[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5961-H5997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016


                             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 materials on H.R. 5303.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 892 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. 5303.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1648


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5303) 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. Simpson 
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 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5303, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016. Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs and I 
worked closely with Ranking Members DeFazio and Napolitano on this 
vital water infrastructure bill. Thanks to their hard work, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously approved 
H.R. 5303 in May.
  We tailored WRDA 2016 to address specific Federal responsibilities, 
strengthening our infrastructure through the activities of the Army 
Corps of Engineers to maintain competitiveness, create jobs, and grow 
the economy. This legislation follows important reforms Congress put in 
place in 2014 with the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. 
Without those reforms, we wouldn't be here today to consider another 
WRDA bill.
  The 2014 bill and today's legislation restore regular order and the 
2-year cycle of Congress considering these essential bills. This has 
been one of my highest priorities as chairman, and I am pleased today 
that in this Congress, as in last Congress, we have a WRDA bill on the 
floor. WRDA 2016 maintains Congress' constitutional authority and 
oversight in ensuring that we have a safe, effective infrastructure 
system.
  Following our authorization process reforms, every Corps activity in 
this bill is locally driven; reviewed by the Corps according to strict, 
congressionally established criteria; and presented to Congress for 
consideration in the form of chief's reports and the Corps' new annual 
report. Only proposals that followed this process were eligible for 
inclusion in this bill.
  If the manager's amendment is adopted, WRDA will authorize 31 chief's 
reports and 29 feasibility studies. Each chief's report was reviewed by 
the committee in a public hearing. These are critical regional 
priorities that provide significant national economic and environmental 
benefits.
  For example, WRDA authorizes the long-delayed upgrades to the Upper 
Ohio River's Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery, the EDM, locks and 
dams. The EDM facilities provide critical access to the Port of 
Pittsburgh, one of the Nation's busiest inland ports. This will provide 
enormous benefits to the region and make our entire Nation more 
competitive.
  The same can be said for authorizations for the Port of Charleston, 
Port Everglades, which has been under review by the Corps for 18 
years--and it is finally going to be approved--and the Everglades 
ecosystem, flood control along the Missouri River and around 
Sacramento, and more.
  The bill also increases flexibility and removes barriers for State, 
local, and non-Federal interests to invest in their infrastructure. 
Factoring in the manager's amendment, WRDA will authorize over $9 
billion to cover the Federal share of these improvements to our ports, 
channels, locks, dams, and other infrastructure. These investments are 
fully offset--I repeat they are fully offset--with deauthorizations, 
and the bill sunsets new authorizations to help prevent future project 
backlogs.
  WRDA has no earmarks and abides by all House rules. However, in order 
to comply with House rules and call up this bill today, one section of 
the bill, as reported by the committee, was removed. I want to say that 
I agree with Ranking Member DeFazio that the user fees paid into the 
harbor maintenance trust fund should be used to improve our 
transportation system. It should be fundamental: When you pay a user 
fee into a system, it should go to its intended purposes.

[[Page H5962]]

  However, we found ourselves in a position where section 108 
conflicted with House rules. We worked to find another resolution to 
this one issue but were unable to do so within the rules of the House. 
I appreciate the ranking member's passion for this provision and thank 
him for his tireless efforts in support of infrastructure investment.
  I want to continue working with him and others to find a solution as 
we work with the Senate. However, we cannot lose sight of the larger, 
more important issue. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 
This bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill.
  Only three WRDA bills were enacted between 2000 and 2014, and that 
record is really unacceptable. Each delay placed America another step 
behind our competitors. We simply cannot afford more delays. We must 
pass this jobs and infrastructure bill and return to the regular 2-year 
WRDA cycle to keep the Army Corps focused on these much-needed 
investments. We cannot sacrifice these critical infrastructure 
improvements because of one issue.
  We have a wide range of stakeholder interests in this bill, and 75 
letters of support for WRDA 2016, including: National Association of 
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail 
Federation, National Conference of State Legislatures, and many other 
local and regional groups.
  WRDA 2016 is good public policy. This bill advances critical water 
resources infrastructure improvements, restores regular order, and gets 
Congress back on that 2-year WRDA cycle. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2016.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 5303, the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016. This bill contains 
     provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill 
     before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner, 
     and accordingly, I will agree that the Committee on Natural 
     Resources be discharged from further consideration of the 
     bill. I do so with the understanding that this action does 
     not affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, and that the Committee expressly reserves its 
     authority to seek conferees on any provision within its 
     jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be 
     convened on this, or any similar legislation. I ask that you 
     support any such request.
       I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be 
     included in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     H.R. 5303 bill on the House floor.
       Thank you for your work on this Important issue, and I look 
     forward to its enactment soon.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Rob Bishop,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2016.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bishop: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. I 
     appreciate your willingness to support expediting the 
     consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
       I acknowledge that by waiving consideration of this bill, 
     the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim to provisions in this or similar 
     legislation. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your effort to seek appointment of 
     an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving any provision within this legislation on 
     which the Committee on Natural Resources has a valid 
     jurisdictional claim.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 5303 in the bill report 
     filed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     as well as in the Congressional Record during House floor 
     consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation 
     regarding this legislation, and I look forward to working 
     with the Committee on Natural Resources as the bill moves 
     through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Shuster,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The committee does have a great tradition of bipartisanship. It is 
hard to get partisan about our crumbling infrastructure and the needs 
for enhanced investment, but one of the keys toward enhancing the 
investment and dealing with the $68 billion--B, billion--backlog of 
authorized Corps projects--$68 billion--is to use a tax which is 
collected from shippers and passed on to the American people. Every day 
you buy a good from a foreign country, you are paying a little bit more 
for that under an agreement that the money collected will be used to 
maintain our harbors, our ports, keep them from silting in, and 
construct critical infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, for years Congress has been diverting part of that 
money every year. Today there is a theoretical balance of over $9 
billion in the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund. Look through 
the entire budget of the United States. You won't find that money 
anywhere on deposit. But they are saying: oh, don't worry, don't worry, 
we will get around to spending it some day.
  I have been working on this issue for 20 years, starting with Bud 
Shuster in 1996. It was in the bill, and it passed out of committee 
unanimously with a number of Republicans and Democrats supporting it, 
obviously a majority of Republicans on the bill. The chairman and I had 
an agreement that would bring this bill forward under a suspension of 
the rules. His leadership objected to that. And then instead, they 
dictated there should be a rule so that they could strip out the harbor 
maintenance trust fund.
  Now, what kind of rule is it that says we passed a law, we are 
collecting money from the American people, every day they are paying a 
little bit more for stuff, but the rules say we can't spend that money 
for its lawful purpose, we are going to spend it on some other part of 
government or disappear it into a lose-or-eat deficit reduction. We 
need that money. We need those investments.
  If this continues--right now it is about $400 million a year that is 
being collected that isn't being spent, yet we have harbors shoaled in, 
we have jetties that are failing all across America--it will grow up to 
$20 billion in 10 years. Now tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and 
tomorrow we are going to fix this problem. No, this was the time to fix 
it. It was in the bill. It was bipartisan. It was unanimous, and it was 
stripped out. That is very, very unfortunate.
  There are many good things in this bill. There are many projects that 
are essential. But, again, the Corps of Engineers has a $68 billion 
backlog. So all we are doing is putting people in an endless line--$68 
billion backlog. We are collecting about $1.6 billion a year to make 
those projects a reality except that $400-, $500 million of it is being 
diverted over into other parts of the government. That is not a good 
way to run the government like a business.
  I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of 
America concerned that this money is revenue from American business 
that is not being used for its intended purpose in a timely manner, and 
they will continue to advocate for this provision, among others. I am 
very, very saddened that this was removed from the bill. It is not in 
the Senate bill, so it becomes nonconferenceable, which means it will 
be at least 2 years. That is another $800 million or $1 billion that 
won't be spent, but taxes will still be collected from the American 
people.
  Secondly, we have made a big deal around here about not having any 
earmarks. Big deal. Well, there are some ancient earmarks out there 
still lingering in the darkness. One was for a $220 million project 
which was earmarked in 2004 by the Committee on Appropriations, and 
that would have required the Federal Government to spend $110 million. 
This bill authorizes that project at a price of $526.5 million to the 
U.S. taxpayers. It has gone from $220 million earmarked, $110 million 
to the Feds, to a total project cost of $800 million.
  Now, associated with that--and I am being told: don't worry, this 
isn't Federal money. Well, whenever you enter into a project, you have 
to have a local cost share. And they are saying: well, it will only be 
local money. Except it is included in the project, meaning the local 
entity isn't meeting its cost share for the authorized project which is 
in this bill. In fact, they are diverting money locally from their cost 
share into recreation projects.

[[Page H5963]]

  Now, we have harbors silting in and jetties that are falling apart 
all across the country. We are diverting money from the trust fund, and 
yet somehow we are going to find $500 million for this project up from 
a price tag of $110 million when it was first earmarked. It isn't 
earmarked by any other name except that it is covered by the rule, and 
it is in this bill.
  I regret that this bill does not meet the high standards of the 
committee and the historical standards of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding me the time and for his continued leadership 
on restoring the normal biennial cycle for the Water Resource 
Development Act.
  Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2016. By considering WRDA 2016 today, we are 
returning to regular order and restoring the 2-year cycle for improving 
water infrastructure projects critical to our economy.
  Transportation and infrastructure is one of Congress' most important 
responsibilities. This bill authorizes the construction of key water 
infrastructure projects throughout the United States, creating jobs 
here at home and directly contributing to our economic and national 
security.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
our jurisdiction includes these water infrastructure projects carried 
out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. H.R. 5303 contains vitally 
important Corps project authorizations for navigation, flood control, 
shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply, 
environmental protection, restoration and enhancement, and fish and 
wildlife management.
  Each project authorization was proposed by local non-Federal sponsors 
and underwent a rigorous planning process before congressional review. 
Each Chief's Report was recommended to Congress by the Corps' Chief of 
Engineers. In short, this was a bottom-up, grassroots-driven process.
  In WRRDA 2014, we accelerated the delivery schedule for Corps of 
Engineers projects. H.R. 5303 strengthens the numerous reforms made in 
WRRDA 2014 by streamlining permitting for infrastructure projects.
  The committee-passed version of H.R. 5303 contains 27 specific 
project authorizations. My subcommittee held hearings to discuss the 
Chief's Reports in depth and provide strong congressional oversight of 
the proposed projects.
  This bill further expedites nine feasibility studies to help locally 
developed needs and contains study authorizations for future potential 
Corps projects. More often than not, projects are delayed by study 
after study, and sometimes literally studied to death. Because of the 
reforms in WRRDA 2014, the 29 feasibility studies this bill is 
authorizing are not intended to exceed 3 years in duration or exceed $3 
million in Federal costs. We have reformed the process to save 
taxpayers time and money.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, this bill is fiscally responsible. The new 
project authorizations are fully offset by de-authorizations of 
projects that are outdated or no longer viable. H.R. 5303 contains no 
earmarks, strengthens our water transportation networks, and increases 
transparency for non-Federal sponsors and the public. This is a good, 
commonsense bill, and I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I am very concerned that, after many 
months of bipartisan work on this bill, we are bringing it to the floor 
today under a partisan procedure where it stripped out in rules a very 
important section. Also, it does not address the ongoing crisis in 
Flint.
  We have 100,000 people in Flint living without clean drinking water. 
One million people in California live without clean drinking water. We 
should be doing much more to address the drinking water crisis in this 
country--we should not have problems with it--and investing in our 
outdated infrastructure. I am glad that the Senate does include 
provisions to address this crisis. I had hoped that the House would do 
so as well.
  I do appreciate the work that has been done to add many important 
provisions to the bill. First, this bill includes 31 Army Corps of 
Engineers' feasibility studies for projects to study water resource 
projects across the country for a diverse array of purposes, including 
flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm 
damage reduction, and navigation. This is really important, especially 
in drought-prone areas like California.
  Second, H.R. 5303 authorizes 29 Chief's Reports currently pending 
before Congress. These reports include several of great importance to 
my home State of California, including the Los Angeles River Ecosystem 
Restoration and Recreation project, the West Sacramento flood risk 
management project, the American River Common Features flood risk 
management project, and the San Diego County hurricane and storm damage 
risk reduction project. This is critical because storms are eroding our 
beaches.
  I am also pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions that 
will assist communities experiencing drought and water supply 
shortages. They include:
  Promoting non-Federal efforts to remove sediment behind Army Corps' 
dams and increase water supply. This has been one project that we have 
been pushing for a long time in order to get the Corps to reduce that 
sediment.
  Also, authorizing the Secretary of the Army to evaluate and implement 
water supply conservation measures of projects owned or managed by the 
Corps in states with drought emergencies. In 17 Western States, this is 
critical.
  Further, encouraging the Corps to share the data the Corps collects 
on operations and maintenance of its facilities and to improve 
coordination with local stakeholders. My understanding is that they are 
going to get the Library of Congress to do that.
  Also, allowing environmental infrastructure and water supply projects 
to be eligible for the 7001 process that authorizes Corps projects.
  Lastly, creating a pilot program to encourage the beneficial use of 
dredged material for shoreline restoration and environmental use.

