactment of this waiver for the other 
territories three decades ago also justify its extension to Puerto Rico 
today. Puerto Rico is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters like 
hurricanes and floods. In 2011 alone, there were several federally 
declared disasters in Puerto Rico, with FEMA assistance totaling $95 
million. In addition, Puerto Rico faces severe economic and fiscal 
challenges which are in large part due to the fact that, as a 
territory, Puerto Rico is shortchanged under key Federal programs.
  I thank the chairmen and the ranking members for recognizing that 
critical Army Corps projects in Puerto Rico should not be deferred or 
deauthorized because of the unique circumstances in the territory.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member and 
the chairman for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc 
amendments and indicate that this is a bill long overdue. Just to 
acknowledge, 209,000 jobs, 970 jobs in Texas, $16.7 billion in direct 
business, $14.1 billion in personal income.
  My amendment adds to this legislation by providing for the Army Corps 
of Engineers under section 118 to consult with key stakeholders, 
including State, county, and city governments where applicable; State 
and local water districts; and in the case of recommendations 
concerning projects that substantially affect underrepresented 
communities, the Secretary shall also consult with Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, tribal colleges and universities, and other 
minority-serving institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all reminded of the tragedy of Hurricane Sandy, 
of the tragedy of Tropical Storm Allison, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane 
Ike, and Hurricane Katrina. Universities and communities were impacted. 
The Army Corps of Engineers will be much better for the idea of being 
able to engage in those who are directly impacted.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask my colleagues to support 
the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I support this bill and urge 
my colleagues to support my amendment to retain Congress's traditional 
role in authorizing project purposes at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
dams and reservoirs.
  Corps dams and reservoirs throughout the Nation provide multiple 
benefits. Water supplies, hydropower, recreation and flood control are 
just some of the benefits that were approved by Congress and paid for 
by beneficiaries such as ratepayers. Some Corps dams also provide year-
round cold-water flows for fisheries as part of their operations. In 
the Pacific Northwest, multi-purpose dams provide the economic backbone 
for our region. They power communities, small businesses and 
residential homes and provide water necessary for irrigation, 
recreation and navigation. These duties have been approved by Congress 
in some fashion after careful deliberation over the costs, needs and 
justification for these uses.
  I'm proud to have worked with the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association and the American Public Power Association, which 
collectively represent almost 90 million electric ratepayers in 49 
states, on this amendment. These ratepayers receive emissions-free and 
renewable hydropower from federal reservoirs throughout our country. 
These organizations, whose ratepayers pay--with interest--for 
hydropower and other functions at the Corps of Engineers dams--have 
been concerned with proposals that would give undue discretion to the 
agency to change the projects without ratepayer or Congressional 
oversight and authorization.
  I will quote an October 8, 2013 letter from the organizations to 
illustrate their predicament:
  ``The ability to change project operations at Corps projects that 
provide hydropower presents a risk that hydropower generation from 
these projects could be diminished at the agency's discretion. For many 
members of NRECA and APPA who rely on the power generated at Corps 
projects to keep electric rates as low as possible, the loss of 
hydropower generated at these projects would require our members to 
seek more expensive replacement power.''
  Policies and authorizations that govern the uses of Corps facilities, 
as authorized by Congress, should not be re-written by un-elected 
bureaucrats. There are some proposals to allow the Corps to 
administratively change project purposes and manuals that govern the 
Corps dams and reservoirs that could undermine congressional intent, 
erode government accountability, limit public input and create a 
litigious atmosphere. And, any such changes would have a cascading 
effect on dams owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and non-federal 
entities like public utility districts.
  Instead of giving courts and bureaucrats more power, Congress needs 
to reinforce the congressionally-authorized policies that govern these 
projects. And, if changes need to be made at these facilities, they 
should be made by Congress in the open, not by the un-elected.
  This amendment simply continues our historical role in determining 
how multiple-use Corps projects are operated. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment and the underlying bill.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for including my amendment No. 20, related to 
the Navy, in the en bloc agreement today.
  My amendment is a simple, straight-forward improvement to H.R. 3080, 
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
  As you know, Section 202 of the underlying bill requires the Army 
Corps of Engineers to assess the operation and maintenance needs of 
harbors used for a variety of purposes, including for commercial 
navigation; for commercial fishing; for transportation of persons; 
domestic energy production; public health and safety; the activities of 
the Coast Guard; recreation; and other purposes.
  My amendment would add ``activities of the Secretary of the Navy'' to 
the list of activities that the Army Corps must consider when assessing 
the operation and maintenance needs of harbors.
  Section 202 of the underlying bill also requires the Army Corps of 
Engineers to determine an equitable allocation of funds from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund.
  The bill sets forth criteria, including an assessment of utilization; 
national and regional significance, and also states that the 
allocations shall not be based solely on tonnage.
  My amendment would add a requirement for the Corps to consider--where 
appropriate--our national security needs in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Navy.
  My amendment does not alter the delicate balance that the Committee

[[Page H6746]]

has sought to achieve between small and large harbors. It simply 
requires that the Corps of Engineers takes into account our naval fleet 
and our national security needs.
  I believe better up-front coordination of our priorities is needed 
between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy because of a situation 
that has arisen in my Congressional District.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began dredging Channel Islands 
Harbor in 1960 because erosion was threatening Navy installations near 
Port Hueneme and the dredging provided the sand to replenish what had 
washed away.
  Due to inadequate federal funding for harbor maintenance in 2013, the 
beach area--that borders along Naval Base Ventura County--received only 
a fraction of the 1 million cubic yards of sand it typically gets when 
the Corps dredges the Channel Islands Harbor sand trap.
  Now, severe erosion is threatening coastal streets in Port Hueneme, 
which serve as a critical transportation artery to and from the Naval 
Base.
  The erosion is also threatening military readiness at Naval Base 
Ventura County.
  According to the Navy: ``Continued beach erosion creates a potential 
for mission impacts at Naval Base Ventura County. These impacts include 
risks to critical Navy facilities and infrastructure; such as ordinance 
magazines and transportation routes, lab and training buildings, runway 
lighting, etc.''
   Since coming to Congress, I have worked tirelessly with the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Navy to address these 
issues.
   The Department of the Navy has communicated its clear national 
security interest to the Corps, and has informed me that the Navy 
stands ready to provide its legally required share of funds for the 
project. However, the project remains underfunded.
  In the future, as the Army Corps of Engineers prioritizes the use of 
funds, I believe the Army Corps needs to consider the activities of the 
navy and our national security needs.
   My amendment will require the Corps to take these issues into 
account when prioritizing the use of funds.
  While I continue to work to find funds to address the immediate 
crisis, it is my hope that better up-front coordination between the 
Army Corps and the Navy will prevent this issue from occurring again in 
the future.
  Again, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Members support for this 
common-sense improvement to H.R. 3080.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for including my amendment No. 22, related to 
job creation, in the en bloc agreement today.
  My amendment is a simple, straight-forward improvement to H.R. 3080, 
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
  This important amendment will require the Government Accountability 
Office to study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the 
activities funded by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in maximizing 
economic growth and job creation in the communities surrounding low- 
and moderate-use ports.
  The GAO will also be required to include recommendations relating to 
the use of amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to increase the 
competitiveness of United States ports relative to Canadian and Mexican 
ports.
  Under my amendment, the term ``low-use port'' means a port at which 
not more than 1,000,000 tons of cargo are transported each calendar 
year.
  The term ``moderate-use port'' means a port at which more than 
1,000,000, but fewer than 10,000,000, tons of cargo are transported 
each calendar year.
  I came to Congress to move our nation forward, to create jobs, and to 
ensure that Ventura County has the resources necessary to succeed.
  Like many of my colleagues, I view all of the actions that Congress 
takes--and all federal programs--through the lens of its potential to 
create jobs.
  That is why I think it is critically important that GAO undertake a 
comprehensive study of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and help us to 
maximize the job creation potential of the program and to increase our 
international competitiveness.
  In my district, I am fortunate to represent several ports and 
harbors, including Channel Islands Harbor, Ventura Harbor, and the Port 
of Hueneme.
  The ports and harbors in my district are critical to our local and 
regional economy--supporting both small, mid-size, and large 
businesses, as well as thousands of jobs both directly at the port and 
indirectly in our community.
  In 2012, the Port of Hueneme--which moved approximately 1.3 million 
tons of cargo--undertook a study of the local and regional economic 
impact.
  The study concluded that 9,448 jobs in the Port Hueneme metropolitan 
region and the State of California were in some way related to the 
activity at the Port's marine terminals. This included 2,277 direct 
jobs, 2,727 induced jobs, 620 indirect jobs, and 3,824 regional jobs 
influenced by cargo exported and imported through the Port Hueneme 
marine terminals.
  In fiscal year 2012, marine cargo activity at the Port of Hueneme 
generated a total of $723.8 million of total economic activity in the 
region.
  A total of $50.8 million of state and local tax revenue was generated 
by maritime activity at the Port's marine terminals in fiscal year 
2012.
  In addition, $12.9 million of state and local taxes were created due 
to the economic activity of the users of the cargo moving via the 
marine terminals.
  The Port of Hueneme is just one example of how strategic and smart 
use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is helping to create jobs and 
generate economic growth.
  Across the nation our ports and harbors are vital economic engines of 
our economy.
   I think it is critically important for Congress to have a thorough 
report from the GAO on the use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
across the nation so that we can maximize the use of these taxpayer 
dollars--supporting businesses and creating jobs.
  Again, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Members support for this 
common-sense improvement to H.R. 3080.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments, as modified, were agreed to.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. GEOSPATIAL SURVEYING AND MAPPING.

