[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.
____________________