  I am very confident these provisions, if enacted, will provide 
drought-ridden regions like mine with the tools necessary to increase 
water supply and water conservation matters and be better prepared for 
future storm events.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my constituent water 
agencies for their input through the process, including the Upper San 
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the Three Valleys Municipal 
Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the 
San Gabriel Valley Watermaster, the Los Angeles County Department of 
Public Works, and my local Corps people, Colonel Gibbs and David Van 
Dorpe.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote since the Flint provision was not included in 
this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the vice chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  I, first of all, want to commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs 
for their outstanding leadership on this legislation.
  I rise in support of this jobs and infrastructure legislation. It 
will help create thousands of jobs and help improve our infrastructure.
  I have the privilege of serving as the Republican chair of the Clean 
Water Caucus in this Congress and I had the privilege of serving for 6 
years as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, 
starting in

[[Page H5964]]

2001. So I know full well how important this bill is.
  This bill provides the authorizations needed to improve water 
transportation all across this Nation. Every day, many tons of goods 
are transported across our waterways. Without basic water 
infrastructure in good shape, most of these goods would be transported 
on our already congested highways. According to the Inland Waterways 
Foundation, a 15-barge tow can transport the same amount of goods as 
1,050 tractor-trailers. Moving goods on the water is also the most 
fuel-efficient and environmentally sound method of transportation.
  This bill is, as others have said, a fiscally responsible one. It de-
authorizes $10 billion worth of inactive projects that are no longer 
needed or feasible, which offsets the new authorizations made in this 
legislation.
  This bill also authorizes important flood control projects that we 
need to help prevent natural disasters. We saw what can happen when 
Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi a few years ago. That disaster 
caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Now we have new flooding in 
Louisiana and Texas. We need to make smart investments today so that we 
are not foolishly spending billions of dollars after a disaster 
strikes.
  I also want to thank Chairman Shuster for including language on 
floating homes that was requested by Representative Meadows and myself. 
I want to especially commend Representative Meadows, who led the way on 
this issue. The TVA board had voted to remove privately owned homes, or 
floating houses, from its reservoirs. This would have been essentially 
a taking without any compensation being offered to the homeowners.
  The language in this bill mirrors that included in the Senate-passed 
bill that would allow these homeowners to keep their houses as long as 
certain safety and health standards are met.
  I urge passage of this very, very important legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have worked closely with the gentleman from Tennessee, and he does 
great work. In fact, he did great work in chairing a special committee 
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 
improving the Nation's freight transportation system.
  One of the key recommendations in that report was: draw down the $7 
billion balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund without adversely 
affecting appropriations for other programs, projects, and activities 
carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other authorized purposes.
  Well, it is a little dated because this is 2 years ago. So now there 
is $9.8 billion in the so-called harbor maintenance trust fund, which 
doesn't exist. There is no line item, no account at the Treasury. The 
money is poof, gone, unless we authorize the establishment of a trust 
fund and begin to better invest in our harbors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
5303, the Water Resource Development Act.
  WRDA is usually a vehicle for bipartisan cooperation, but, 
unfortunately, that is not the case this year. This is the only time in 
my 23 years in Congress that I am unable to support WRDA.
  In my area in Houston, we need WRDA. We need flood assistance. But my 
particular issue with this is that I represent a large part of the Port 
of Houston. As one of many Members that represents a major port, I know 
firsthand that ports are enormous economic engines for growth. The jobs 
and economic growth, including refining and manufacturing on the banks 
of the Houston Ship Channel, supported by the Port of Houston, has 
allowed Houston and Harris County to become the energy capital of the 
world.
  But this is about more than just the Port of Houston. This is about 
all of America's ports, from LA-Long Beach to Miami and New Orleans. 
This is $3 trillion in shipments in these ports.
  The harbor maintenance tax is meant to fund critical projects to keep 
our ports running at full capacity. Yet, only a fraction of that money 
is appropriated each year, leaving billions of dollars sitting unused 
while maintenance costs climb in the Port of Houston and around the 
country.
  Every day, ships are forced to idly wait for high tides or deeper 
channels because we do not put enough of this money to work for them. 
We need to ensure that we are investing for the future by investing in 
vital infrastructure projects.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation until 
the bipartisan harbor maintenance trust fund provision is included.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the full committee.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr. 
Shuster, Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. DeFazio for their work on this bill. This 
bill is a good bill.
  I just say to all of you: We are getting close to the end of this 
session--and a lameduck, too. This isn't perfect for everyone. It is 
not perfect for me in some cases, but let's get a piece of legislation 
done without nitpicking it and saying: Well, I didn't get what I 
wanted.
  I don't disagree with Mr. DeFazio about the funding. That is 
something we have to work on with the appropriators. They don't like 
the idea there is a set-aside fund for repairing the harbors, but let's 
address that battle at a later date.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It will create a better system 
of infrastructure for water, harbors, ports, and drinking water, too. 
It is a legislative package that has been put together with a lot of 
hard work with staff.
  As we get in this battle, Well, I don't want it, it is a Democrat 
bill, it is a Republican bill, we ought to think this is a House bill, 
a bill that can do the job. It will come out of this House, it will go 
over to the Senate, and we will have a conference. We have another 
chance to finish this project for the people of America.
  So I am asking us not to get into this little bit of nitpicking and 
get good piece of legislation such as this done.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the Water Resources Development Act containing the Central 
Everglades Planning Project that is of critical importance to the 
ecological health of the State of Florida.
  This project will increase freshwater flows from Lake Okeechobee 
through the Everglades and down into Florida Bay, providing critical 
relief to our water reservoirs and to a stressed ecosystem in Florida 
Bay.

                              {time}  1715

  The health of Florida Bay, Mr. Chairman, is a moral issue, and it is 
also vital to south Florida's multibillion-dollar tourism industry, 
making Everglades restoration an important local issue as well as a 
major national priority. Long-term restoration will be achieved 
primarily by constructing projects for conveyance, treatment, and 
storage of water and, ultimately, restoration of freshwater flow from 
north to south. CEPP contributes to all of these goals.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster for working with me to include $1.9 
billion for the Everglades Restoration program in the Water Resources 
Development Act being considered today. This comprehensive bill 
provides the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with authority to carry out 
water projects through cost-sharing partnerships with non-Federal 
sponsors. I am proud that, through bipartisan efforts, we were able to 
include this much-needed funding for Everglades restoration, and I look 
forward to getting this bill signed into law.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 19\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for more speakers, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5965]]

  

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of the committee.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill. I am very proud to be here today because this bill represents a 
commitment our committee has made under the leadership of Chairman 
Shuster to pass critical water resources legislation every 2 years.
  One of my top priorities as a member of this committee and the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee is maintaining and improving our 
navigation infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and Illinois 
waterways. Most of the locks and dams on this system were built in the 
1920s and 1930s and have far outlived their life expectancy.
  Sixty percent of the grain exported from the United States goes 
through these locks and dams before hitting the global marketplace. But 
today, delays at navigation locks are frequent and are only getting 
worse, lasting as long as 12 hours at a time.
  In WRDA 2007, Congress authorized construction of seven new 1,200-
foot locks along the upper Mississippi and Illinois waterway system; 
yet here we are, 9 years later, and the Corps still hasn't completed 
preconstruction engineering and design for these projects because this 
administration refuses to invest any money in the Navigation and 
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or NESP. That means that construction 
for these projects may not be ready to begin when they are next on the 
schedule.
  When these projects are delayed, it costs farmers in my district 
money; it costs the shippers who move commodities up and down the 
rivers money; and it ultimately means increased grocery prices for 
everyone. It also costs good-paying construction jobs.
  During our committee's markup of this legislation in May, I offered 
an amendment that requires a study analyzing alternative models of 
managing the inland waterway trust fund. I appreciate Chairman Shuster 
working with me to ensure its adoption.
  This study, to be completed by the Comptroller General, will provide 
some important options to address these longstanding issues with the 
Corps. Maybe this will finally show the Corps that waiting 10 or even 
20 years for movement on a project that is authorized by Congress is 
completely unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this underlying bill, and I want 
to thank Chairman Shuster and the committee for their leadership on 
this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The last few speakers have made a great point--how critical this bill 
is--and they have listed projects that are important to their districts 
and the Nation. The gentleman from Alaska said we shouldn't quibble 
over details.
  Well, the bottom line is we have assessed a tax on all imported 
goods. That tax is collected every day. It is essentially a sales tax. 
It is added into the price of the goods that Americans buy. That tax 
comes in at about $1.6 billion a year; and yet Congress sees fit to 
spend somewhere around $1.1 billion a year, even though the Corps of 
Engineers has a $64 billion backlog. So I guess, at some point, 100 
years from now--well, no, because things will keep deteriorating. I 
guess we will never catch up.
  So taking out the creation of the harbor maintenance trust fund, 
something I have been working on for 20 years--started with the 
previous chairman, Bud Shuster, and now Bill Shuster supports the 
concept--we keep hearing tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Tomorrow 
came. It came out of committee. But because some appropriators and the 
chair of the Budget Committee object to using the taxes collected from 
the American people for the only lawfully intended purpose and, 
instead, disappearing it into the maw of the Federal Government, it got 
stripped out of the bill--very, very unfortunate. That means these 
critical projects you are talking about are going to the back of a 
very, very, very long line. $64 billion today, pass the bill, another 
$10 billion, $74 billion tomorrow; and we will chip away at it, and 
very, very slowly if we continue to divert the trust funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to do a great 
service for the country by passing H.R. 5303, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2016, otherwise known as WRDA. By building off 
reforms made in the 2014 bill, WRDA 2016 reasserts congressional 
authority and oversight on critical infrastructure issues.
  I commend Chairman Shuster for his commitment to passing a WRDA bill 
each Congress. It helps to ensure that America's water infrastructure 
needs are continually addressed and reaffirms the will of the people on 
these very important infrastructure matters.
  Substantively, this legislation addresses the needs of America's 
harbors, locks, dams, coastlines, and other water resource 
infrastructure projects by authorizing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
activities. Passage of WRDA is vital to our Nation's economy and will 
help ensure continued flow of commerce through our Nation's ports and 
channels. Moreover, this bill also includes preventative measures that 
will help serve and protect our infrastructure.
  Along with these obvious benefits, WRDA 2016 is also fiscally 
responsible and fully offset. In fact, failing to pass this critical 
piece of legislation will cost the Treasury that much more.
  Mr. Chairman, the time to pass this bill is now, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this very important legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the fine ranking member, Mr. 
DeFazio, for yielding time, and I rise to discuss the important role of 
the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway as our Nation's freshwater 
superhighway, a vital economic and security passageway for our Nation.
  When the WRDA bill was considered by the Senate, an important 
reference was included in that bill recognizing the role of the Seaway 
in U.S.-Canadian maritime trade, as well as global commerce from the 
heartland. That language authorizes a GAO study of the Seaway's 
potential to expand economic activity envisioning increased exports, 
expanded tourism, and a modernized transportation network in a secure 
operational system.
  As the bill moves forward, I would urge the House to incorporate, in 
any final measure, the directive provisions relating to the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway's unmet economic potential.
  I thank my colleagues on the Great Lakes Task Force, particularly Co-
chair Mike Kelly, who was down here earlier, and David Joyce for their 
continued hard work and commitment to our region of the country. I 
thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his support of this effort. And I 
thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the other 
advocates for this provision, in addition to, of course, the Senate. 
The gentlewoman has worked tirelessly on this issue, approached me 
many, many times about the fact that we have sort of neglected the 
potential of the Seaway.
  I think that this provision would be extraordinarily meritorious, and 
I certainly intend to support it in conference and hope to garner 
support from the chairman and others so that it can stay in the bill as 
it finally goes to the President's desk.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), one of the hardest working members on the 
committee.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman 
Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and so many of the other Members who 
worked on this bill. I think it is important that we get the Water 
Resources Development Act back on a 2-year cycle. We got off to where 
there were 7 years that passed on, in many cases, critical projects 
that needed authorization that needed to move forward to construction.
  I also want to echo a couple of things that the ranking member said.
  Number one, on the harbor maintenance trust fund, I couldn't agree 
more. We need to come up with a solution here. I think it is 
disingenuous

[[Page H5966]]

that we are charging users the tax under the auspices of using it for 
dredging, yet diverting those resources. I will say it again. I think 
it is disingenuous, and I look forward to working together with 
Congressman DeFazio in addressing this.
  Number two, my friend from Oregon also noted the backlog in Corps of 
Engineers projects. The reason we have a backlog in projects is because 
this project delivery mechanism, development and delivery mechanism 
used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you can look at it, project 
after project; it takes 40 years to get a project delivered. These are 
projects for flood protection, for ecological restoration, for 
hurricane protection. We don't have time to wait 40 years for this 
project, and this bill moves in a direction of streamlining that 
process.
  We have a project, the West Shore project, that has been in the study 
phase for over 40 years and is finally moving to authorization.
  My friend from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany, was able to work to 
get the Southwest project included in here to finally begin to bring 
some protection to the Southwest communities that were so devastated by 
Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Ike in previous years.
  Importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are bringing forward an amendment to 
further expedite the Comite project, Amite project, and other projects 
that are critical to the areas that were just flooded in south 
Louisiana.
  I don't know how long we are going to continue this backwards policy 
in the Federal Government of spending billions after a disaster rather 
than spending millions before, making our communities and making our 
ecosystems more resilient.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Back to the harbor maintenance trust fund issues and the allocations 
to the Corps, the bill sets targets, which I fully agree with, that a 
higher percentage of the harbor maintenance tax should be allocated 
every year to O&M programs.
  As I mentioned earlier, there is already a $2.5 billion backlog for 
operations and maintenance, so we are dealing with that by mandating 
that a higher percentage be spent every year. Unfortunately, if we 
don't free up the harbor maintenance trust fund, there is only one 
place that money can come from: new construction.

  So I am all for the O&M, and I am all for these increases. But by 
stripping the harbor maintenance trust fund provision out of the bill 
and continuing to divert $400 to $500 million a year of the tax to the 
maw of the Federal Government, they are creating an untenable position 
for the Corps.
  They are already saddled with a $64 billion backlog on construction. 
They are saddled with a $2.5 billion backlog on operations and 
maintenance. We are telling them you have to spend more on operations 
and maintenance. Well, with the discretionary budget caps, that can 
come out of only one place, and that is the construction projects. 
Whether it is going to come out of Port Everglades or Charleston Harbor 
or Brazos Island Harbor, I don't know; but the Corps is going to have 
to make those decisions because they aren't going to be getting these 
additional funds that they would have gotten had we freed up this money 
and created a real trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both 
sides have left in debate.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Oregon has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
water infrastructure bill, and I thank Chairman Shuster for his hard 
work and dedication in getting us to this point.
  As part of our Better Way agenda, House Republicans are putting 
transparency and accountability front and center, especially when it 
comes to how we spend the taxpayers' dollars.
  Chairman Shuster approached this legislation the same way, increasing 
congressional oversight and transparency to ensure that our tax dollars 
are invested in the most pressing projects.
  I also applaud Chairman Shuster's dedication for ensuring that the 
long-delayed Upper Ohio Navigation project gets underway.
  In the 21st century, we should have a state-of-the-art infrastructure 
to build a thriving 21st century economy; yet the Emsworth, Dashields, 
and Montgomery locks and dams along the upper Ohio River are aging and 
in serious disrepair.
  I often like to say that western Pennsylvania built this country. 
This would not have been possible without the infrastructure that 
turned our rivers into highways of commerce.