       Section 918 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2292) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 918. GEOSPATIAL SURVEYING AND MAPPING.

       ``(a) Procurement of Surveying and Mapping Services.--Any 
     surveying or mapping services to be performed in connection 
     with a water resources project which is or has been 
     authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary shall be 
     procured in accordance with chapter 11 of title 40, United 
     States Code.
       ``(b) Geospatial Surveying and Mapping Activities.--In 
     carrying out water resources projects, the Secretary shall, 
     wherever practicable, utilize the private sector for 
     commercially available geospatial surveying and mapping 
     activities. The Secretary shall not start or carry on any 
     activity to provide a commercially available geospatial 
     surveying and mapping service that duplicates, competes with, 
     or can be procured from a commercial source.
       ``(c) Guidance.--
       ``(1) Issuance.--The Secretary shall issue guidance to 
     encourage entities in the Corps of Engineers to utilize, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, contracting with private 
     sector sources for geospatial surveying and mapping services 
     for water resources projects.
       ``(A) Contents.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) define appropriate inherently governmental roles in 
     geospatial surveying and mapping activities, which roles 
     shall include--
       ``(I) activities so defined in section 5 of the Federal 
     Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2384);
       ``(II) preparation of standards and specifications;
       ``(III) research of geospatial surveying and mapping 
     instrumentation and procedures that are not commercially 
     available, with prompt technology transfer to the private 
     sector;
       ``(IV) providing technical guidance, coordination, and 
     administration of geospatial surveying and mapping 
     activities; and

[[Page H6747]]

       ``(V) contracting with private sector sources for 
     geospatial surveying and mapping activities.
       ``(ii) define commercially available geospatial surveying 
     and mapping activities to include activities described in--
       ``(I) section 36.601-4(a)(4)(A) of the Engineer Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation; and
       ``(II) section 467 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     process for the oversight and monitoring, on an annual basis, 
     of compliance with the guidance issued under subsection (c).
       ``(e) Assessment.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall conduct an 
     assessment of all entities in the Corps of Engineers, 
     including divisions, districts, laboratories, and technical 
     centers, to determine the extent to which each entity is 
     utilizing governmental and private sector sources for 
     commercially available geospatial surveying and mapping 
     services. In conducting the assessment, the Secretary shall 
     consult with organizations of commercial geospatial surveying 
     and mapping firms.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I suggest respectfully this is a 
very simple amendment. It is about the intrusion by the Corps into the 
private sector of mapping. They have been very good in the past about 
contracting out.
  I found out by reports that certain areas of the Corps have bought 
equipment, they have bought, frankly, a yacht, and they have gotten 
into the mapping business. In doing so, that is in direct competition 
to the private sector.
  Today, with the scarce amount of money we have for infrastructure, we 
ought to keep that infrastructure available for, in fact, all the 
moneys for building and not for getting into the private sector 
business of mapping. They can still do it. If there isn't a contractor 
close by or it is not practical, they can still do their own work, but 
I see the expansion occurring as an invasion into an area that already 
has plenty of qualified people to do it.
  I think this amendment is a very simple amendment. We ought to adopt 
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, throughout the development of 
H.R. 3080, the chairman has taken a measured approached to balancing 
the desire to encourage additional private sector involvement in the 
development and execution of Corps projects with maintaining the 
internal technical capability of the Corps to carry out its vital 
military and civil works missions.
  For decades, this committee has held the belief that maintaining the 
technical capability of the Corps is critical not only to address the 
water resources needs of the Nation, but also to maintain the ability 
of the Corps to serve its other role as critical support our Nation's 
military.
  To maintain this capability, we have strived to maintain critical 
technical expertise within the Corps, while at the same time 
recognizing those areas where outside commercial interests can provide 
a useful role.
  In my view, this amendment seeks to push the lever too far towards 
outsourcing the internal capabilities of the Corps. My understanding is 
that currently the Corps contracts extensively with the private sector 
for surveying and mapping services. However, the decision as to when it 
is appropriate to use their own staff, a public agency, or a private 
contractor for this work should remain within the Corps' leadership, 
who understand the needs of specific projects.
  For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I include 
letters from the AFGE, the transportation trade, and the IFPTE in 
opposition to the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                                 Washington, DC, October 23, 2013.
     Re Don't bail out bad contractors: oppose the Young-Petri 
         amendment to give all surveying and mapping work to 
         contractors, regardless of high costs or bad performance

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation 
     of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents more than 
     650,000 federal employees, including in the Corps of 
     Engineers (CoE), I urge you to oppose an amendment to be 
     offered to the Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 3080) by 
     Representatives Don Young (R-AK) and Tom Petri (R-WI) that 
     would prevent the CoE from using lower-cost, higher-
     performing alternatives to contractors for the performance of 
     surveying and mapping functions.
       The Department of Defense (DOD), which spends 60% of all 
     service contract dollars, including a large amount on behalf 
     of CoE, has determined that contractors usually cost more 
     than in-house performance, often by significant amounts. In 
     2010, then DoD Secretary Robert Gates told The Washington 
     Post ``that federal workers cost the government 25 percent 
     less than contractors''. Comptroller Robert Hale acknowledged 
     to a Senate Subcommittee in June that contractors are two to 
     three times more expensive than civilians. In a September 
     House hearing, the Army Chief of Staff echoed Hale's remark.
       The Young-Petri amendment would direct the CoE, in carrying 
     out water resources projects, to use contractors for 
     surveying and mapping functions whenever possible and forbid 
     the CoE from starting or performing surveying and mapping 
     functions if they happen to be performed by contractors. At a 
     time when taxpayer dollars are precious, it makes no sense to 
     force CoE to give work to contractors that can better be 
     performed by federal employees.
       There has been no determination by the agency, the House 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let alone any 
     independent third party, that the agency is failing to 
     adequately use contractors for these functions or that its 
     federal sector surveyors and mappers are costly or 
     inadequate. The Young-Petri amendment is simply an attempt by 
     a group of contractors to use political pressure to force the 
     CoE to give them more taxpayer dollars--the worst kind of 
     earmark. The impartial experts at CoE should be responsible 
     for determining how the agency meets its mission, not a self-
     interested band of contractors. Of course, surveying and 
     mapping contractors want more money, but that doesn't mean 
     they should take it from taxpayers. Enactment of the Young-
     Petri amendment would be a terrible public policy precedent.
       Thank you for your consideration. Please contact John 
     Threlkeld ([email protected]) of my staff if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Beth Moten,
     Legislative and Political Director.
                                  ____



                                                          TTD,

                                                 October 23, 2013.
     Re Vote NO on the Young-Petri Amendment to WRRDA

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Transportation Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I ask that you oppose the Young-
     Petri amendment (#21) to the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2013 (WRRDA). While TTD supports the 
     underlying legislation, Young-Petri would unnecessarily 
     require the Army Corps of Engineers to contract with private 
     firms for surveying and mapping services, and jeopardize the 
     jobs of qualified, public service professionals.
       This amendment would do nothing to improve the efficiency 
     or flexibility for Corps surveying and mapping 
     responsibilities. In fact, the Corps already contracts 
     extensively with the private sector for these services. The 
     decision as to when it is appropriate to use their own staff, 
     a public agency or a private contractor for this work should 
     remain with the Corps' leadership who understand the needs of 
     specific projects. Should this amendment be adopted, Congress 
     would be creating a special set-aside for the private firms 
     in this industry and tying the hands of the experts and 
     specialists who manage these projects. In addition, the 
     amendment would set a bad precedent and is contrary to recent 
     legal and regulatory efforts to ensure ``special 
     consideration'' of using federal employees instead of 
     contractors.
       WRRDA is an important piece of legislation that will bring 
     much needed investment and reform to our nation's water 
     infrastructure. However, Young-Petri will have a negative 
     effect on the Corps ability to use best judgment and 
     practices when performing critical surveying and mapping 
     duties and it will deal a devastating blow to those 
     professionals who currently perform that work. I urge you to 
     vote no on this amendment and preserve the integrity and 
     bipartisan principles in the underlying bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Edward Wytkind,
     President.
                                  ____

         International Federation of Professional & Technical 
           Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,
                                 Washington, DC, October 23, 2013.
       Dear Representative: As President of the International 
     Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), I 
     am writing regarding today's House consideration of HR 3080, 
     the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2013. As a 
     union representing tens of thousands of workers, including 
     Army Corps of Engineers employees, IFPTE believes that this 
     much needed legislation will not only go a long way toward 
     modernizing and preserving our homeland critical 
     infrastructures, including our ports, inland, and

[[Page H6748]]

     coastal waterways, but it will also create and preserve 
     hundreds of thousands of high quality American jobs.
       While IFPTE does support the legislation, we also have 
     serious concerns with an amendment made in order by the Rules 
     Committee. The amendment, sponsored by Representatives Don 
     Young and Tom Petri, would force the Army Corps of Engineers 
     to shift mapping and surveying functions from highly skilled 
     federal workers to more costly contractor provided services.
       The Young-Petri amendment is a simple one: It directs the 
     Corps to use contractors for mapping and surveying wherever 
     possible when performing water resources projects. It also 
     prohibits Corps federal employees from undertaking mapping 
     and surveying work, regardless of the quality and cost of the 
     work, if it is already being performed by contractors.
       IFPTE believes that all outsourcing should be done only 
     after consideration of the cost versus benefit for the 
     taxpayer. Just because a certain function may be deemed 
     commercial in nature does not mean that it should be 
     contracted out, as this amendment seeks to accomplish. The 
     Army Corps of Engineers nor the House Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee has found that surveying and mapping 
     functions performed by federal workers are inadequate or more 
     costly than contractors. In fact, just this past June 
     Department of Defense (DOD) Comptroller, Robert Hale, 
     testified before the Senate that contractors cost the 
     taxpayer two to three times more than federal employees. Mr. 
     Hale's statement was later reinforced by the Army Chief of 
     Staff at a September House hearing. Forcing these activities 
     to be contracted out absent any proof of cost savings is 
     simply irresponsible.
       WRDA is a jobs bill and will go a long way toward the 
     creation and preservation of hundreds of thousands of 
     American jobs. While our union supports the underlying bill, 
     we are not supportive of the Young/Petri amendment. Support 
     the bill, while rejecting the amendment.
       Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions 
     please contact IFPTE Legislative Director, Matt Biggs.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gregory J. Junemann,
                                                        President.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding, and I rise 
to support the Young amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  It is important that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be encouraged 
to use the private sector for surveying and mapping services whenever 
practical. Congress should take steps to end the increasing duplication 
of and competition with the private sector by the Corps of Engineers. 
This amendment would allow the Corps to continue to manage mapping and 
surveying for its projects, but it should rely on the private sector to 
perform the mapping and surveying services and activities that are 
commercially available to the maximum extent practical.
  At a time when Federal funds for infrastructure, including water 
resources projects, are limited, the Corps should be increasing its use 
of the private sector for surveying and mapping, where it makes sense, 
not wasting tax dollars by competing and duplicating the private 
sector.
  So I encourage the House to adopt the Young amendment to increase the 
Corps' reliance on the capable and qualified private sector surveying 
and mapping services wherever practical.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from Alaska's 
amendment.
  The Corps of Engineers, like all Federal agencies, is required to 
follow acquisition and procurement laws. Much of the work of the Corps 
is in fact contracted out to private sector entities, including much of 
the hydrographic mapping, which is integral to construction and 
operation and maintenance.
  While I understand and empathize with the sponsor of the amendment, 
it appears to me to be more of an acquisition and procurement issue. 
What we do not want is to have one acquisition and procurement law for 
the Federal Government, and a new or special or additional acquisition 
or procurement law for the Corps of Engineers.
  So again, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from 
Alaska's amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I reluctantly respect the gentleman's opinion, 
but at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
from Alaska yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Small businesses struggle to stay in business every day, and they 
should not have to compete against their government, on top of all of 
the other challenges they face. In fact, sometimes I think we should 
pin a medal on anybody who is able to survive today in small 
businesses. Yet every day in almost every congressional district, big 
government agencies are competing with small businesses.
  When the White House Conference on Small Business met in 1995, it 
listed unfair government competition with small businesses as one of 
the top issues. This is not a new problem. In fact, since the 
Eisenhower administration in 1955, it became official U.S. policy that:

       The Federal Government will not start or carry on any 
     commercial activity to provide a service or product for its 
     own use if such product or service can be procured from 
     private enterprise through ordinary business channels.