                              {time}  1730

  This allowed Pennsylvania steel, machinery, petroleum projects, and 
agricultural goods to travel to market efficiently and affordably along 
the Ohio River and beyond. Completing much-needed renovations to the 
upper Ohio locks and dams will allow us to continue to generate 
billions of dollars in economic activity benefiting generations of 
western Pennsylvania families, workers, and businesses in our region 
and across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation. I again commend Chairman Shuster and thank him for his 
great work on this legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman, the 
ranking member from the great State of Oregon, and the chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I would hope that as we look at these issues we really look at the 
name of this bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, and 
know that we have, over the years, had common ground on infrastructure 
issues that are so important to our respective communities.
  Mr. Chairman, in April of 2016, we had the tax day flood. Shortly 
thereafter, we had a flood on Memorial Day in Houston, Harris County. 
It seems to me to be a constant refrain in our community and in my 
congressional district. We are a community of bayous and, frankly, need 
strong structures for the Army Corps of Engineers and a strong Federal 
partnership on dealing with massive flooding and the loss of life.
  Water takes on many other aspects. Just a few miles up the road, 
Austin, Texas, and the surrounding areas are living in a constant 
drought. They face a constant interaction and conflict with those who 
are in the agriculture business.
  It is concerning to me that programs in this bill have been 
deauthorized. It is concerning to me that a very important issue of 
pure water has been ignored, and that is funding for Flint. I should 
think this would be a bipartisan issue. Many of us went to Flint. We 
spoke to citizens in Flint. We listened to the Representatives from 
Flint, in particular, Dan Kildee and others, Congresswoman Lawrence, 
and we listened to stories about sores and the ability to have children 
who have cognitive impact, and yet we come here today and that has not 
been done.
  So I want to raise a concern to find a way in which this can be a 
bipartisan bill and not have projects that are deauthorized to make 
sure the harbor maintenance trust fund is where it needs to be.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that the harbor maintenance trust 
fund ensures that revenues are collected from shippers that are used to 
maintain U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors.
  Right now, the State of Texas is dealing with their coastal area. 
This very bill could have a great impact, but it cannot do so if the 
moneys are undermined and the fees are used for something else. So I 
would suggest to my colleagues if there is one place that we can be 
bipartisan, it is on clean water, and it is on saving lives. I hope 
that we

[[Page H5967]]

can do that going down the road in this legislation. I thank the 
gentleman, Mr. DeFazio.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  The bill will authorize critically important projects for my home 
State of Louisiana, including the Southwest Coastal Study.
  Over this past weekend, we remembered the 11th anniversary of 
Hurricane Rita making landfall. This storm, and subsequently Hurricane 
Ike, demonstrated the dire need to implement greater measures to 
protect our coastal communities, many of which were destroyed back 
then.
  Congressional authorization of the Southwest Coastal Study will open 
the door for necessary hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and 
coastal restoration projects for southwest Louisiana for the first 
time.
  Authorization language for this project was included in the manager's 
amendment, and I want to thank Chairman Shuster for doing so.
  Additionally, the bill includes vital funding for the Calcasieu Lock 
project, which is the 10th busiest lock in the Nation, a vital feature 
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway system. The lock facilitates 
navigation, controls flooding, and prevents saltwater intrusion from 
the Calcasieu River into the Mermentau River basin, a major 
agricultural area.
  The bill also includes construction authorization for the West Shore 
Lake Pontchartrain project, which will provide critical storm surge 
protection for Louisiana's river parishes, something that has been in 
the works for over 40 years; and additionally, the Comite diversion 
project, which would have prevented a lot of the flooding we just saw 
in Louisiana.
  These and other reasons are really why we should support this very 
important legislation, and I urge final passage.
  To my friend from Oregon, I would say this: I have worked extremely 
hard since I got here to fix the problem with the harbor maintenance 
trust fund. We have made significant strides with last year's water 
bill and the cooperation of our friends on the appropriations committee 
to up the level of funding. But I agree that we should have included 
this language, and I am committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to 
ensure that we take those fees that are collected specifically for 
operations and maintenance dredging and use them for that, period.
  We will have more work to do there, but I urge adoption of this bill, 
and I thank the chairman for his bringing it forward.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier, and it will be mentioned 
again later, that there is no funding for Flint in this bill. Now, the 
simple answer would be, well, that is not jurisdictional, it is Energy 
and Commerce Committee. The Senate, by a near unanimous vote, put 
funding to help Flint and other cities which have serious health 
problems with their water systems with a partnership with the Federal 
Government like we used to do.
  Historically, in these bills, the committee has included water 
infrastructure projects. But during the committee consideration, Eddie 
Bernice Johnson from Texas attempted to put in language that would help 
with Flint, and it was ruled to not be germane to the bill, although 
historically this is under section 219, Corps has authorization for 
projects such as this. Donna Edwards from Maryland brought forward an 
amendment again on clean water.
  The crisis in Flint is beyond belief. But there are many, many other 
systems around the country that are far from meeting Federal water 
quality standards, and many of these are communities that lack the 
resources themselves to deal with it. The Federal Government used to 
partner significantly on water and wastewater projects. The Federal 
Government has pretty much walked away from that responsibility.
  There is an amendment right now, right up there, over there in the 
powerful Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is meeting. It is a 
committee that enforces the rules or waives the rules, whatever they 
are in the mood to do. They could allow an amendment to this bill. They 
could be debating it right now that would provide some assistance to 
Flint and other communities.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has offered an amendment 
that is fully offset so it doesn't increase the budget deficit, and we 
will see how that comes out. But many on this side are reluctant to 
move forward.
  Last week, I was pleased to hear Speaker Ryan say that Flint should 
be taken care of in the Water Resources Development bill. The majority 
leader has said the same thing. The question is: Will they do that in 
the bill coming out of the House so that we don't have to be wondering 
whether or not it is going to come out of a conference committee?
  So that is yet to be seen. But I think a lot of votes on this side, 
in addition to the concerns I have raised earlier, are pending upon the 
resolution of whether or not funding for Flint is included in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5303, the 
Water Resources Development Act. I commend Chairman Shuster for his 
work as Transportation and Infrastructure chairman.
  As a former mayor, I can personally attest to how vital investing in 
and maintaining our water infrastructure and flood control is. Over the 
past year, we have seen devastating floods throughout our country. It 
is more important than ever that we authorize critical flood control 
projects to protect our communities. Chairman Shuster's bill builds on 
the reforms established in the Water Resources bill 2 years ago.
  I represent Fort Worth, Texas, a city that has had devastating floods 
in its past. Fort Worth needs help to bring our river area up to 
standards to prevent flooding and prepare for development. We are 
asking for funding authorization from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps 
has been working on this project along with the city and the water 
district for over 5 years.
  In this project, the city will have the opportunity to add amenities 
for recreation paid for by the city, the water district, and private 
developers. By law, the Corps of Engineers cannot pay for amenities 
like basketball or soccer fields or water parks. Therefore, of course, 
they have never been asked to. It is against the law for them to pay 
for it. I repeat: it is against the law. The cooperation from the city, 
private developers, and the water district will pay for those.
  I thank the chairman for his time, and I appreciate his work.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advocacy of the gentlewoman. She has 
been incredibly persistent since she earmarked this project back in 
2004 before the Republicans banned earmarks. Of course, then it was a 
$220 million project. Now it is an $810 million project. The Federal 
share has gone from $110 million to over $500 million, and included in 
the total cost are the basketball courts, the splash pool, and all 
that, but it is coming out of the local share. No, that is not the way 
this is supposed to work.
  If this is a Corps project, the only things which the Corps is 
authorized to do would be in the calculated total cost, and then a 
percentage of that goes to the local jurisdiction. In this case, they 
are counting the contributions of the local developers as part of the 
local cost share. So, essentially, it is coming out of the taxpayers' 
pockets.
  I include in the Record a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense 
and the National Taxpayers Union.

                                               September 27, 2016.
       Dear Representative: While less expensive and problematic 
     than the Senate version of the Water Resources Development 
     Act (S. 2848), we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303, the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Instead of much needed 
     reform, this legislation piles billions of dollars in 
     additional water projects on the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers' plate. The legislation also makes

[[Page H5968]]

     policy changes that will be costly to taxpayers.
       The largest challenge facing the Corps of Engineers water 
     resources program is the lack of a prioritization system for 
     allocating the limited available tax dollars. The legislation 
     directs the executive branch to better explain its budgeting 
     decisions, but this should not serve as an abdication of 
     congressional authority. Congress should develop the criteria 
     and metrics to prioritize Corps projects in the three primary 
     mission areas (navigation, flood/storm damage reduction, and 
     environmental restoration). The executive branch should be 
     required to allocate funds in the budget request in a 
     transparent manner through merit, competitive, or formula 
     systems developed by Congress. Lawmakers could then conduct 
     oversight, hold the administration accountable, and adjust 
     the systems, criteria, and metrics as needed.
       H.R. 5303 fails to include such a prioritization system. It 
     does many other things, however. Between committee 
     consideration and the floor, the bill grew by over $6 
     billion. A provision from the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 dedicating maintenance dredging funds 
     to emerging ports is made permanent. It doesn't make sense to 
     invest in a port that is continually ``emerging.'' It also 
     extends set-asides for ``donor'' and ``energy'' ports without 
     reforming the massive cross-subsidies in the existing 
     maintenance dredging program. The legislation authorizes 
     funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than 
     $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as 
     a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive 
     economic development initiative that would divert precious 
     Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, 
     basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a 
     splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to 
     further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least we urge 
     you to remove or limit the funds for this project.
       Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303 the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016.''
           Sincerely,
     Ryan Alexander,
       Taxpayers for Common Sense.
     Pete Sepp,
       National Taxpayers Union.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will just read briefly: ``The 
legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, 
costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is 
portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive 
economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps 
resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, 
and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is 
money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At 
the least, we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project.''
  That is from Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers 
Union.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2016.
  I thank Chairman Shuster for his championing this legislation and for 
including authorization language for the Rahway River Basin Flood Risk 
Management Feasibility Study in the bill.
  The Rahway River Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study will 
create a lasting solution to protect the New Jersey municipalities that 
include Cranford, Kenilworth, Maplewood, Millburn, Rahway, Springfield, 
Union, and the surrounding areas from severe flooding.
  For years, these municipalities have pursued this project based on 
its great merits, and I have tried to be their champion at the Federal 
level. This is a critical role for Federal representatives: effectively 
helping municipal, county, and State officials to work with the Federal 
Government to ensure efficient services to the areas we represent.
  Throughout this entire process, local leaders have kept the focus on 
consensus and collaboration, and they have united around a solution 
that has strong public support. They deserve the completion of the 
study and the implementation of a plan that will protect life and 
property. I thank the Mayors' Council and local leaders for continuing 
to advocate on behalf of their communities. I certainly reiterate my 
thanks to Chairman Shuster.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2016.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to applaud Chairman Shuster and the 
members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 to the floor.
  WRDA is a crucial piece of legislation which authorizes our Nation's 
locks, dams, harbors, and many other water resources vital to our 
Nation's economic competitiveness.
  However, today, I rise to speak of an issue that is very close to 
home. The Army Corps of Engineers' New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam is 
only 13 miles south of my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and is 
essential to the towns of Augusta and North Augusta, South Carolina.
  Authorization for the lock and dam has been changed numerous times 
over the past few decades, and the Senate version of WRDA includes 
broad language for additional needed changes. I understand the 
complexities of changing authorizations or even deauthorizing projects 
on a river as vital as the Savannah River.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity to work with Chairman 
Shuster and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on language 
to correct this process, working with the Senate to better serve our 
community and our country.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First off, the provision to create a harbor maintenance trust fund to 
begin to actually spend the tax, which we collect from the American 
people for harbor maintenance, on harbor maintenance--it is shocking, 
shocking, in Washington that we would do something like that.
  There are those on the Appropriations Committee guarding their 
fiefdoms, or the Budget Committee, who are opposed to this; but I heard 
a number of my colleagues on the Republican side say tonight they 
supported that concept. It came out of committee unanimously with 
Republican support; yet the Republican leadership reached into this 
bill and pulled out that provision because, I believe, they were afraid 
if that provision came to the floor for a vote that it would pass, that 
we would actually begin to spend the tax that we are collecting from 
the American people for harbor maintenance on harbor maintenance and 
begin to catch up with the backlog by spending another $400 million or 
$500 million a year, which today is being spent on God knows what. It 
is being just thrown into the air.
  Someone said earlier, oh, that money hasn't been spent. Okay. Show me 
what account that $9.8 billion is in. There is no account. There is no 
account. The money has been collected and it has disappeared.
  Now, we can keep that up, and we are going to keep it up now for 
another 2 years. That will be another billion dollars that won't be 
spent on harbor maintenance. So everybody waiting in line to get 
dredged--and there are a lot of ports waiting in line to get dredged. 
Everybody waiting in that really long line of now $74 billion of 
backlogged authorized projects is just going to have to wait a little 
longer. In fact, most of them will be dead before they get around to 
their project.
  So it is really a very sad day for the House of Representatives when 
the House is not being allowed to work its will. We are not being 
allowed to vote on something because a couple of chairmen of a couple 
of committees that don't know much about this subject--they aren't the 
authorizers; they don't understand the details; apparently, they don't 
understand the massive need in backlog--don't want to spend the tax 
that is collected for the purpose for which it is collected, which is 
harbor maintenance and/or construction. It is a very sad day for the 
House of Representatives.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today on the floor with the WRDA bill. We 
are

[[Page H5969]]

back in regular order. This bill reasserts congressional authority, 
making sure that Congress has its say on these matters. This bill 
addresses specific Federal responsibilities that strengthen our 
infrastructure and it is fiscally responsible.
  If we pass the manager's amendment, there are 31 Chief's Reports and 
29 feasibility studies which touch all corners of the United States. I 
know Members on both sides of the aisle have projects in there that are 
extremely important to their district, to their State, and, of course, 
to the Nation.
  It certainly was my goal for this to come to the floor in a 
bipartisan manner just the way it came out of committee. Unfortunately, 
it did violate a House rule, and we had to strip a part of that bill 
out.
  But I just want to say again, as I opened, I agree with Mr. DeFazio--
and you heard, as he just pointed out, there are many Members on our 
side of the aisle that agree--we have got to figure out a way to move 
this forward so that Congress continues to have a say, and that those 
dollars that people pay to use the ports, they pay that fee, and when 
it goes into that trust fund, it is spent on its intended purpose. It 
is just wrong--it is absolutely wrong--that we don't do that.
  We are going to pass this bill on the floor here tomorrow. I will 
continue to work with the ranking member to find a solution, because it 
is my goal to be here next Congress and to have another WRDA bill on 
the floor and address this problem and continue to pass good 
legislation that strengthens our infrastructure and strengthens 
America's competitiveness in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The 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 114-65. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 5303

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Sense of Congress regarding Water Resources Development Acts.
Sec. 102. Training and employment for veterans and members of Armed 
              Forces in curation and historic preservation.
Sec. 103. Youth service and conservation corps organizations.
Sec. 104. Navigation safety.
Sec. 105. Emerging harbors.
Sec. 106. Federal breakwaters and jetties.
Sec. 107. Donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 108. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 109. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 110. Reservoir sediment.
Sec. 111. Contributed funds for reservoir operations.
Sec. 112. Water supply conservation.
Sec. 113. Interstate compacts.
Sec. 114. Nonstructural alternatives.
Sec. 115. Operation and maintenance of environmental protection and 
              restoration and aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 116. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 117. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 118. Agreements.
Sec. 119. Corps of Engineers operation of unmanned aircraft systems.
Sec. 120. Federal dredge fleet.
Sec. 121. Corps of Engineers assets.
Sec. 122. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 123. Credit in lieu of reimbursement.
Sec. 124. Clarification of contributions during emergency events.
Sec. 125. Study of water resources development projects by non-Federal 
              interests.
Sec. 126. Non-Federal construction of authorized flood damage reduction 
              projects.
Sec. 127. Multistate activities.
Sec. 128. Regional participation assurance for levee safety activities.
Sec. 129. Participation of non-Federal interests.
Sec. 130. Indian tribes.
Sec. 131. Dissemination of information on the annual report process.
Sec. 132. Scope of projects.
Sec. 133. Preliminary feasibility study activities.
Sec. 134. Post-authorization change reports.
Sec. 135. Maintenance dredging data.
Sec. 136. Electronic submission and tracking of permit applications.
Sec. 137. Data transparency.
Sec. 138. Backlog prevention.
Sec. 139. Quality control.
Sec. 140. Budget development and prioritization.
Sec. 141. Use of natural and nature-based features.
Sec. 142. Annual report on purchase of foreign manufactured articles.
Sec. 143. Integrated water resources planning.
Sec. 144. Evaluation of project partnership agreements.
Sec. 145. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 146. Arctic deep draft port development partnerships.
Sec. 147. International outreach program.
Sec. 148. Comprehensive study.
Sec. 149. Alternative models for managing Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Sec. 150. Alternative projects to maintenance dredging.
Sec. 151. Fish hatcheries.
Sec. 152. Environmental banks.

                           TITLE II--STUDIES

Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.

           TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 303. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, Los Angeles County, 
              California.
Sec. 304. Sutter Basin, California.
Sec. 305. Essex River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 306. Port of Cascade Locks, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Central Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 308. Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 309. Rivercenter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 310. Joe Pool Lake, Texas.
Sec. 311. Salt Creek, Graham, Texas.
Sec. 312. Texas City Ship Channel, Texas City, Texas.

                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Project authorizations.

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

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

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Corps of Engineers constructs projects for the 
     purposes of navigation, flood control, beach erosion control 
     and shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, 
     water supply, environmental protection, restoration, and 
     enhancement, and fish and wildlife mitigation.
       (2) The Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal provider 
     of outdoor recreation in the United States.
       (3) The Corps of Engineers owns and operates more than 600 
     dams.
       (4) The Corps of Engineers operates and maintains 12,000 
     miles of commercial inland navigation channels.
       (5) The Corps of Engineers manages the dredging of more 
     than 200,000,000 cubic yards of construction and maintenance 
     dredge material annually.
       (6) The Corps of Engineers maintains 926 coastal, Great 
     Lakes, and inland harbors.
       (7) The Corps of Engineers restores, creates, enhances, or 
     preserves tens of thousands of acres of wetlands annually 
     under the Corps' Regulatory Program.
       (8) The Corps of Engineers provides a total water supply 
     storage capacity of 329,200,000 acre-feet in major Corps 
     lakes.
       (9) The Corps of Engineers owns and operates 24 percent of 
     United States hydropower capacity or 3 percent of the total 
     electric capacity of the United States.
       (10) The Corps of Engineers supports Army and Air Force 
     installations.
       (11) The Corps of Engineers provides technical and 
     construction support to more than 100 countries.
       (12) The Corps of Engineers manages an Army military 
     construction program that carried out approximately 
     $44,600,000,000 in construction projects (the largest 
     construction effort since World War II) between 2006 and 
     2013.
       (13) The Corps of Engineers researches and develops 
     technologies to protect the environment and enhance quality 
     of life in the United States.
       (14) The legislation for authorizing Corps of Engineers 
     projects is the Water Resources Development Act and, between 
     1986 and 2000, Congress typically enacted an authorization 
     bill every 2 years.
       (15) Since 2000, only 3 Water Resources Development Acts 
     have been enacted.
       (16) In 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 was enacted, which accelerated the infrastructure 
     project delivery process, fostered fiscal responsibility, and 
     strengthened water transportation networks to promote the 
     competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth of the 
     United States.
       (17) Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) requires typical 
     Corps of Engineers project feasibility studies to be 
     completed in 3 years.
       (18) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C.

[[Page H5970]]

     2282d) requires the Corps of Engineers to submit annually a 
     Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, 
     which ensures projects and activities proposed at the local, 
     regional, and State levels are considered for authorization.
       (19) Passing Water Resources Development Acts on a routine 
     basis enables Congress to exercise oversight, ensures the 
     Corps of Engineers maintains an appropriately sized 
     portfolio, prevents project backlog, and keeps United States 
     infrastructure competitive.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers 
     are a unique function that benefits all Americans;
       (2) water resources development projects are critical to 
     maintaining economic prosperity, national security, and 
     environmental protection;
       (3) Congress has required timely delivery of project and 
     study authorization proposals from non-Federal project 
     sponsors and the Corps of Engineers; and
       (4) Congress should consider a Water Resources Development 
     Act at least once every Congress.

     SEC. 102. TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT FOR VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF 
                   ARMED FORCES IN CURATION AND HISTORIC 
                   PRESERVATION.

       Using available funds, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, shall carry out a Veterans' Curation 
     Program to train and hire veterans and members of the Armed 
     Forces to assist the Secretary in carrying out curation and 
     historic preservation activities.

     SEC. 103. YOUTH SERVICE AND CONSERVATION CORPS ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (33 U.S.C. 2339) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Youth Service and Conservation Corps Organizations.--
     The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enter 
     into cooperative agreements with qualified youth service and 
     conservation corps organizations for services relating to 
     projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and shall do 
     so in a manner that ensures the maximum participation and 
     opportunities for such organizations.''.

     SEC. 104. NAVIGATION SAFETY.

       The Secretary shall use section 5 of the Act of March 4, 
     1915 (38 Stat. 1053, chapter 142; 33 U.S.C. 562), to carry 
     out navigation safety activities at those projects eligible 
     for operation and maintenance under section 204(f) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)).

     SEC. 105. EMERGING HARBORS.

       Section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``for each of fiscal 
     years 2015 through 2022'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)(A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``For 
     each of fiscal years 2015 through 2024'' and inserting ``For 
     each fiscal year'';
       (B) in clause (i) by striking ``90'' and inserting ``Not 
     more than 90''; and
       (C) in clause (ii) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``At 
     least 10''.

     SEC. 106. FEDERAL BREAKWATERS AND JETTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall, at Federal expense, 
     establish an inventory and conduct an assessment of the 
     general structural condition of all Federal breakwaters and 
     jetties protecting harbors and inland harbors within the 
     United States.
       (b) Contents.--The inventory and assessment carried out 
     under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) compiling location information for all Federal 
     breakwaters and jetties protecting harbors and inland harbors 
     within the United States;
       (2) determining the general structural condition of each 
     breakwater and jetty;
       (3) analyzing the potential risks to navigational safety, 
     and the impact on the periodic maintenance dredging needs of 
     protected harbors and inland harbors, resulting from the 
     general structural condition of each breakwater and jetty; 
     and
       (4) estimating the costs, for each breakwater and jetty, to 
     restore or maintain the breakwater or jetty to authorized 
     levels and the total of all such costs.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the inventory and 
     assessment carried out under subsection (a).

     SEC. 107. DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS.

       Section 2106(a)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)(2)(B)) is amended 
     by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.

     SEC. 108. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

       Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (33 U.S.C. 2242) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ``in which the 
     project is located, or the long-term viability of a community 
     that is located in the region that is served by the project 
     and that will rely on the project,'' after ``community''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``and communities that 
     are located in the region to be served by the project and 
     that will rely on the project'' after ``community'';
       (B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``local population'' and 
     inserting ``regional population to be served by the 
     project''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``community'' and 
     inserting ``local community and communities that are located 
     in the region to be served by the project and that will rely 
     on the project''.

     SEC. 109. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program to carry out projects for the beneficial use of 
     dredged material, including projects for the purposes of--
       (1) reducing storm damage to property and infrastructure;
       (2) promoting public safety;
       (3) protecting, restoring, and creating aquatic ecosystem 
     habitats;
       (4) stabilizing stream systems and enhancing shorelines;
       (5) promoting recreation; and
       (6) supporting risk management adaptation strategies.
       (b) Project Selection.--In carrying out the pilot program, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) identify for inclusion in the pilot program and carry 
     out 10 projects for the beneficial use of dredged material;
       (2) consult with relevant State agencies in selecting 
     projects; and
       (3) select projects solely on the basis of--
       (A) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the 
     projects, including monetary and nonmonetary benefits; and
       (B) the need for a diversity of project types and 
     geographical project locations.
       (c) Regional Beneficial Use Teams.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall establish regional beneficial use teams to 
     identify and assist in the implementation of projects under 
     the pilot program.
       (2) Composition.--
       (A) Leadership.--For each regional beneficial use team 
     established under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall appoint 
     the Commander of the relevant division of the Corps of 
     Engineers to serve as the head of the team.
       (B) Membership.--The membership of each regional beneficial 
     use team shall include--
       (i) representatives of relevant Corps of Engineers 
     districts and divisions;
       (ii) representatives of relevant State and local agencies; 
     and
       (iii) representatives of Federal agencies and such other 
     entities as the Secretary determines appropriate, consistent 
     with the purposes of this section.
       (d) Considerations.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     pilot program in a manner that--
       (1) maximizes the beneficial placement of dredged material 
     from Federal and non-Federal navigation channels;
       (2) incorporates, to the maximum extent practicable, 2 or 
     more Federal navigation, flood control, storm damage 
     reduction, or environmental restoration projects;
       (3) coordinates the mobilization of dredges and related 
     equipment, including through the use of such efficiencies in 
     contracting and environmental permitting as can be 
     implemented under existing laws and regulations;
       (4) fosters Federal, State, and local collaboration;
       (5) implements best practices to maximize the beneficial 
     use of dredged sand and other sediments; and
       (6) ensures that the use of dredged material is consistent 
     with all applicable environmental laws.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section 
     shall be subject to the cost-sharing requirements applicable 
     to projects carried out under section 204 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
       (f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that 
     includes--
       (1) a description of the projects selected to be carried 
     out under the pilot program;
       (2) documentation supporting each of the projects selected;
       (3) the findings of regional beneficial use teams regarding 
     project selection; and
       (4) any recommendations of the Secretary or regional 
     beneficial use teams with respect to the pilot program.
       (g) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate after 
     completion of the 10 projects carried out pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (h)  Exemption From Other Standards.--The projects carried 
     out under this section shall be carried out notwithstanding 
     the definition of the term ``Federal standard'' in section 
     335.7 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (i) Clarification.--Section 156(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``3'' and inserting ``6''.

     SEC. 110. RESERVOIR SEDIMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 215 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2326c) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 215. RESERVOIR SEDIMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 
     and after providing public notice, the Secretary shall 
     establish, using available funds, a pilot program to accept 
     services provided by a non-Federal interest or commercial 
     entity for removal of sediment captured behind a dam owned or 
     operated by the United States and under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary for the purpose of restoring the authorized 
     storage capacity of the project concerned.
       ``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) review the services of the non-Federal interest or 
     commercial entity to ensure that the services are consistent 
     with the authorized purposes of the project concerned;
       ``(2) ensure that the non-Federal interest or commercial 
     entity will indemnify the United

[[Page H5971]]

     States for, or has entered into an agreement approved by the 
     Secretary to address, any adverse impact to the dam as a 
     result of such services;
       ``(3) require the non-Federal interest or commercial 
     entity, prior to initiating the services and upon completion 
     of the services, to conduct sediment surveys to determine the 
     pre- and post-services sediment profile and sediment quality; 
     and
       ``(4) limit the number of dams for which services are 
     accepted to 10.
       ``(c) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not accept services 
     under subsection (a) if the Secretary, after consultation 
     with the Chief of Engineers, determines that accepting the 
     services is not advantageous to the United States.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--If the Secretary makes a 
     determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate written notice 
     describing the reasoning for the determination.
       ``(d) Disposition of Removed Sediment.--In exchange for 
     providing services under subsection (a), a non-Federal 
     interest or commercial entity is authorized to retain, use, 
     recycle, sell, or otherwise dispose of any sediment removed 
     in connection with the services and the Corps of Engineers 
     may not seek any compensation for the value of the sediment.
       ``(e) Congressional Notification.--Prior to accepting 
     services provided by a non-Federal interest or commercial 
     entity under this section, the Secretary shall provide to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate written notice of the acceptance 
     of the services.
       ``(f) Report to Congress.--Upon completion of services at 
     the 10 dams allowed under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary 
     shall make publicly available 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 a report documenting the results of the 
     services.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 215 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 215. Reservoir sediment.''.

     SEC. 111. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR RESERVOIR OPERATIONS.

       Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1572, 
     chapter 688; 33 U.S.C. 701h), is amended by inserting after 
     ``authorized purposes of the project:'' the following: 
     ``Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to 
     receive and expend funds from a State or a political 
     subdivision thereof, and other non-Federal interests, to 
     formulate, review, or revise operational documents for any 
     reservoir for which the Secretary is authorized to prescribe 
     regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood risk 
     management or navigation pursuant to section 7 of the Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 890, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 
     709):''.

     SEC. 112. WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION.

       (a) In General.--In a State in which a drought emergency 
     has been declared or was in effect during the 1-year period 
     ending on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is 
     authorized--
       (1) to conduct an evaluation for purposes of approving 
     water supply conservation measures that are consistent with 
     the authorized purposes of water resources development 
     projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary; and
       (2) to enter into written agreements pursuant to section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) 
     with non-Federal interests to carry out the conservation 
     measures approved by such evaluations.
       (b) Eligibility.--Water supply conservation measures 
     evaluated under subsection (a) may include the following:
       (1) Storm water capture.
       (2) Releases for ground water replenishment or aquifer 
     storage and recovery.
       (3) Releases to augment water supply at another Federal or 
     non-Federal storage facility.
       (4) Other conservation measures that enhance usage of a 
     Corps of Engineers project for water supply.
       (c) Costs.--A non-Federal interest shall pay only the 
     separable costs associated with the evaluation, 
     implementation, operation, and maintenance of an approved 
     water supply conservation measure, which payments may be 
     accepted and expended by the Corps of Engineers to cover such 
     costs.
       (d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to modify or alter the obligations of a non-Federal 
     interest under existing or future agreements for--
       (1) water supply storage pursuant to section 301 of the 
     Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b); or
       (2) surplus water use pursuant to section 6 of the Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 890, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 708).
       (e) Limitations.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) affects, modifies, or changes the authorized purposes 
     of a Corps of Engineers project;
       (2) affects existing Corps of Engineers authorities, 
     including its authorities with respect to navigation, flood 
     damage reduction, and environmental protection and 
     restoration;
       (3) affects the Corps of Engineers ability to provide for 
     temporary deviations;
       (4) affects the application of a cost-share requirement 
     under section 101, 102, or 103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211, 2212, and 2213);
       (5) supersedes or modifies any written agreement between 
     the Federal Government and a non-Federal interest that is in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (6) supersedes or modifies any amendment to an existing 
     multistate water control plan, including those water control 
     plans along the Missouri River and those water control plans 
     in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-
     Tallapoosa basins;
       (7) affects any water right in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (8) preempts or affects any State water law or interstate 
     compact governing water.

     SEC. 113. INTERSTATE COMPACTS.

       Section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 
     390b) is amended by striking subsection (f).

     SEC. 114. NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES.

       Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 
     650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)), is amended by 
     striking ``if requested'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``after consultation with the non-Federal sponsor and if 
     requested and agreed to''.