  This is a service that can easily be provided by private small 
businesses, and we should support that. This amendment would simply 
require the Army Corps to take advantage of the private mapping and 
surveying services that are available instead of competing with them.
  I believe this is a very reasonable and responsible amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Shuster in 
opposing this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the Corps has been good, but they 
are expanding. They just spent money, instead of on solving a problem, 
on a UAV, and they spent $2.3 million on a yacht. There is no reason 
for that, Mr. Chairman; there is no reason.
  This doesn't keep them from surveying, it doesn't keep them from 
contracting, but I don't want them to expand this program. We have 
another government agency, and we are trying to save money and we are 
going to allow them to expand it. I know how these agencies go. They 
will start buying more and more and they will expand and say, We don't 
have to contract anymore. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you know 
that is true. I have watched these agencies. As chairman of this 
committee, I watched them and tried to stop them. This is not the time 
to spend money foolishly. We have the contractors out there. Let's use 
them where they are available. Let's not let them build a machine 
within the Corps of Engineers themselves. Keep that in mind. You ought 
to adopt this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was rejected.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 139. ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET.

       The Secretary shall include operation and maintenance costs 
     associated with sand transfer plants in the annual operations 
     and maintenance budget of the Corps of Engineers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would help to 
maintain beaches and the integrity of our shipping channels around the 
country.
  Sand transfer plants are vital for beach renourishment, as well as to 
fight erosion and shoaling in navigation channels. These inlets are 
often the lifeblood of the communities they serve. When shoaling of the 
channels makes navigation dangerous, it is the people and businesses 
that suffer.
  The Army Corps of Engineers is already spending money to dredge these

[[Page H6749]]

channels. By reducing the need to dredge so often, my amendment allows 
for more efficient allocation of Federal dollars. Furthermore, 
additional Corps resources are then freed up for other uses.
  This amendment does not authorize or appropriate any funds. It merely 
allows the sand transfer plants to participate in the process and gives 
the Corps flexibility in prioritizing its funding. It applies to all 
sand transfer plants, those that are in existence and those not yet in 
existence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, typically the Corps of Engineers carries 
out studies and projects that are cost-shared with non-Federal 
sponsors.
  Sand transfer facilities that are associated with beach nourishment 
projects are traditionally a non-Federal responsibility. This amendment 
would require the Corps of Engineers to assume the operation and 
maintenance costs of these facilities. This would put more funding 
requirements on the Federal taxpayer for this type of work. It is clear 
that the Corps' budget will not be increased substantially to cover 
these additional requirements.
  One of the key goals of H.R. 3080 is to empower non-Federal interests 
to take a larger role in carrying out water resources projects. This 
amendment is not financially responsible since it would place an 
additional burden on the Corps of Engineers without recognizing the 
fiscal restraints the Corps is already under, so I urge all Members to 
oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend 
Chairman Shuster for restoring the bipartisan nature to our committee, 
and I want to thank Congressmen Rahall, Bishop, and Gibbs for their 
work on this bill. I also want to thank the Corps of Engineers for 
their hard work. They have been underfunded and overworked, but they 
have always been there for the American people. The work they did 
during Hurricane Katrina and, most recently, Hurricane Sandy should be 
commended by Congress.
  We are already failing to prepare our ports for post-Panamax ships 
and are falling behind in our international competition. Ports 
throughout Asia, Europe, South America, and the Caribbean all have 
ports with depths of 50 feet.
  I agree that we need to fully reauthorize WRDA every 2 years, but I 
don't believe many people are confident that will happen. In fact, it 
took 7 years since reauthorization of the last WRDA bill.
  I went to a preliminary review on the Chief's Report, and the Army 
Corps made clear that they don't pick winners and losers, but that is 
what we are doing here in Congress.
  This is a fairness issue for the State of Florida. I hope that as we 
move toward conference, we must engage the House, the Senate, and the 
White House to ensure that the State of Florida is not left behind. As 
this bill continues to move through the process, we need to work 
together to make sure that we treat every State fairly and don't 
arbitrarily leave any critical infrastructure projects behind.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for this committee. I think they 
have done extraordinary work on behalf of all of us here in Congress, 
operating with fiscal restraint and able to produce a bipartisan 
product. Toward that end, most of all I respect Chairman Shuster, but I 
firmly disagree with his assessment of this particular measure.
  There is one transfer plant that is located in an area that I serve, 
and that is in Lake Worth, Florida. It is the Lake Worth Inlet. There 
is one in California, one in New Jersey, and one in Bethany Beach on 
the Indian River Inlet. Additionally, this amendment would just apply 
whenever the Corps builds additional sand transfer plants.
  There is no money that is involved. The money that the Corps of 
Engineers would save is immense, and I don't for the life of me 
understand why there would be opposition to that. I will have a lot 
more to say over the course of time regarding how the Corps conducts 
its operations, but I have lived for 21 years with many of their 
successes and a hell of a lot of their failures.
  Toward that end, in this particular instance, I am trying to help 
them to save something and to be able to do the things that are 
necessary to allow for navigation of these waters that are critical to 
the areas that they serve.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bentivolio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 136, line 12, strike ``$12,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$35,000,000,000''.
       Page 137, beginning line 1, strike ``Authorized Before WRDA 
     2007''.
       Page 137, line 12, strike ``November 8, 2007'' and insert 
     ``the date of enactment of this Act''.
       Page 138, line 14, strike ``$12,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$35,000,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Bill Shuster, 
and other members of the committee and their staff for working so hard 
on this bill.
  There are many good reforms in this legislation, and I applaud their 
efforts. However, while this bill initially deauthorizes $12 billion in 
old and inactive projects, most of those savings are simply moved to 
other projects.

                              {time}  1645

  Offsetting costs is always good, but we can do better. We should be 
looking for real savings and clearing out the backlog for the American 
people. While the bill sunsets some new authorizations to help curtail 
the backlog problem, much more needs to be done about the current 
backlog.
  I am a former teacher. When educators teach the basics of our system 
of government, we say ``the legislature creates the law and controls 
the purse.'' The fact of the matter is, Congress has not been in 
control of its purse for quite a while, and these outdated, backlogged 
projects, some almost 50 years old, prove just that. Simply put, there 
is just too much spending with little to no oversight or 
accountability. It needs to stop.
  Many of these projects were earmarks in previous water resources 
bills. There was not sufficient follow-up to make sure they were 
completed on time and under budget. For example, the 2007 bill had 
approximately $8 billion in additional projects and earmarks thrown in 
during conference.
  If these projects and this money are important and necessary, then 
what has Congress been doing all these years to ensure these much-
needed projects and funds were being completed? By this body's own 
action--or inaction--it has shown over and over that either these 
projects aren't important as some claim or that Congress is spending 
money on improvements without much thought.
  Every dollar we waste is a dollar that could be spent to help the 
American people and a dollar we wouldn't need to