     SEC. 115. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   PROTECTION AND RESTORATION AND AQUATIC 
                   ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Non-Federal Obligations.--Notwithstanding section 
     103(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2213(j)), a non-Federal interest is released from any 
     obligation to operate and maintain the nonstructural and 
     nonmechanical components of a water resources development 
     project carried out for the purposes of environmental 
     protection and restoration or aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     including a project carried out under section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) or 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2309a), if the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the 50-year period that began on the date on which 
     project construction was completed has concluded; or
       (2) the criteria identified in the guidance issued under 
     subsection (c) have been met with respect to the project.
       (b) Federal Obligations.--The Secretary is not responsible 
     for the operation or maintenance of any components of a 
     project with respect to which a non-Federal interest is 
     released from obligations under subsection (a).
       (c) Guidance.--In consultation with non-Federal interests, 
     and not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance that identifies 
     criteria for determining, using the best available science, 
     when the purpose of a project for environmental protection 
     and restoration or aquatic ecosystem restoration has been 
     achieved, including criteria for determining when a project 
     has resulted in the return of the project location to a 
     condition where natural hydrologic and ecological functions 
     are the predominant factors in the condition, functionality, 
     and durability of the location.

     SEC. 116. ESTUARY RESTORATION.

       (a) Participation of Non-Federal Interests.--Section 104(f) 
     of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Project agreements.--For a project carried out under 
     this title, the requirements of section 103(j)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(j)(1)) may be fulfilled by a nongovernmental 
     organization serving as the non-Federal interest for the 
     project pursuant to paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Extension.--Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration 
     Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``2012'' each place it appears and inserting ``2021''.

     SEC. 117. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 506(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22(g)) is repealed.

     SEC. 118. AGREEMENTS.

       Section 2036(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 (33 U.S.C. 2317b) is repealed.

     SEC. 119. CORPS OF ENGINEERS OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall designate an 
     individual, within the headquarters office of the Corps of 
     Engineers, who shall serve as the coordinator and principal 
     approving official for developing the process and procedures 
     by which the Corps of Engineers--
       (1) operates and maintains small unmanned aircraft (as 
     defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform 
     Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) systems in support of 
     civil works and emergency response missions of the Corps of 
     Engineers; and
       (2) acquires, applies for, and receives any necessary 
     Federal Aviation Administration authorizations for such 
     operations and systems.
       (b) Requirements.--A small unmanned aircraft system 
     acquired, operated, or maintained for carrying out the 
     missions specified in subsection (a) shall be operated in 
     accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration as a civil aircraft or public aircraft, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, and shall be exempt from 
     regulations of the Department of Defense, including the 
     Department of the Army, governing such system.
       (c) Limitation.--A small unmanned aircraft system acquired, 
     operated, or maintained by the Corps of Engineers is excluded 
     from use by the Department of Defense, including the 
     Department of the Army, for any mission of the Department of 
     Defense other than a mission specified in subsection (a).

     SEC. 120. FEDERAL DREDGE FLEET.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the costs and benefits of expanding, 
     reducing, or maintaining the current configuration with 
     respect to the size and makeup of the federally owned hopper 
     dredge fleet.

[[Page H5972]]

       (b) Factors.--In carrying out the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall evaluate--
       (1) the current and anticipated configuration and capacity 
     of the Federal and private hopper dredge fleet;
       (2) the current and anticipated trends for the volume and 
     type of dredge work required over the next 10 years, and the 
     alignment of the size of the existing Federal and private 
     hopper dredge fleet with future dredging needs;
       (3) available historic data on the costs, efficiency, and 
     time required to initiate and complete dredging work carried 
     out by Federal and private hopper dredge fleets, 
     respectively;
       (4) whether the requirements of section 3 of the Act of 
     August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 423, chapter 860; 33 U.S.C. 622), 
     have any demonstrable impacts on the factors identified in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), and whether such requirements are 
     most economical and advantageous to the United States; and
       (5) other factors that the Comptroller General determines 
     are necessary to evaluate whether it is economical and 
     advantageous to the United States to expand, reduce, or 
     maintain the current configuration of the federally owned 
     hopper dredge fleet.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 121. CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.

       Section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1349) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``the date of enactment 
     of this Act'' and inserting ``the date of enactment of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The extent to which the property has economic, 
     cultural, historic, or recreational significance, or impacts 
     at the national, State, or local level.''.

     SEC. 122. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Railroad carrier.--The term `railroad carrier' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 20102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``or natural gas company'' and inserting 
     ``, natural gas company, or railroad carrier''; and
       (B) by striking ``or company'' and inserting ``, company, 
     or carrier'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (3);
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (5) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated) by striking ``and 
     natural gas companies'' and inserting ``, natural gas 
     companies, and railroad carriers''.

     SEC. 123. CREDIT IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT.

       Section 1022 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2225) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``that has been 
     constructed by a non-Federal interest under section 211 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-
     13) before the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``for which a written agreement with the Corps of Engineers 
     for construction was finalized on or before December 31, 
     2014, under section 211 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13)''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``share of the cost of 
     the non-Federal interest of carrying out other flood damage 
     reduction projects or studies'' and inserting ``non-Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out other water resources 
     development projects or studies of the non-Federal 
     interest''.

     SEC. 124. CLARIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS DURING EMERGENCY 
                   EVENTS.

       Section 1024(a) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2325a(a)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``emergency'' the following: ``, or that has 
     had or may have an equipment failure (including a failure 
     caused by a lack of or deferred maintenance),''.

     SEC. 125. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY 
                   NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Technical Assistance.--At the request of a non-
     Federal interest, the Secretary may provide to the non-
     Federal interest technical assistance relating to any aspect 
     of a feasibility study if the non-Federal interest contracts 
     with the Secretary to pay all costs of providing such 
     technical assistance.''.

     SEC. 126. NON-FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORIZED FLOOD DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       Section 204(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Discrete segments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may authorize credit or 
     reimbursement under this subsection for a discrete segment of 
     a flood damage reduction project, or separable element 
     thereof, before final completion of the project or separable 
     element if--
       ``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary 
     determines that the discrete segment satisfies the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) through (4) in the same manner 
     as the project or separable element; and
       ``(ii) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the Secretary 
     determines, before the approval of the plans under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i), that the discrete segment is technically feasible 
     and environmentally acceptable.
       ``(B) Determination.--Credit or reimbursement may not be 
     made available to a non-Federal interest pursuant to this 
     paragraph until the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the construction of the discrete segment for which 
     credit or reimbursement is requested is complete; and
       ``(ii) the construction is consistent with the 
     authorization of the applicable flood damage reduction 
     project, or separable element thereof, and the plans approved 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(i).
       ``(C) Written agreement.--
       ``(i) In general.--As part of the written agreement 
     required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), a non-Federal interest 
     to be eligible for credit or reimbursement under this 
     paragraph shall--

       ``(I) identify any discrete segment that the non-Federal 
     interest may carry out; and
       ``(II) agree to the completion of the flood damage 
     reduction project, or separable element thereof, with respect 
     to which the discrete segment is a part and establish a 
     timeframe for such completion.

       ``(ii) Remittance.--If a non-Federal interest fails to 
     complete a flood damage reduction project, or separable 
     element thereof, that it agreed to complete under clause 
     (i)(II), the non-Federal interest shall remit any 
     reimbursements received under this paragraph for a discrete 
     segment of such project or separable element.
       ``(D) Discrete segment defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `discrete segment' means a physical portion of a flood 
     damage reduction project, or separable element thereof--
       ``(i) described by a non-Federal interest in a written 
     agreement required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and
       ``(ii) that the non-Federal interest can operate and 
     maintain, independently and without creating a hazard, in 
     advance of final completion of the flood damage reduction 
     project, or separable element thereof.''.

     SEC. 127. MULTISTATE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``or other non-Federal interest'' and 
     inserting ``, group of States, or non-Federal interest'';
       (B) by inserting ``or group of States'' after ``working 
     with a State''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or group of States'' after ``boundaries 
     of such State''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1) by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary may allow 2 or more States to 
     combine all or a portion of the funds that the Secretary 
     makes available to the States in carrying out subsection 
     (a)(1).''.

     SEC. 128. REGIONAL PARTICIPATION ASSURANCE FOR LEVEE SAFETY 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) National Levee Safety Program.--Section 9002 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' 
     and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (13) through (17), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Regional district.--The term `regional district' 
     means a subdivision of a State government, or a subdivision 
     of multiple State governments, that is authorized to acquire, 
     construct, operate, and maintain projects for the purpose of 
     flood damage reduction.''.
       (b) Inventory and Inspection of Levees.--Section 9004 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``1 year after the 
     date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2016'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``States, Indian 
     tribes, Federal agencies, and other entities'' and inserting 
     ``States, regional districts, Indian tribes, Federal 
     agencies, and other entities''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the heading for subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``federal, state, and local'' and inserting ``federal, state, 
     regional, tribal, and local''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``Federal, State, and 
     local'' and inserting ``Federal, State, regional, tribal, and 
     local''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in the paragraph heading by striking ``State and 
     tribal'' and inserting ``State, regional, and tribal''; and
       (ii) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian 
     tribe''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and
       (ii) by striking ``chief executive of the tribal 
     government'' and inserting ``chief executive of the regional 
     district or tribal government''.
       (c) Levee Safety Initiative.--Section 9005 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``State, local, and tribal governments and 
     organizations'' and inserting ``State, regional, local, and 
     tribal governments and organizations''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``Federal, State, 
     tribal, and local agencies'' and inserting

[[Page H5973]]

     ``Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal agencies'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``State, local, and 
     tribal governments'' and inserting ``State, regional, local, 
     and tribal governments''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``, regional, or 
     tribal'' after ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(A) by striking ``States, non-Federal 
     interests, and other appropriate stakeholders'' and inserting 
     ``States, regional districts, Indian tribes, non-Federal 
     interests, and other appropriate stakeholders'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(1) in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) by striking ``States, communities, and levee 
     owners'' and inserting ``States, regional districts, Indian 
     tribes, communities, and levee owners'';
       (3) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``State and 
     Tribal'' and inserting ``State, Regional, and Tribal'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State, 
     regional, or tribal''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``State and Indian tribe'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional district, and Indian tribe''; and
       (II) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and

       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the paragraph heading by striking ``states'' and 
     inserting ``states, regional districts, and indian tribes'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``States and Indian 
     tribes'' and inserting ``States, regional districts, and 
     Indian tribes'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``State 
     or Indian tribe'' and inserting ``State, regional district, 
     or Indian tribe'';
       (II) in clause (ii) by striking ``levees within the State'' 
     and inserting ``levees within the State or regional 
     district''; and
       (III) in clause (iii) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' 
     and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe'';

       (iv) in subparagraph (C)(ii) in the matter preceding 
     subclause (I) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional, or tribal''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by striking ``States and Indian tribes'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``States, regional districts, and 
     Indian tribes'';
       (II) in clause (ii)(II)--

       (aa) in the matter preceding item (aa) by striking ``State 
     or Indian tribe'' and inserting ``State, regional district, 
     or Indian tribe'';
       (bb) in item (aa) by striking ``miles of levees in the 
     State'' and inserting ``miles of levees in the State or 
     regional district''; and
       (cc) in item (bb) by striking ``miles of levees in all 
     States'' and inserting ``miles of levees in all States and 
     regional districts''; and

       (III) in clause (iii)--

       (aa) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and
       (bb) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State, 
     regional, or tribal''; and
       (4) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``States, Indian tribes, 
     and local governments'' and inserting ``States, regional 
     districts, Indian tribes, and local governments'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``State, Indian tribe, or local government'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional district, Indian tribe, or local 
     government''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (E) in the matter preceding clause (i) 
     by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State, 
     regional, or tribal'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``State, Indian tribe, 
     or local government'' and inserting ``State, regional 
     district, Indian tribe, or local government''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection'' and inserting ``180 
     days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016''; and
       (D) in paragraph (4)(A)(i) by striking ``State or tribal'' 
     and inserting ``State, regional, or tribal''.
       (d) Reports.--Section 9006 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``State and tribal'' 
     and inserting ``State, regional, and tribal'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection'' and inserting ``2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``State, tribal, and local'' and inserting 
     ``State, regional, tribal, and local'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``State and tribal'' and 
     inserting ``State, regional, and tribal''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4) by striking ``State and local'' and 
     inserting ``State, regional, tribal, and local''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``1 
     year after the date of enactment of this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``State or tribal'' and 
     inserting ``State, regional, or tribal''.

     SEC. 129. PARTICIPATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 221(b)(1) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and, as 
     defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1602), a Native village, Regional Corporation, 
     and Village Corporation'' after ``Indian tribe''.

     SEC. 130. INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2310) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``and indian 
     tribes'' after ``territories''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``projects in American'' and inserting 
     ``projects--
       ``(1) in American'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) for a federally recognized Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 131. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON THE ANNUAL REPORT 
                   PROCESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Congress plays a central role in identifying, 
     prioritizing, and authorizing vital water resources 
     infrastructure activities throughout the United States.
       (2) The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 
     (Public Law 113-121) established a new and transparent 
     process to review and prioritize the water resources 
     development activities of the Corps of Engineers with strong 
     congressional oversight.
       (3) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) requires the 
     Secretary to develop and submit to Congress each year a 
     Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development and, 
     as part of the annual report process, to--
       (A) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests 
     from non-Federal interests proposed feasibility studies and 
     proposed modifications to authorized water resources 
     development projects and feasibility studies for inclusion in 
     the report; and
       (B) review the proposals submitted and include in the 
     report those proposed feasibility studies and proposed 
     modifications that meet the criteria for inclusion 
     established under section 7001.
       (4) Congress will use the information provided in the 
     annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources 
     Development to determine authorization needs and priorities 
     for purposes of water resources development legislation.
       (5) To ensure that Congress can gain a thorough 
     understanding of the water resources development needs and 
     priorities of the United States, it is important that the 
     Secretary take sufficient steps to ensure that non-Federal 
     interests are made aware of the new annual report process, 
     including the need for non-Federal interests to submit 
     proposals during the Secretary's annual request for proposals 
     in order for such proposals to be eligible for consideration 
     by Congress.
       (b) Dissemination of Process Information.--The Secretary 
     shall develop, support, and implement education and awareness 
     efforts for non-Federal interests with respect to the annual 
     Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development 
     required under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), including efforts 
     to--
       (1) develop and disseminate technical assistance materials, 
     seminars, and guidance on the annual process as it relates to 
     non-Federal interests;
       (2) provide written notice to previous and potential non-
     Federal interests and local elected officials on the annual 
     process and on opportunities to address local water resources 
     challenges through the missions and authorities of the Corps 
     of Engineers;
       (3) issue guidance for non-Federal interests to assist such 
     interests in developing proposals for water resources 
     development projects that satisfy the requirements of section 
     7001; and
       (4) provide, at the request of a non-Federal interest, 
     assistance with researching and identifying existing project 
     authorizations and Corps of Engineers decision documents.