[[Page H6750]]

borrow against our children's and grandchildren's future. If these 
projects aren't important enough for us to ensure their completion on 
time and within budget, then we probably shouldn't have authorized it 
in the first place.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, throughout the process of developing this 
water resources bill, Chairman Shuster has done a remarkable job of 
maintaining a balance between addressing future water resource needs of 
the Nation and coming to terms with those legacy projects and studies 
of the Corps of Engineers that may have languished over the decades. 
Unfortunately, the pending amendment would upset that balance, and it 
seeks to deauthorize a massive amount of projects that I would suggest 
continue to have strong local, congressional, and potentially 
administrative support.
  While addressing the unconstructed backlog is an important issue, I 
urge opposition to this amendment that seeks to wipe away much of the 
good work of this body over the decades simply to make a point on 
fiscal conservatism. We all want to address the debt. It is a worthy 
goal. I agree with the gentleman's comments about passing that debt on 
to our children and grandchildren, but I suggest this is not the proper 
manner in which we are fair to our entire country and to the future 
infrastructure of this Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Michigan permitting me to speak on this.
  My friend from West Virginia made a very important point, that under 
this bill, if it is approved, we are going to extend the backlog to 
something like $72 million. There are many people who support these 
various projects, and that is part of the problem.
  Simply authorizing is not somehow free. It costs money to be able to 
move them into the production stage. We have billions of dollars that 
are ready for construction that are languishing, and because we are not 
adequately funding year in and year out, we have an amazing number of 
projects with a shelf life that has expired.
  I commend what the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from 
West Virginia have done with the committee, trying to do a deeper dive, 
trying to fine-tune, trying to make some real progress here. The 
problem is we have a legacy where, for decades, that same care and 
consideration was not exercised, where there are a lot of projects that 
really are not cost effective, that really are no longer state of the 
art.
  I think by moving forward to clear the decks of a little more of the 
backlog, not diverting--because the Corps and Congress have to contend 
with people that think just because it has been authorized they are 
entitled to have the project go forward. I can understand that if it 
stays on the books, but that is a distortion of where we are now. We 
are not adequately funding what this bill needs to do.
  Unless and until we do a little more aggressive pruning, we are just 
going to continue to add to the backlog, and we are going to continue 
to have some projects that will get moved along sometimes for political 
reasons even though they are not the best projects. The more that we 
can help the committee move forward, prune it down, tailor it, focus 
it, we are all going to be better off.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Chairman Shuster.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan 
wanting to be fiscally responsible. That is what we tried to do in this 
bill.
  All of the new authorizations in WRRDA were more than fully offset by 
deauthorizations, and WRRDA seeks to deauthorize its old, inactive 
projects which have not begun construction or have not received any 
funds, Federal or non-Federal, in the last 5 years. This approach cuts 
waste and reduces the backlog of projects that are unlikely to move 
forward.
  Such a significant increase in the deauthorization target could have 
unforeseen consequences, and I believe it would effectively deauthorize 
viable projects--projects that are almost ready to go, projects that 
have non-Federal money committed to them--and impact the ability to 
move these forward, these important water resources and infrastructure 
improvements that are ready to move that have non-Federal dollars in 
place.
  We also put in this bill a sunset law, that if any new authorizations 
do not move in 7 years, they will automatically be deauthorized. It 
will continue to push down on that backlog. I certainly would be open 
in the next WRRDA bill for additional deauthorizations to make sure we 
continue to reduce that backlog.
  I reluctantly urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis 
and Americans are sick of how much money Congress wastes. The fact that 
there is between $60 billion and $80 billion in old, inactive projects 
and backlog means something is wrong. It took less than a decade for 
the United States to go to the Moon. How could it possibly take decades 
to build a dam? Hoover Dam was built in 5 years.
  If we aren't going to do these projects right and on time, we 
shouldn't be doing them at all. We need to prioritize and follow 
through on projects that are important. It is not radical to clear out 
old and back-dated projects.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let me pick up on something that Chairman Shuster just said. He said 
that if we were to take the approach that is advocated by this 
amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, we would run the risk of 
deauthorizing projects that are very vital. Let me give you an example 
of one that would be in that category.
  The Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study, a study that 
comprises the 83 easternmost miles of coastline of Long Island, 70 
miles of which is in my district, which was first authorized in the 
1960s, it has crept along primarily because it has not had adequate 
funding either for studies and certainly not for construction.
  Hurricane Sandy proved just how valuable and just how important the 
work that has been contemplated by the Fire Island to Montauk Point 
Reformulation Study has been and would have been. If it were not for 
the Sandy supplemental funding, we still wouldn't be in a position to 
fund the vitally important construction projects associated with FIMP; 
but FIMP is the kind of project that would fall victim to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan were it to be approved.
  So I join the ranking member and the chairman in urging opposition to 
the amendment
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Jones

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 44, line 3, strike ``that has been damaged'' and all 
     that follows before the closing quotation marks on line 7.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Uncle Sam has largely stopped funding 
maintenance of federally authorized shallow

[[Page H6751]]

draft inlet projects. There are over a dozen of these projects in the 
district that I represent in North Carolina. These are critical to the 
local economy. To fill the gap, the State of North Carolina is stepping 
up to pay for dredging these waterways. My concern is that section 108 
of the bill may be interpreted to allow States to only pay for 
maintenance of projects damaged by disasters.
  Does the chairman share my belief that States should be allowed to 
contribute funds to any of the Federal projects, not just those damaged 
by disasters? And will he agree to work in conference to perfect the 
bill's language to meet our shared intent?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JONES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I thank 
you for raising this issue.
  We will be happy to try to work with you as we go through conference 
to look into what you are talking about and making sure we do what is 
right for the country in moving forward.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that. I want to 
thank you and the ranking member for the outstanding job you and your 
staffs have done on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 95, after line 15, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 137. NATIONAL WATER-BASED FREIGHT POLICY.

       (a) In General.--It is the policy of the United States to 
     improve the condition and performance of the national water-
     based freight network to ensure that such network provides 
     the foundation for the United States to compete in the global 
     economy and achieve each goal described in subsection (b).
       (b) Goals.--The goals of the national water-based freight 
     policy are--
       (1) to invest in infrastructure improvements and to 
     implement operational improvements that--
       (A) strengthen the contribution of the national water-based 
     freight network to the economic competitiveness of the United 
     States;
       (B) reduce congestion; and
       (C) increase productivity, particularly for domestic 
     industries and businesses that create high-value jobs;
       (2) to improve the safety, security, and resilience of 
     water-based freight transportation;
       (3) to improve the state of good repair of the national 
     water-based freight network;
       (4) to use advanced technology to improve the safety and 
     efficiency of the national water-based freight network;
       (5) to incorporate concepts of performance, innovation, 
     competition, and accountability into the operation and 
     maintenance of the national water-based freight network;
       (6) to improve the economic efficiency of the national 
     water-based freight network; and
       (7) to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement 
     on the national water-based freight network.
       (c) Establishment of a National Water-based Freight 
     Network.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a national 
     water-based freight network in accordance with this section 
     to assist States in strategically directing resources toward 
     improved system performance to achieve efficient movement of 
     freight on inland waterways, canals, ports, and harbors, and 
     related freight intermodal connectors.
       (2) Network components.--The national water-based freight 
     network shall consist of the primary water-based freight 
     network, as designated by the Secretary under subsection (d) 
     as most critical to the movement of water-based freight.
       (d) Designation of Primary Water-based Freight Network.--
       (1) Initial designation.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     designate a primary water-based freight network based on an 
     inventory of national water-based freight volume and in 
     consultation with stakeholders, including system users, 
     transportation providers, and States.
       (2) Factors for designation.--In designating the primary 
     water-based freight network, the Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the origins and destinations of water-based freight 
     movement in the United States;
       (B) the total tonnage and value of water-based freight 
     moved across United States bodies of water;
       (C) the average annual water-based freight traffic on 
     United States bodies of water;
       (D) maritime ports of entry;
       (E) access to energy exploration, development, 
     installation, or production areas;
       (F) population centers; and
       (G) network connectivity.
       (3) Redesignation.--On the date that is 10 years after the 
     initial designation of the primary water-based freight 
     network, and every 10 years thereafter, using the factors 
     described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall redesignate 
     the primary water-based freight network.
       (e) National Water-Based Freight Strategic Plan.--
       (1) Initial development.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with State departments of transportation and 
     other appropriate public and private transportation 
     stakeholders, shall develop and post on a public Web site a 
     national water-based freight strategic plan that shall 
     include--
       (A) an assessment of the condition and performance of the 
     national water-based freight network;
       (B) an identification of bottlenecks on the national water-
     based freight network that create significant freight 
     congestion problems, based on a quantitative methodology 
     developed by the Secretary, and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, an estimate of the cost of addressing each 
     bottleneck and any operational improvements that could be 
     implemented;
       (C) forecasts of water-based freight volumes for the 20-
     year period beginning with the year during which the plan is 
     issued;
       (D) an identification of major trade gateways and national 
     water-based freight corridors that connect major population 
     centers, trade gateways, and other major water-based freight 
     generators for current and forecasted traffic and water-based 
     freight volumes, the identification of which shall be 
     revised, as appropriate, in subsequent plans;
       (E) an assessment of statutory, regulatory, technological, 
     institutional, financial, and other barriers to improved 
     water-based freight transportation performance (including 
     opportunities for overcoming the barriers);
       (F) an identification of routes providing access to energy 
     exploration, development, installation, or production areas;
       (G) an identification of best practices for improving the 
     performance of the national water-based freight network;
       (H) an identification of best practices for mitigating the 
     impacts of water-based freight movement on communities;
       (I) an identification of a process for addressing 
     multistate projects and encouraging jurisdictions to 
     collaborate; and
       (J) an identification of strategies to improve freight 
     intermodal connectivity.
       (2) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     completion of the first national water-based freight 
     strategic plan under paragraph (1), and every 5 years 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall update and post on a public 
     Web site a revised national water-based freight strategic 
     plan.
       (f) Water-based Freight Transportation Conditions and 
     Performance Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare a report that contains a description 
     of the conditions and performance of the national water-based 
     freight network in the United States.
       (g) Transportation Investment Data and Planning Tools.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall--
       (A) begin the development of new tools or improve existing 
     tools to support an outcome-oriented, performance-based 
     approach to evaluating proposed water-based freight-related 
     projects, including--
       (i) methodologies for systematic analysis of benefits and 
     costs;
       (ii) tools for ensuring that the evaluation of water-based 
     freight-related projects and other transportation projects 
     considers safety, economic competitiveness, environmental 
     sustainability, and system condition in the project selection 
     process; and
       (iii) other elements to assist in effective transportation 
     planning;
       (B) identify water-based transportation-related model data 
     elements to support a broad range of evaluation methods and 
     techniques to assist in making water-based transportation 
     investment decisions; and
       (C) at a minimum, in consultation with other relevant 
     Federal agencies, consider any improvements to existing 
     water-based freight flow data collection efforts that could 
     reduce identified water-based freight data gaps and 
     deficiencies and help improve forecasts of water-based 
     freight transportation demand.
       (2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with 
     Federal, State, and other stakeholders to develop, improve, 
     and implement tools and data collection under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.

[[Page H6752]]

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America's inland waterways move more than half a 
billion tons of cargo worth more than $150 billion annually, and more 
than 2.3 billion tons of cargo a year move through American seaports. 
Commercial activity on our inland waterways supports more than 13 
million jobs in the United States and is crucial to our economic 
prosperity. America depends on the strength of its inland waterways to 
support businesses and consumers across the country.
  My amendment will establish a national water-based freight policy. It 
requires the Secretary of the Army to designate a primary water-based 
freight network and develop a strategic plan to assess and improve 
performance. It also improves data collection methods so that the Army 
Corps of Engineers and policymakers have better information on how to 
improve the system going forward.
  Although the recent surface transportation reauthorization 
established a national freight policy, that legislation did not 
incorporate ports, harbors, and inland waterways into the national 
freight network. As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I 
have heard agriculture and rural groups speak time and time again about 
the importance of establishing a strategy for our inland waterways. 
This bill recognizes the critical importance of ports, harbors, canals, 
and inland waterways to our economic competitiveness and develops a 
comprehensive approach to identify and address their problems.
  Unfortunately, our inland waterways are buckling under the pressure 
of our growing transportation needs. In many areas, the inland 
waterways system has not been updated since the 1950s; more than half 
of the locks are over 50 years old; 90 percent of the locks and dams on 
the U.S. inland waterways system experienced some type of unscheduled 
delay in 2009.

                              {time}  1700

  There is an average of 52 service interruptions a day throughout the 
system. These delays prevent goods from getting to markets, driving up 
costs and hurting the businesses that depend on our waterways.
  Addressing these issues will take time and careful planning. Projects 
to repair and replace aging locks and dredge channels can take decades 
to approve and complete. By identifying key waterways, critical 
bottlenecks and major trade gateways, my amendment can guide the 
revitalization of our inland waterways in the most effective way 
possible.
  Thinking strategically about our inland waterway system can lead to 
outsized returns in the future. The American Society of Civil Engineers 
estimates that modest investments will protect $700 billion in gross 
domestic product and 738,000 jobs in 2020; but in order for these 
investments to have their desired impacts, they must be properly 
targeted.
  My amendment will help to funnel resources to the most beneficial 
projects available so that we can achieve a good return on investment 
on American taxpayers' money.
  America's inland waterways, ports, and harbors are critical tools in 
ensuring that all markets, foreign and domestic, are open to American 
goods. Establishing a national network and policy for our waterways 
will help us grow our economy, spur job creation, and ensure that 
taxpayer money is put to good use.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for the 
gentlelady from New York and agree with her that our ports, our inland 
waterway system are in bad shape. But we are in times that are fiscally 
restrained, and we have got to try to do our best to move these forward 
under these fiscal restraints, and that is what we think we are doing 
in this WRRDA bill, moving forward in a way that we can be positive but 
not break the bank.
  The freight network is critical to the Nation's economic security and 
to our Nation's national security.
  I have several concerns with this amendment. First, the amendment 
gives very broad authority to the administration when creating this 
freight network. In H.R. 3080, we intended to continue the role of 
Congress in authorizing Corps of Engineer activities.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would undermine one of the key 
principles of this bill, giving away more of our authority to the 
administration.
  Second, I believe the amendment would significantly increase 
bureaucracy.
  Finally, this amendment requires the designation of a primary freight 
network that prioritizes projects near population centers and major 
trade gateways which, of course, are extremely important to the health 
of this Nation's economy. To someone from Los Angeles and New York 
City, that seems like a good idea.
  Those of us from the interior of the country and rural parts of the 
country have concerns that this would leave a gaping hole in the 
freight transportation system. If you are from Coos Bay, Oregon, or 
Duluth, Minnesota, or Altoona, Pennsylvania, under this amendment you 
may not be considered part of that primary freight network.
  But I assure you, those two ports, and hundreds of others, are 
integral to the regional economies and the Nation's economic well-
being.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this, but certainly respect what the 
gentlelady from New York is trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee stated 
that this amendment gives broad authority to the administration, but it 
is the same authority that we gave to the administration in the 
provision created for highways in the surface transportation bill, MAP-
21.
  This amendment is modeled exactly on that provision, so what is good 
for the goose is good for the gander, right?
  So I do not understand your logic. I do not understand your argument.
  But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to benefit 
metropolitan areas. We held hearing after hearing in the Small Business 
Committee regarding this issue, and this issue was brought up to my 
attention by small agricultural interests from rural areas that were 
concerned that waterways, particularly those in rural areas, were being 
ignored.
  The truth of the matter is that this amendment will ensure that rural 
areas are given a greater voice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady for pointing that out; but I 
would also point out that it was the chairman of the Senate Committee 
who I believe put that provision in there. So in that case, once again, 
she was the goose and I was the gander. I may have not agreed, but we 
were in a conference committee on that.
  But again, I am very, very concerned about giving away more and more 
authority to the executive branch; and again, that is one of the key 
principles of this bill that I think all 435 Members of this body and 
all 100 Members of the Senate ought to be in lockstep, making sure we 
don't continue to give away our constitutional authority to the 
executive branch. We have done far too much of that already.
  But, again, I respect the gentlelady from New York and what she is 
attempting to do. But at this point I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Richmond