     SEC. 132. SCOPE OF PROJECTS.

       Section 7001(f) of the Water Resources Reform and 
     Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(f)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Water resources development project.--The term `water 
     resources development project' includes a project under an 
     environmental infrastructure assistance program.''.

     SEC. 133. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY ACTIVITIES.

       At the request of a non-Federal interest with respect to a 
     proposed water resources development project, the Secretary 
     shall meet with the non-Federal interest, prior to initiating 
     a feasibility study relating to the proposed project, to 
     review a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest in the 
     proposed project and the costs, benefits, and environmental 
     impacts of the proposed project, including an estimate of the 
     costs of preparing a feasibility report.

     SEC. 134. POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The completion of a post-authorization 
     change report prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water 
     resources development project--
       (1) may not be delayed as a result of consideration being 
     given to changes in policy or priority with respect to 
     project consideration; and
       (2) shall be submitted, upon completion, to--

[[Page H5974]]

       (A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Completion Review.--With respect to a post-
     authorization change report subject to review by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall, not later than 120 days after 
     the date of completion of such report--
       (1) review the report; and
       (2) provide to Congress any recommendations of the 
     Secretary regarding modification of the applicable water 
     resources development project.
       (c) Prior Reports.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, with respect to any post-
     authorization change report that was completed prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act and is subject to a review by 
     the Secretary that has yet to be completed, the Secretary 
     shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to 
     Congress with respect to, the report.
       (d) Post-Authorization Change Report Inclusions.--In this 
     section, the term ``post-authorization change report'' 
     includes--
       (1) a general reevaluation report;
       (2) a limited reevaluation report; and
       (3) any other report that recommends the modification of an 
     authorized water resources development project.

     SEC. 135. MAINTENANCE DREDGING DATA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish, maintain, 
     and make publicly available a database on maintenance 
     dredging carried out by the Secretary, which shall include 
     information on maintenance dredging carried out by Federal 
     and non-Federal vessels.
       (b) Scope.--The Secretary shall include in the database 
     maintained under subsection (a), for each maintenance 
     dredging project and contract, data on--
       (1) the volume of dredged material removed;
       (2) the initial cost estimate of the Corps of Engineers;
       (3) the total cost;
       (4) the party and vessel carrying out the work; and
       (5) the number of private contractor bids received and the 
     bid amounts, including bids that did not win the final 
     contract award.

     SEC. 136. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND TRACKING OF PERMIT 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2040 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 2040. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND TRACKING OF PERMIT 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Development of Electronic System.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall research, develop, 
     and implement an electronic system to allow the electronic 
     preparation and submission of applications for permits and 
     requests for jurisdictional determinations under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Inclusion.--The electronic system required under 
     paragraph (1) shall address--
       ``(A) applications for standard individual permits;
       ``(B) applications for letters of permission;
       ``(C) joint applications with States for State and Federal 
     permits;
       ``(D) applications for emergency permits;
       ``(E) applications or requests for jurisdictional 
     determinations; and
       ``(F) preconstruction notification submissions, when 
     required for a nationwide or other general permit.
       ``(3) Improving existing data systems.--The Secretary shall 
     seek to incorporate the electronic system required under 
     paragraph (1) into existing systems and databases of the 
     Corps of Engineers to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(4) Protection of information.--The electronic system 
     required under paragraph (1) shall provide for the protection 
     of personal, private, privileged, confidential, and 
     proprietary information, and information the disclosure of 
     which is otherwise prohibited by law.
       ``(b) System Requirements.--The electronic system required 
     under subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) enable an applicant or requester to prepare 
     electronically an application for a permit or request;
       ``(2) enable an applicant or requester to submit to the 
     Secretary, by email or other means through the Internet, the 
     completed application form or request;
       ``(3) enable an applicant or requester to submit to the 
     Secretary, by email or other means through the Internet, data 
     and other information in support of the permit application or 
     request;
       ``(4) provide an online interactive guide to provide 
     assistance to an applicant or requester at any time while 
     filling out the permit application or request; and
       ``(5) enable an applicant or requester (or a designated 
     agent) to track the status of a permit application or request 
     in a manner that will--
       ``(A) allow the applicant or requester to determine whether 
     the application is pending or final and the disposition of 
     the request;
       ``(B) allow the applicant or requester to research 
     previously submitted permit applications and requests within 
     a given geographic area and the results of such applications 
     or requests; and
       ``(C) allow identification and display of the location of 
     the activities subject to a permit or request through a map-
     based interface.
       ``(c) Documentation.--All permit decisions and 
     jurisdictional determinations made by the Secretary shall be 
     in writing and include documentation supporting the basis for 
     the decision or determination. The Secretary shall prescribe 
     means for documenting all decisions or determinations to be 
     made by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Record of Determinations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain, for a 
     minimum of 5 years, a record of all permit decisions and 
     jurisdictional determinations made by the Secretary, 
     including documentation supporting the basis of the decisions 
     and determinations.
       ``(2) Archiving of information.--The Secretary shall 
     explore and implement an appropriate mechanism for archiving 
     records of permit decisions and jurisdictional 
     determinations, including documentation supporting the basis 
     of the decisions and determinations, after the 5-year 
     maintenance period described in paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Availability of Determinations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make the records of 
     all permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations made 
     by the Secretary available to the public for review and 
     reproduction.
       ``(2) Protection of information.--The Secretary shall 
     provide for the protection of personal, private, privileged, 
     confidential, and proprietary information, and information 
     the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, which may be 
     excluded from disclosure.
       ``(f) Deadline for Electronic System Implementation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement, to the maximum extent practicable, the electronic 
     system required under subsection (a) not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2016.
       ``(2) Report on electronic system implementation.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the expiration of the deadline 
     under 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 describing the measures 
     implemented and barriers faced in carrying out this section.
       ``(g) Applicability.--The requirements described in 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e) shall apply to permit 
     applications and requests for jurisdictional determinations 
     submitted to the Secretary after the date of enactment of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
       ``(h) Limitation.--This section shall not preclude the 
     submission to the Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, of a physical copy of a permit application or a 
     request for a jurisdictional determination.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 2040 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 2040. Electronic submission and tracking of permit 
              applications.''.

     SEC. 137. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

       Section 2017 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (33 U.S.C. 2342) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2017. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

       ``(a) In General.--Using available funds, the Secretary 
     shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, all 
     data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers on--
       ``(1) the planning, design, construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of water resources development projects; and
       ``(2) water quality and water management of projects owned, 
     operated, or managed by the Corps of Engineers.
       ``(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to compel or authorize the disclosure of data or other 
     information determined by the Secretary to be confidential 
     information, privileged information, law enforcement 
     information, national security information, infrastructure 
     security information, personal information, or information 
     the disclosure of which is otherwise prohibited by law.
       ``(c) Timing.--The Secretary shall ensure that data is made 
     publicly available under subsection (a) as quickly as 
     practicable after the data is generated by the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       ``(d) Partnerships.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary may develop partnerships, including through 
     cooperative agreements, with State, tribal, and local 
     governments and other Federal agencies.''.

     SEC. 138. 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 funds have been obligated for 
     construction of such project during that period.
       (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 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives 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 Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives, and make available to the public, 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;
       (3) a schedule for the completion of the projects based on 
     expected levels of appropriations; and
       (4) a 5-year and 10-year projection of construction backlog 
     and any recommendations to

[[Page H5975]]

     Congress regarding how to mitigate current problems and the 
     backlog.

     SEC. 139. QUALITY CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (a) of the first section of the 
     Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 888, chapter 665; 33 
     U.S.C. 701-1(a)), is amended by inserting ``and shall be made 
     publicly available'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Project Administration.--Section 2041(b)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 
     2346(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``final post-
     authorization change report,'' after ``final reevaluation 
     report,''.

     SEC. 140. BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION.

       (a) In General.--In conjunction with the President's budget 
     submission to Congress with respect to fiscal year 2018 under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, and 
     biennially thereafter in conjunction with the President's 
     budget submission, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report that 
     describes--
       (1) the metrics used in developing the civil works budget 
     for the applicable fiscal year;
       (2) the metrics used in developing each business line in 
     the civil works budget; and
       (3) how projects are prioritized in the applicable budget 
     submission, including how the Secretary determines those 
     projects for which construction initiation is recommended.
       (b) Notification.--
       (1) Requirement.--If the Secretary proposes a covered 
     revised budget estimate, the Secretary shall notify, in 
     writing, each Member of Congress representing a congressional 
     district affected by the study, project, or activity subject 
     to the revised estimate.
       (2) Covered revised budget estimate defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``covered revised budget estimate'' 
     means a budget estimate for a water resources development 
     study, project, or activity that differs from the estimate 
     most recently specified for that study, project, or activity 
     in a budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 141. USE OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2017, and 
     biennially thereafter, 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 use of natural and 
     nature-based features in water resources development 
     projects, including flood risk reduction, coastal resiliency, 
     and ecosystem restoration projects.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (1) An assessment of the observed and potential impacts of 
     the use of natural and nature-based features on the cost and 
     effectiveness of water resources development projects and any 
     co-benefits resulting from the use of such features.
       (2) A description of any statutory, fiscal, or regulatory 
     barrier to the appropriate consideration and use of natural 
     and nature-based features in carrying out water resources 
     development projects.

     SEC. 142. ANNUAL REPORT ON PURCHASE OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURED 
                   ARTICLES.

       Section 213(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (Public Law 102-580; 106 Stat. 4831) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Annual report on purchase of foreign manufactured 
     articles.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the last 
     day of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions in such 
     fiscal year made by the Corps of Engineers for civil works 
     projects from entities that manufactured the articles, 
     materials, or supplies outside of the United States.
       ``(B) Contents.--The report required under subparagraph (A) 
     shall indicate, for each acquisition--
       ``(i) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the 
     United States; and
       ``(ii) a summary of the total procurement funds spent on 
     goods manufactured in the United States and the total 
     procurement funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the 
     United States.
       ``(C) Public availability.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the submission of a report under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall make such report publicly available on the 
     agency's Web site.''.

     SEC. 143. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLANNING.

       In carrying out a feasibility study for a water resources 
     development project, the Secretary shall coordinate with 
     communities in the watershed covered by such study to 
     determine if a local or regional water management plan exists 
     or is under development for the purposes of stormwater 
     management, water quality improvement, aquifer recharge, or 
     water reuse. If such a local or regional water management 
     plan exists for the watershed, the Secretary shall, in 
     cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor for the plan and 
     affected local public entities, avoid adversely affecting the 
     purposes of the plan and, where feasible, incorporate the 
     purposes of the plan into the Secretary's feasibility study.

     SEC. 144. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.

       To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall 
     prioritize and complete the activities required of the 
     Secretary under section 1013 of the Water Resources Reform 
     and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 
     1218).

     SEC. 145. ADDITIONAL MEASURES AT DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY 
                   TRANSFER PORTS.

       Section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4)(A) by striking ``Code of Federal 
     Regulation'' and inserting ``Code of Federal Regulations''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2018'' and inserting 
     ``2020''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``2015 through 2018'' and inserting ``2016 
     through 2020''; and
       (ii) by striking ``2019 through 2022'' and inserting ``2021 
     through 2025''.

     SEC. 146. ARCTIC DEEP DRAFT PORT DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.

       Section 2105 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2243) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(25 U.S.C. 450b))'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``(25 U.S.C. 450b)) and Native villages, 
     Regional Corporations, and Village Corporations (as those 
     terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602))'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Consideration of National Security Interests.--In 
     carrying out a study of the feasibility of an Arctic deep 
     draft port, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense to identify 
     national security benefits associated with the Arctic deep 
     draft port.''.

     SEC. 147. INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAM.

       Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (33 U.S.C. 2329(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may engage in activities 
     to inform the United States of technological innovations 
     abroad that could significantly improve water resources 
     development in the United States.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--Activities under paragraph (1) may 
     include--
       ``(A) development, monitoring, assessment, and 
     dissemination of information about foreign water resources 
     projects that could significantly improve water resources 
     development in the United States;
       ``(B) research, development, training, and other forms of 
     technology transfer and exchange; and
       ``(C) offering technical services that cannot be readily 
     obtained in the private sector to be incorporated into water 
     resources projects if the costs for assistance will be 
     recovered under the terms of each project.''.

     SEC. 148. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study on the flood risks for vulnerable coastal 
     populations in areas within the boundaries of the South 
     Atlantic Division of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Inclusions.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall identify--
       (1) activities that warrant additional analysis by the 
     Corps of Engineers; and
       (2) institutional and other barriers to providing 
     protection to the vulnerable coastal populations.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in 
     coordination with appropriate Federal agencies and State, 
     local, and tribal entities to ensure consistency with related 
     plans.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 149. ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR MANAGING INLAND WATERWAYS 
                   TRUST FUND.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to analyze alternative models for 
     managing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, including the 
     management of--
       (1) project schedules for projects receiving assistance 
     from the fund; and
       (2) expenditures from the fund.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall examine, at a minimum, the costs and benefits 
     of transferring management of the fund to a not-for-profit 
     corporation or government-owned corporation.
       (c) Considerations.--In assessing costs and benefits under 
     subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall consider, among 
     other factors--
       (1) the benefits to the taxpayer;
       (2) the impact on project delivery; and
       (3) the impact on jobs.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 150. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS TO MAINTENANCE DREDGING.

       The Secretary may enter into agreements to assume the 
     operation and maintenance costs of an alternative project to 
     maintenance dredging for a channel if the alternative project 
     would lower the overall costs of maintaining the channel.

     SEC. 151. FISH HATCHERIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may operate a fish hatchery for the 
     purpose of restoring a population of fish species located in 
     the region surrounding the fish hatchery that is listed as a 
     threatened species or an endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or a 
     similar State law.
       (b) Costs.--A non-Federal entity, a Federal agency other 
     than the Department of Defense, or a group of non-Federal 
     entities or such Federal agencies shall be responsible for 
     100 percent

[[Page H5976]]

     of the costs associated with managing a fish hatchery for the 
     purpose described in subsection (a) that are not authorized 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act for the fish 
     hatchery.