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION AND HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--A feasibility study conducted by the 
     Secretary for a project for flood damage reduction or 
     hurricane and

[[Page H6753]]

     storm damage reduction shall include, as part of the 
     calculation of benefits and costs--
       (1) a calculation of the anticipated reduction in flood or 
     hurricane damage to public and private property and 
     infrastructure resulting from the completion of the proposed 
     project;
       (2) a calculation of the anticipated direct and indirect 
     economic benefits resulting from the completion of the 
     proposed project, including such benefits from any potential 
     reductions in national and regional economic volatility, 
     disruptions, and losses; and
       (3) a calculation of the anticipated benefits to public 
     safety, including protection of evacuation routes, resulting 
     from the completion of the proposed project.
       (b) Applicability.--This section shall apply to any 
     feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction or 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction that has not been 
     completed before the date of enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, let me start with congratulating both the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member for including 
commonsense reforms in this WRRDA bill of this Congress; and with those 
commonsense reforms, I have just one to add.
  Right now, when the Corps of Engineers does their cost-benefit 
analysis, they only look at the brick and mortar of the property that 
they are looking to protect. Well, that just doesn't make sense when we 
are talking about things that affect our economy.
  For example, you can't just look at the bricks and mortars of the 
Port of New York. The Port of New York pays about $3.7 billion in taxes 
to the Federal Government every year. So if you only looked at the cost 
of the port, to rebuild the Port of New York, you would certainly miss 
the billions and billions of dollars' worth of impact.
  There is an example in Louisiana where the port is thinking about 
building a levee. It includes not only the port, but it also includes 
our refineries, where we know that if those residents are forced to 
evacuate, like in Isaac, the cost of gas went up 7 cents around the 
country for 5 days. So you can't just look at the cost of those homes, 
when we know that that keeps the price of gas down and would affect the 
national economy.
  So this is just one more of those commonsense reforms, Mr. Chairman; 
and I would hope that we look at this and make sure that everyone who 
has a port understands that the value of the port is not in the bricks 
and mortar, but in the goods and services that come through in the 
commodities.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what both gentlemen from 
Louisiana are trying to do with this. But the Corps of Engineers 
projects undergo rigorous economic and environmental reviews.
  In carrying out the economic analysis for flood damage reduction 
projects, the Corps of Engineers review many factors to determine 
whether a project is economically justified. In other words, in order 
for the Corps of Engineers to carry a flood damage reduction project, 
the economic benefits have to outweigh the cost of constructing a 
project.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would change that. The Corps currently 
is required to look at the national impact to the economy. So, for 
instance, the Port of New Orleans, it is extremely important to the 
Nation; the Port of Newark, New Jersey, extremely important to the 
Nation.
  But in this amendment, what it will take is it will reduce it down to 
the regional impact to the economy and, again, that is what is 
important, that the Corps continues to look at a national perspective 
on how those projects impact nationally, not just regionally.
  So I reluctantly, at this point, urge all Members to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Orleans, Mr. 
Richmond, for bringing this amendment forward; and, of course, what we 
are trying to do is just put an additional reform in place to make sure 
that when a cost-benefit analysis is done, it truly reflects the value 
of those projects, especially as we are talking about flood protection 
and hurricane reduction projects, in many cases, where local 
governments are doing a lot of the work themselves to protect not only 
people and communities, but also vital energy infrastructure.
  Of course, having the value of that infrastructure, as my colleague 
from New Orleans pointed out, even when we see a storm enter the Gulf 
of Mexico, and as rigs in the gulf are evacuated, we see immediate 
increases in the price of gasoline all across the country.
  So we ought to be encouraging those local communities to be building 
up and strengthening their flood protection, whether it is coastal 
restoration, where our State of Louisiana has actually dedicated the 
lion's share of all of the offshore oil revenues our State will 
ultimately start getting in 2017, to make sure that that money is 
dedicated to restoring our coast, literally, where you have the State 
putting hundreds of millions of dollars of its own money where its 
mouth is to protect those resources.
  But just as locals are doing that work, as the Corps is evaluating 
larger projects, Federal projects that would also protect that vital 
infrastructure, it is important that that calculation be made because, 
ultimately, if there is a storm or damage and that work is not done, 
then the economy will suffer. We have seen it suffer across the Nation.
  I do want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the American Petroleum 
Institute has come out in support of this amendment. It is a strong 
bipartisan amendment, and we appreciate the support of API; and, 
obviously, they understand the national importance of having this kind 
of reform in the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I really, really--I mean, I really reluctantly oppose 
this amendment. Some concerns have been raised about how the changes 
proposed in this amendment would affect the current process by which 
the Corps calculates future costs and benefits of potential projects.
  The committee may need some additional time to better understand how 
these changes would be implemented and what the impact to project 
development would be. So, therefore, I really, really reluctantly 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, also what we included in here, which I 
think is very important, and all of my colleagues should understand, is 
that when the Corps right now would evaluate a farm, they would just 
look at rebuilding the farmhouse, as opposed to the fact that you have 
millions and millions or hundreds of acres that produce goods every day 
for the Nation.
  So we don't want the Corps to just look at brick and mortar when, for 
example, you may have an interstate smack dab in the area that they are 
thinking about protecting, and that interstate may be an evacuation 
route. It may be Interstate 10, which our goods and services come down.
  All we are saying is that the Corps should use common sense when they 
do their cost-benefit analysis and not just look at bricks and mortar 
because, to do a true economic impact or a cost-benefit analysis, you 
have to get into the complexities of what the building, what the area 
has to offer.
  So we would say that our refineries, our Port of South Louisiana, our 
Port of New Orleans are those types of things that you absolutely must 
protect, and you have to factor in the fact that they send billions and 
billions of dollars to the Federal Government every year in taxes.