     SEC. 152. ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of the Gulf Coast 
     Ecosystem Restoration Council, with the concurrence of two-
     thirds of the Council, shall issue such regulations as are 
     necessary for the establishment of procedures and processes 
     for the use, maintenance, and oversight of environmental 
     banks for purposes of mitigating adverse environmental 
     impacts sustained by construction or other activities as 
     required by law or regulation.
       (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) set forth procedures for certification of environmental 
     banks, including criteria for adoption of an environmental 
     banking instrument;
       (2) provide a mechanism for the transfer of environmental 
     credits;
       (3) provide for priority certification to environmental 
     banks that enhance the resilience of coastal resources to 
     inundation and coastal erosion, including the restoration of 
     resources within the scope of a project authorized for 
     construction;
       (4) ensure certification is given only to banks with 
     secured adequate financial assurance and appropriate legally 
     enforceable protection for restored lands or resources;
       (5) stipulate conditions under which cross-crediting of 
     environmental services may occur and provide standards for 
     the conversion of such crediting;
       (6) establish performance criteria for environmental banks;
       (7) establish criteria for the operation and monitoring of 
     environmental banks; and
       (8) establish a framework whereby the purchase of credit 
     from an environmental bank may be used to offset or satisfy 
     past, current, or future adverse environmental impacts or 
     liability under law to wetlands, water, wildlife, or other 
     natural resources.
       (c) Consideration.--In developing the regulations required 
     under subsection (a), the Chairperson shall take into 
     consideration habitat equivalency analysis.
       (d) Modifications.--The Chairperson may modify or update 
     the regulations issued pursuant to this section, subject to 
     appropriate consultation and public participation, provided 
     that two-thirds of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 
     Council approves the modification or update.
       (e) Definition of Environmental Bank.--In this section, the 
     term ``environmental bank'' means a project, project 
     increment, or projects for purposes of restoring, creating, 
     enhancing, or preserving natural resources in a designated 
     site to provide for credits to offset adverse environmental 
     impacts.
       (f) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) affects the requirements of section 906 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); or
       (2) affects the obligations or requirements of any Federal 
     environmental law.

                           TITLE II--STUDIES

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study 
     for the following projects for water resources development 
     and conservation and other purposes, as identified in the 
     reports titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources 
     Development'' submitted to Congress on January 29, 2015, and 
     January 29, 2016, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of 
     the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
     U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress:
       (1) Ouachita-black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--Project 
     for navigation, Ouachita-Black Rivers, Arkansas and 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Cache creek settling basin, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Cache Creek 
     Settling Basin, California.
       (3) Coyote valley dam, california.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water 
     supply, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
       (4) Del rosa channel, city of san bernardino, california.--
     Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 
     Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, California.
       (5) Merced county streams, california.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Merced County Streams, California.
       (6) Mission-zanja channel, cities of san bernardino and 
     redlands, california.--Project for flood damage reduction and 
     ecosystem restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San 
     Bernardino and Redlands, California.
       (7) Soboba indian reservation, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Soboba Indian Reservation, 
     California.
       (8) Indian river inlet, delaware.--Project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction, Indian River Inlet, Delaware.
       (9) Lewes beach, delaware.--Project for hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction, Lewes Beach, Delaware.
       (10) Mispillion complex, kent and sussex counties, 
     delaware.--Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     Mispillion Complex, Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware.
       (11) Daytona beach, florida.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Daytona Beach, Florida.
       (12) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--Project for navigation, 
     Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.
       (13) Dubuque, iowa.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
     Dubuque, Iowa.
       (14) St. tammany parish, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, St. Tammany 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (15) Cattaraugus creek, new york.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Cattaraugus Creek, New York.
       (16) Cayuga inlet, ithaca, new york.--Project for 
     navigation and flood damage reduction, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca, 
     New York.
       (17) Delaware river basin, new york, new jersey, 
     pennsylvania, and delaware.--Projects for flood control, 
     Delaware River Basin, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
     Delaware, authorized by section 408 of the Act of July 24, 
     1946 (60 Stat. 644, chapter 596), and section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), to review 
     operations of the projects to enhance opportunities for 
     ecosystem restoration and water supply.
       (18) Silver creek, hanover, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Silver Creek, 
     Hanover, New York.
       (19) Tulsa and west tulsa levees, tulsa, oklahoma.--Project 
     for flood damage reduction, Tulsa and West Tulsa Levees, 
     Tulsa, Oklahoma.
       (20) Stonycreek and little conemaugh rivers, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction and 
     recreation, Stonycreek and Little Conemaugh Rivers, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (21) Tioga-hammond lake, pennsylvania.--Project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Tioga-Hammond Lake, Pennsylvania.
       (22) Brazos river, fort bend county, texas.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction in the vicinity of the Brazos River, 
     Fort Bend County, Texas.
       (23) Chacon creek, city of laredo, texas.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and 
     recreation, Chacon Creek, city of Laredo, Texas.
       (24) Corpus christi ship channel, texas.--Project for 
     navigation, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas.
       (25) City of el paso, texas.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, city of El Paso, Texas.
       (26) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazoria and matagorda 
     counties, texas.--Project for navigation and hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria 
     and Matagorda Counties, Texas.
       (27) Port of bay city, texas.--Project for navigation, Port 
     of Bay City, Texas.
       (28) Chincoteague island, virginia.--Project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem 
     restoration, Chincoteague Island, Virginia.
       (29) Burley creek watershed, kitsap county, washington.--
     Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 
     Burley Creek Watershed, Kitsap County, Washington.

     SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Feasibility Reports.--The Secretary shall expedite the 
     completion of a feasibility study for each of the following 
     projects, and if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to 
     preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the 
     project:
       (1) Project for flood risk management, Little Colorado 
     River at Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona.
       (2) Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin 
     River, California. In carrying out the feasibility study for 
     the project, the Secretary shall include Reclamation District 
     17 as part of the study.
       (3) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem 
     restoration, Sacramento River Flood Control System, 
     California.
       (4) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     Ft. Pierce, Florida.
       (5) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines and 
     Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
       (6) Project for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, 
     Louisiana.
       (7) Project for flood risk management, North Branch Ecorse 
     Creek, Wayne County, Michigan.
       (8) Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin 
     (Upper Basin), New Jersey.
       (9) Project for navigation, Upper Ohio River, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Post-Authorization Change Reports.--The Secretary shall 
     expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for 
     each of the following projects:
       (1) Project for flood risk management, Swope Park 
     Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri.
       (2) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, 
     New Hanover County, North Carolina.

           TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to identify $5,000,000,000 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 for 
     Congress 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) Interim Deauthorization List.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop an interim 
     deauthorization list that identifies--
       (A) each water resources development project, or separable 
     element of a project, authorized for construction before 
     November 8, 2007, for which--
       (i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated 
     before the date of enactment of this Act; or

[[Page H5977]]

       (ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, but for which no funds, 
     Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for planning, design, 
     or construction of the project or separable element of the 
     project during the current fiscal year or any of the 6 
     preceding fiscal years; and
       (B) each project or separable element identified and 
     included on a list to Congress for deauthorization pursuant 
     to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
       (2) Public comment and consultation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from 
     the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the 
     interim deauthorization list developed under paragraph (1).
       (B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90 
     days.
       (3) Submission to congress; publication.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the close of the comment period under 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
       (A) submit a revised interim deauthorization list to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) publish the revised interim deauthorization list in the 
     Federal Register.
       (c) Final Deauthorization List.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a final 
     deauthorization list of water resources development projects, 
     or separable elements of projects, from the revised interim 
     deauthorization list described in subsection (b)(3).
       (2) Deauthorization amount.--
       (A) Proposed final list.--The Secretary shall prepare a 
     proposed final deauthorization list of projects and separable 
     elements of projects that have, in the aggregate, an 
     estimated Federal cost to complete that is at least 
     $5,000,000,000.
       (B) Determination of federal cost to complete.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete 
     shall take into account any allowances authorized by section 
     902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and 
     cost estimate.
       (3) Identification of projects.--
       (A) Sequencing of projects.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall identify projects and 
     separable elements of projects for inclusion on the proposed 
     final deauthorization list according to the order in which 
     the projects and separable elements of the projects were 
     authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized projects 
     and separable elements of projects and ending with the latest 
     project or separable element of a project necessary to meet 
     the aggregate amount under paragraph (2).
       (ii) Factors to consider.--The Secretary may identify 
     projects and separable elements of projects in an order other 
     than that established by clause (i) if the Secretary 
     determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a project or 
     separable element of a project is critical for interests of 
     the United States, based on the possible impact of the 
     project or separable element of the project on public health 
     and safety, the national economy, or the environment.
       (iii) Consideration of public comments.--In making 
     determinations under clause (ii), the Secretary shall 
     consider any comments received under subsection (b)(3).
       (B) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include as part of the 
     proposed final deauthorization list an appendix that--
       (i) identifies each project or separable element of a 
     project on the interim deauthorization list developed under 
     subsection (b) that is not included on the proposed final 
     deauthorization list; and
       (ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable 
     element is not included on the proposed final list.
       (4) Public comment and consultation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from 
     the public and the Governor of each applicable State on the 
     proposed final deauthorization list and appendix developed 
     under paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90 
     days.
       (5) Submission of final list to congress; publication.--Not 
     later than 120 days after the date of the close of the 
     comment period under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall--
       (A) submit a final deauthorization list and an appendix to 
     the final deauthorization list in a report to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       (B) publish the final deauthorization list and the appendix 
     to the final deauthorization list in the Federal Register.
       (d) Deauthorization; Congressional Review.--
       (1) In general.--After the expiration of the 180-day period 
     beginning on the date of submission of the final 
     deauthorization list and appendix under subsection (c), a 
     project or separable element of a project identified in the 
     final deauthorization list is hereby deauthorized, unless 
     Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the final 
     deauthorization list prior to the end of such period.
       (2) Non-federal contributions.--
       (A) In general.--A project or separable element of a 
     project identified in the final deauthorization list under 
     subsection (c) shall not be deauthorized under this 
     subsection if, before the expiration of the 180-day period 
     referred to in paragraph (1), the non-Federal interest for 
     the project or separable element of the project provides 
     sufficient funds to complete the project or separable element 
     of the project.
       (B) Treatment of projects.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), each project and separable element of a project 
     identified in the final deauthorization list shall be treated 
     as deauthorized for purposes of the aggregate deauthorization 
     amount specified in subsection (c)(2).
       (3) Projects identified in appendix.--A project or 
     separable element of a project identified in the appendix to 
     the final deauthorization list shall remain subject to future 
     deauthorization by Congress.
       (e) Special Rule for Projects Receiving Funds for Post-
     Authorization Study.--A project or separable element of a 
     project may not be identified on the interim deauthorization 
     list developed under subsection (b), or the final 
     deauthorization list developed under subsection (c), if the 
     project or separable element received funding for a post-
     authorization study during the current fiscal year or any of 
     the 6 preceding fiscal years.
       (f) General Provisions.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Post-authorization study.--The term ``post-
     authorization study'' means--
       (i) a feasibility report developed under section 905 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282);
       (ii) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2215(d)); or
       (iii) a review conducted under section 216 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), including an initial 
     appraisal that--

       (I) demonstrates a Federal interest; and
       (II) requires additional analysis for the project or 
     separable element.

       (B) Water resources development project.--The term ``water 
     resources development project'' includes an environmental 
     infrastructure assistance project or program of the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (2) Treatment of project modifications.--For purposes of 
     this section, if an authorized water resources development 
     project or separable element of the project has been modified 
     by 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. VALDEZ, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the portion of 
     the project for navigation, Valdez, Alaska, identified as 
     Tract G, Harbor Subdivision, shall not be subject to 
     navigational servitude beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Entry by Federal Government.--The Federal Government 
     may enter upon the property referred to in subsection (a) to 
     carry out any required operation and maintenance of the 
     general navigation features of the project referred to in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 303. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, LOS ANGELES 
                   COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) prioritize the updating of the Water Control Manuals 
     for control structures in the Los Angeles County Drainage 
     Area, Los Angeles County, California, authorized by section 
     101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public 
     Law 101-640; 104 Stat. 4611); and
       (2) integrate and incorporate into the project seasonal 
     operations for water conservation and water supply.
       (b) Participation.--The update referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall be done in coordination with all appropriate 
     Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the 
     public.

     SEC. 304. SUTTER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The separable element constituting the 
     locally preferred plan increment reflected in the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated March 12, 2014, and authorized 
     for construction in item 8 of the table contained in section 
     7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
     2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1366) is no longer 
     authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Savings Provisions.--The deauthorization under 
     subsection (a) does not affect--
       (1) the national economic development plan separable 
     element reflected in the report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated March 12, 2014, and authorized for construction in item 
     8 of the table contained in section 7002(2) of the Water 
     Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-
     121; 128 Stat. 1366); or
       (2) previous authorizations providing for the Sacramento 
     River and major and minor tributaries project, including--
       (A) section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949, 
     chapter 144);
       (B) section 12 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 
     900, chapter 665);
       (C) section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 
     177, chapter 188); and
       (D) any other Acts relating to the authorization for the 
     Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries project 
     along the Feather River right bank between levee stationing 
     1483+33 and levee stationing 2368+00.

     SEC. 305. ESSEX RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.

       (a) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for 
     navigation, Essex River, Massachusetts, authorized by the Act 
     of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 88, chapter 158), and modified by 
     the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1121, chapter 425), and 
     the Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1073, chapter 2509), that 
     do not lie within the areas described in subsection (b) are 
     no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Description of Project Areas.--The areas described in 
     this subsection are as follows: Beginning at a point 
     N3056139.82 E851780.21, thence southwesterly about 156.88 
     feet to a point N3055997.75 E851713.67; thence southwesterly 
     about 64.59 feet to a point N3055959.37 E851661.72; thence 
     southwesterly about 145.14 feet to a point N3055887.10 
     E851535.85; thence southwesterly about 204.91 feet to a point 
     N3055855.12 E851333.45; thence northwesterly

[[Page H5978]]

     about 423.50 feet to a point N3055976.70 E850927.78; thence 
     northwesterly about 58.77 feet to a point N3056002.99 
     E850875.21; thence northwesterly about 240.57 feet to a point 
     N3056232.82 E850804.14; thence northwesterly about 203.60 
     feet to a point N3056435.41 E850783.93; thence northwesterly 
     about 78.63 feet to a point N3056499.63 E850738.56; thence 
     northwesterly about 60.00 feet to a point N3056526.30 
     E850684.81; thence southwesterly about 85.56 feet to a point 
     N3056523.33 E850599.31; thence southwesterly about 36.20 feet 
     to a point N3056512.37 E850564.81; thence southwesterly about 
     80.10 feet to a point N3056467.08 E850498.74; thence 
     southwesterly about 169.05 feet to a point N3056334.36 
     E850394.03; thence northwesterly about 48.52 feet to a point 
     N3056354.38 E850349.83; thence northeasterly about 83.71 feet 
     to a point N3056436.35 E850366.84; thence northeasterly about 
     212.38 feet to a point N3056548.70 E850547.07; thence 
     northeasterly about 47.60 feet to a point N3056563.12 
     E850592.43; thence northeasterly about 101.16 feet to a point 
     N3056566.62 E850693.53; thence southeasterly about 80.22 feet 
     to a point N3056530.97 E850765.40; thence southeasterly about 
     99.29 feet to a point N3056449.88 E850822.69; thence 
     southeasterly about 210.12 feet to a point N3056240.79 
     E850843.54; thence southeasterly about 219.46 feet to a point 
     N3056031.13 E850908.38; thence southeasterly about 38.23 feet 
     to a point N3056014.02 E850942.57; thence southeasterly about 
     410.93 feet to a point N3055896.06 E851336.21; thence 
     northeasterly about 188.43 feet to a point N3055925.46 
     E851522.33; thence northeasterly about 135.47 feet to a point 
     N3055992.91 E851639.80; thence northeasterly about 52.15 feet 
     to a point N3056023.90 E851681.75; thence northeasterly about 
     91.57 feet to a point N3056106.82 E851720.59.