[[Page H6754]]

  So we would not just lose the bricks and mortar, but the Federal 
Government would lose billions and billions of dollars. And we are 
saying to the Corps of Engineers that they should take that into 
account when they are doing their cost-benefit analysis.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I share the ranking member's reluctance to 
oppose this because my two friends from Louisiana have been formidable 
opponents on many occasions that I have come up on the short end.
  But in this case, I disagree respectfully with my colleagues that the 
Corps does look at the national implications, and there is no doubt 
that the gulf coast is the major producing region of energy in this 
country, so it should be; and it is in the Corps' calculation when they 
are looking at hurricane damage to the gulf coast, what the impact is 
to the Nation.
  So, again, I reluctantly oppose this amendment at this time because I 
just don't believe this is something that to regionalize it is going to 
be beneficial to the Nation as whole.
  So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.

                              {time}  1715

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Gardner

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 113-251.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise to offer the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. __. OFFICE OF WATER STORAGE.

       (a) Designation.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, shall designate a team to serve as the Office 
     of Water Storage (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Office'') which shall serve as the principal point of 
     contact for any person carrying out a project to construct a 
     water storage facility that requires the acquisition of a 
     Federal permit or the satisfaction of other Federal 
     requirements.
       (b) Administrator.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, shall designate an individual to serve as the 
     head of the Office.
       (c) Purpose.--The Office shall--
       (1) serve as an initial point of contact for any person 
     carrying out a project to construct a water storage facility 
     that requires the acquisition of a Federal permit or the 
     satisfaction of other Federal requirements;
       (2) act as a liaison between such persons and appropriate 
     Federal departments and agencies, including the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior, with 
     respect to such projects to facilitate the acquisition of 
     necessary permits and the satisfaction of all other 
     requirements;
       (3) ensure that, with respect to such projects, necessary 
     Federal permits are acquired and all other Federal 
     requirements are satisfied before construction begins; and
       (4) coordinate with appropriate Federal departments and 
     agencies to streamline the Federal approval process with 
     respect to such projects, including by limiting the duration 
     of such process to not more than 365 days in each case in 
     which each Governor of a State associated with the project 
     has provided notice to the Office of that Governor's approval 
     of the project.
       (d) Timing Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, with respect to a project to construct a 
     water storage facility, any Federal permit or other Federal 
     requirement necessary to be acquired or satisfied for 
     purposes of such project shall be deemed to be acquired or 
     satisfied if--
       (1) each Governor of a State associated with the project 
     has provided notice to the Office of that Governor's approval 
     of the project; and
       (2) a determination with respect to approval of the permit 
     or satisfaction of the requirement was not made during the 
     365-day period beginning on the date on which an application 
     for the permit or an inquiry regarding the satisfaction of 
     the requirement was submitted to the relevant Federal 
     department or agency.
       (e) Notice of Permit Applications.--The Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall each provide notice to the Administrator of 
     the Office upon the receipt of an application for a permit 
     relating to a water storage facility.
       (f) Water Storage Facility Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``water storage facility'' means any facility 
     constructed by a person that is equipped to store at least 
     5,000 acre-feet of water for later use for any purpose, 
     including dams, tanks, covered and uncovered reservoirs, 
     water towers, and artificial water bodies.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment 
to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, and I express my 
intention to withdraw this amendment at the end of my statement.
  This amendment authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, to designate a team to serve as the Office of Water Storage. 
The office is tasked with coordinating every agency involved in the 
approval of water storage permits, including the EPA, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and the Department of the Interior. Once initial 
applications are submitted to the Office of Water Storage, the office 
must, upon notification of the Governor, approve or deny a permit 
within 365 days.
  The amendment does not circumvent environmental laws but merely sets 
a time frame for an initial up-or-down decision to move forward, and 
the Congressional Budget Office stated that this amendment contains no 
direct spending. The amendment would seek to streamline the process for 
desperately needed water storage infrastructure, particularly in the 
western United States.
  Economic development to agriculture job creation is directly 
correlated to each individual State's ability to deliver and store 
water. We can no longer rest on our current water storage 
infrastructure to meet the demands of both our agricultural and 
municipal water needs.
  In Colorado alone, by the year 2050, we will need an additional 1 
million acre-feet of water to meet the needs of agriculture, industry, 
and our growing cities. Without that water, we will see a buy-up and 
dry-up of agricultural land and the destruction of our economy.
  To approve of these projects that have been tied up for decades in 
permitting battles, we need to rethink the Federal Government's role in 
water storage and redefine the various missions that agencies at the 
Federal level are charged with in these permitting decisions.
  The Federal Government has created a litany of regulations and 
bureaucratic red tape that inhibit local communities and States from 
building new reservoirs and new water storage systems, and the result, 
as I said, will be a buy-up and dry-up of agricultural land if we fail 
to move forward with these permitting projects.
  The amendment puts control back in the hands of local water users, 
back in the hands of local governments, back in the hands of the 
Governor of the State, and away from the bureaucracy of Washington, 
D.C.
  I would like to continue to work on this issue with Chairman Shuster. 
I appreciate his leadership, and I certainly would love to continue 
working on this with the chairman.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Colorado for 
yielding.
  I understand your great passion for solving the water problems. We 
saw what has happened after the massive fires in Colorado and the 
inability to stop the flooding from occurring because the ground cover 
was stripped away by those terrible fires, and I understand the need 
for Colorado, in the future, having that water storage for your 
economic development to ensure that agriculture remains an important 
part of the economy in Colorado.
  So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue. I am committed to 
continuing to work with you, as we have in the past, to try to address 
these water issues as we move forward.

[[Page H6755]]

  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman for his leadership on issues of 
national infrastructure.
  And with that, I withdraw my amendment and yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-251 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Flores of Texas.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Richmond of Louisiana.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 556]

                               AYES--183

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     Langevin
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nugent
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1752

  Messrs. PITTENGER, SMITH of Missouri, BACHUS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. RIGELL, NUNNELEE, and GARY G. MILLER of 
California changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. DeLAURO, and Mr. MORAN 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall vote No. 556, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cook was allowed to speak out of order.)


  Moment of Silence in Honor of Sacrifice of Servicemembers of First 
               Battalion, Eighth Marines killed in Beirut

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in honor of 241 servicemembers 
who were killed 30 years ago in the attacks by Hezbollah against the 
U.S. Marine compound in Beirut.
  I was not stationed in Beirut during the attack, but this was my 
former battalion, the First Battalion, Eighth Marines. Until 9/11, this 
was the deadliest terrorist attack against Americans in our Nation's 
history; and in many ways, it was the beginning of the war on terror 
that we are still fighting today.
  Mr. Chairman, I now ask my colleagues to rise and observe a moment of 
silence in honor of the sacrifice of 241 Americans--220 marines, 18 
sailors, and three soldiers--who were lost 30 years ago today.
  The Acting CHAIR. Will all Members present please rise for a moment 
of silence.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Flores) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H6756]]

  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 193, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 557]

                               AYES--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Gibbs
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Nugent
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1800

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 287, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 558]

                               AYES--133

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--287

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick

[[Page H6757]]


     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nugent
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1806

  Mr. LaMALFA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOLT changed his voted from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Richmond

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Richmond) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 183, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 559]

                               AYES--237

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Delaney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holding
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--183

     Amash
     Amodei
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capuano
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Marino
     Massie
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Upton
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nugent
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1812

  Messrs. COTTON, CARSON of Indiana, COURTNEY, and Mrs. ROBY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1815

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Latham, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3080) to 
provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United 
States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and 
related resources, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 385, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?

[[Page H6758]]

  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417, 
nays 3, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 560]

                               YEAS--417

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--3

     Jones
     Peterson
     Sensenbrenner

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Castor (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nugent
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

                              {time}  1822

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________