     SEC. 306. PORT OF CASCADE LOCKS, OREGON.

       (a) Extinguishment of Portions of Existing Flowage 
     Easement.--With respect to the properties described in 
     subsection (b), beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the flowage easements described in subsection (c) are 
     extinguished above elevation 82.2 feet (NGVD29), the ordinary 
     high water line.
       (b) Affected Properties.--The properties described in this 
     subsection, as recorded in Hood River County, Oregon, are as 
     follows:
       (1) Lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ``Port of Cascade Locks 
     Business Park'' subdivision, Instrument Number 2014-00436.
       (2) Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Hood River County Partition, 
     Plat Number 2008-25P.
       (c) Flowage Easements.--The flowage easements described in 
     this subsection are identified as Tracts 302E-1 and 304E-1 on 
     the easement deeds recorded as instruments in Hood River 
     County, Oregon, and described as follows:
       (1) A flowage easement dated October 3, 1936, recorded 
     December 1, 1936, book 25, page 531 (Records of Hood River 
     County, Oregon), in favor of the United States (302E-1-
     Perpetual Flowage Easement from 10/5/37, 10/5/36, and 10/3/
     36; previously acquired as Tracts OH-36 and OH-41 and a 
     portion of Tract OH-47).
       (2) A flowage easement dated October 5, 1936, recorded 
     October 17, 1936, book 25, page 476 (Records of Hood River 
     County, Oregon), in favor of the United States, affecting 
     that portion below the 94-foot contour line above main sea 
     level (304 E1-Perpetual Flowage Easement from 8/10/37 and 10/
     3/36; previously acquired as Tract OH-042 and a portion of 
     Tract OH-47).
       (d) Federal Liabilities; Cultural, Environmental, and Other 
     Regulatory Reviews.--
       (1) Federal liability.--The United States shall not be 
     liable for any injury caused by the extinguishment of an 
     easement under this section.
       (2) Cultural and environmental regulatory actions.--Nothing 
     in this section establishes any cultural or environmental 
     regulation relating to the properties described in subsection 
     (b).
       (e) Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any remaining right or interest of the Corps of 
     Engineers in the properties described in subsection (b).

     SEC. 307. CENTRAL DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable.--Subject to 
     subsection (c), unless the Secretary finds, after 
     consultation with local and regional public officials 
     (including local and regional public planning organizations), 
     that there are substantive objections, those portions of the 
     Delaware River, bounded by the former bulkhead and pierhead 
     lines that were established by the Secretary of War and 
     successors and described as follows, are declared to be 
     nonnavigable waters of the United States:
       (1) Piers 70 South through 38 South, encompassing an area 
     bounded by the southern line of Moore Street extended to the 
     northern line of Catherine Street extended, including the 
     following piers: Piers 70, 68, 67, 64, 61-63, 60, 57, 55, 53, 
     48, 46, 40, and 38.
       (2) Piers 24 North through 72 North, encompassing an area 
     bounded by the southern line of Callowhill Street extended to 
     the northern line of East Fletcher Street extended, including 
     the following piers: Piers 24, 25, 27-35, 35.5, 36, 37, 38, 
     39, 49, 51-52, 53-57, 58-65, 66, 67, 69, 70-72, and 
     Rivercenter.
       (b) Public Interest Determination.--The Secretary shall 
     make the public interest determination under subsection (a) 
     separately for each proposed project to be undertaken within 
     the boundaries described in subsection (a), using reasonable 
     discretion, not later than 150 days after the date of 
     submission of appropriate plans for the proposed project.
       (c) Limits on Applicability; Regulatory Requirements.--The 
     declaration under subsection (a) shall apply only to those 
     parts of the areas described in subsection (a) that are or 
     will be bulkheaded and filled or otherwise occupied by 
     permanent structures, including marina and recreation 
     facilities. All such work is subject to all applicable 
     Federal statutes and regulations, including sections 9 and 10 
     of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151, chapter 425; 33 
     U.S.C. 401 and 403), section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 308. HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) prioritize the updating of the Master Plan for the 
     Juniata River and tributaries project, Huntingdon County, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874; 76 Stat. 1182); and
       (2) ensure that alternatives for additional recreation 
     access and development at the project are fully assessed, 
     evaluated, and incorporated as a part of the update.
       (b) Participation.--The update referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall be done in coordination with all appropriate 
     Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the 
     public.

     SEC. 309. RIVERCENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 38(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1988 (33 U.S.C. 59j-1(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(except 30 years from such date of 
     enactment, in the case of the area or any part thereof 
     described in subsection (a)(5))''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentence, the declaration of nonnavigability 
     for the area described in subsection (a)(5), or any part 
     thereof, shall not expire.''.

     SEC. 310. JOE POOL LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall accept from the Trinity River Authority 
     of Texas, if received by September 30, 2016, $31,233,401 as 
     payment in full of amounts owed to the United States, 
     including any accrued interest, for the approximately 
     61,747.1 acre-feet of water supply storage space in Joe Pool 
     Lake, Texas (previously known as Lakeview Lake), for which 
     payment has not commenced under Article 5.a. (relating to 
     project investment costs) of contract number DACW63-76-C-
     0106, as of the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 311. SALT CREEK, GRAHAM, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, 
     environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt Creek, 
     Graham, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113 
     Stat. 278), is no longer authorized as a Federal project 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Certain Project-Related Claims.--The non-Federal 
     interest for the project shall hold and save the United 
     States harmless from any claim that has arisen, or that may 
     arise, in connection with the project.
       (c) Transfer.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer any 
     land acquired by the Federal Government for the project on 
     behalf of the non-Federal interest that remains in Federal 
     ownership on or after the date of enactment of this Act to 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that land 
     transferred under subsection (c) ceases to be owned by the 
     public, all right, title, and interest in and to the land and 
     improvements thereon shall revert, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, to the United States.

     SEC. 312. TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The portion of the Texas City Ship 
     Channel, Texas City, Texas, described in subsection (b) shall 
     not be subject to navigational servitude beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Description.--The portion of the Texas City Ship 
     Channel described in this subsection is a tract or parcel 
     containing 393.53 acres (17,142,111 square feet) of land 
     situated in the City of Texas City Survey, Abstract Number 
     681, and State of Texas Submerged Lands Tracts 98A and 99A, 
     Galveston County, Texas, said 393.53 acre tract being more 
     particularly described as follows:
       (1) Beginning at the intersection of an edge of fill along 
     Galveston Bay with the most northerly east survey line of 
     said City of Texas City Survey, Abstract No. 681, the same 
     being a called 375.75 acre tract patented by the State of 
     Texas to the City of Texas City and recorded in Volume 1941, 
     Page 750 of the Galveston County Deed Records (G.C.D.R.), 
     from which a found U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brass Cap 
     stamped ``R 4-3'' set in the top of the Texas City Dike along 
     the east side of Bay Street bears North 56 14' 32" West, a 
     distance of 6,045.31 feet and from which a found U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers Brass Cap stamped ``R 4-2'' set in the top 
     of the Texas City Dike along the east side of Bay Street 
     bears North 49 13' 20" West, a distance of 6,693.64 feet.
       (2) Thence, over and across said State Tracts 98A and 99A 
     and along the edge of fill along said Galveston Bay, the 
     following eight (8) courses and distances:
       (A) South 75 49' 13" East, a distance of 298.08 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (B) South 81 16' 26" East, a distance of 170.58 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (C) South 79 20' 31" East, a distance of 802.34 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (D) South 75 57' 32" East, a distance of 869.68 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
       (E) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 736.80 feet, a central angle of 24 55' 
     59", a chord of South 68 47'

[[Page H5979]]

     35" East - 318.10 feet, and an arc length of 320.63 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
       (F) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the left 
     having a radius of 373.30 feet, a central angle of 31 57' 
     42", a chord of South 66 10' 42" East - 205.55 feet, and an 
     arc length of 208.24 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     non-tangent curve to the right.
       (G) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 15,450.89 feet, a central angle of 02 04' 
     10", a chord of South 81 56' 20" East - 558.04 feet, and an 
     arc length of 558.07 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     compound curve to the right and the northeasterly corner of 
     the tract herein described.
       (H) Southerly along said compound curve to the right and 
     the easterly line of the tract herein described, having a 
     radius of 1,425.00 feet, a central angle of 133 08' 00", a 
     chord of South 14 20' 15" East - 2,614.94 feet, and an arc 
     length of 3,311.15 feet to a point on a line lying 125.00 
     feet northerly of and parallel with the centerline of an 
     existing levee for the southeasterly corner of the tract 
     herein described.
       (3) Thence, continuing over and across said State Tracts 
     98A and 99A and along lines lying 125.00 feet northerly of, 
     parallel, and concentric with the centerline of said existing 
     levee, the following twelve (12) courses and distances:
       (A) North 78 01' 58" West, a distance of 840.90 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (B) North 76 58' 35" West, a distance of 976.66 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (C) North 76 44' 33" West, a distance of 1,757.03 feet to 
     a point for the beginning of a tangent curve to the left.
       (D) Southwesterly, along said tangent curve to the left 
     having a radius of 185.00 feet, a central angle of 82 27' 
     32", a chord of South 62 01' 41" West - 243.86 feet, and an 
     arc length of 266.25 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     compound curve to the left.
       (E) Southerly, along said compound curve to the left having 
     a radius of 4,535.58 feet, a central angle of 11 06' 58", a 
     chord of South 15 14' 26" West - 878.59 feet, and an arc 
     length of 879.97 feet to an angle point of the tract herein 
     described.
       (F) South 64 37' 11" West, a distance of 146.03 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (G) South 67 08' 21" West, a distance of 194.42 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (H) North 34 48' 22" West, a distance of 789.69 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (I) South 42 47' 10" West, a distance of 161.01 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (J) South 42 47' 10" West, a distance of 144.66 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a tangent curve to the right.
       (K) Westerly, along said tangent curve to the right having 
     a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 59 50' 28", a 
     chord of South 72 42' 24" West - 309.26 feet, and an arc 
     length of 323.77 feet to an angle point of the tract herein 
     described.
       (L) North 77 22' 21" West, a distance of 591.41 feet to 
     the intersection of said parallel line with the edge of fill 
     adjacent to the easterly edge of the Texas City Turning Basin 
     for the southwesterly corner of the tract herein described, 
     from which a found U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brass Cap 
     stamped ``SWAN 2'' set in the top of a concrete column set 
     flush in the ground along the north bank of Swan Lake bears 
     South 20 51' 58" West, a distance of 4,862.67 feet.
       (4) Thence, over and across said City of Texas City Survey 
     and along the edge of fill adjacent to the easterly edge of 
     said Texas City Turning Basin, the following eighteen (18) 
     courses and distances:
       (A) North 01 34' 19" East, a distance of 57.40 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (B) North 05 02' 13" West, a distance of 161.85 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (C) North 06 01' 56" East, a distance of 297.75 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (D) North 06 18' 07" West, a distance of 71.33 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (E) North 07 21' 09" West, a distance of 122.45 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (F) North 26 41' 15" West, a distance of 46.02 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (G) North 01 31' 59" West, a distance of 219.78 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (H) North 15 54' 07" West, a distance of 104.89 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (I) North 04 00' 34" East, a distance of 72.94 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (J) North 06 46' 38" West, a distance of 78.89 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (K) North 12 07' 59" West, a distance of 182.79 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (L) North 20 50' 47" West, a distance of 105.74 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (M) North 02 02' 04" West, a distance of 184.50 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (N) North 08 07' 11" East, a distance of 102.23 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (O) North 08 16' 00" West, a distance of 213.45 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (P) North 03 15' 16" West, a distance of 336.45 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
       (Q) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the left 
     having a radius of 896.08 feet, a central angle of 14 00' 
     05", a chord of North 09 36' 03" West - 218.43 feet, and an 
     arc length of 218.97 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     non-tangent curve to the right.
       (R) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 483.33 feet, a central angle of 19 13' 
     34", a chord of North 13 52' 03" East - 161.43 feet, and an 
     arc length of 162.18 feet to a point for the northwesterly 
     corner of the tract herein described.
       (5) Thence, continuing over and across said City of Texas 
     City Survey, and along the edge of fill along said Galveston 
     Bay, the following fifteen (15) courses and distances:
       (A) North 30 45' 02" East, a distance of 189.03 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (B) North 34 20' 49" East, a distance of 174.16 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
       (C) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 202.01 feet, a central angle of 25 53' 
     37", a chord of North 33 14' 58" East - 90.52 feet, and an 
     arc length of 91.29 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     non-tangent curve to the left.
       (D) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the left 
     having a radius of 463.30 feet, a central angle of 23 23' 
     57", a chord of North 48 02' 53" East - 187.90 feet, and an 
     arc length of 189.21 feet to a point for the beginning of a 
     non-tangent curve to the right.
       (E) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 768.99 feet, a central angle of 16 24' 
     19", a chord of North 43 01' 40" East - 219.43 feet, and an 
     arc length of 220.18 feet to an angle point of the tract 
     herein described.
       (F) North 38 56' 50" East, a distance of 126.41 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (G) North 42 59' 50" East, a distance of 128.28 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
       (H) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the right 
     having a radius of 151.96 feet, a central angle of 68 36' 
     31", a chord of North 57 59' 42" East - 171.29 feet, and an 
     arc length of 181.96 feet to a point for the most northerly 
     corner of the tract herein described.
       (I) South 77 14' 49" East, a distance of 131.60 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (J) South 84 44' 18" East, a distance of 86.58 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (K) South 58 14' 45" East, a distance of 69.62 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (L) South 49 44' 51" East, a distance of 149.00 feet to an 
     angle point of the tract herein described.
       (M) South 44 47' 21" East, a distance of 353.77 feet to a 
     point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
       (N) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the left 
     having a radius of 253.99 feet, a central angle of 98 53' 
     23", a chord of South 83 28' 51" East - 385.96 feet, and an 
     arc length of 438.38 feet to an angle point of the tract 
     herein described.
       (O) South 75 49' 13" East, a distance of 321.52 feet to 
     the point of beginning and containing 393.53 acres 
     (17,142,111 square feet) of land.

                TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

     SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       The following projects for water resources development and 
     conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports 
     titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources 
     Development'' submitted to Congress on January 29, 2015, and 
     January 29, 2016, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of 
     the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33 
     U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress, are 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
     in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     described in the respective reports designated in this 
     section:
       (1) Navigation.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Brazos Island        Nov. 3, 2014  Federal: $116,116,000
           Harbor                            Non-Federal: $88,471,000
                                             Total: $204,587,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H5980]]

 
2. LA     Calcasieu Lock      Dec. 2, 2014   Total: $16,700,000 (to be
                                              derived \1/2\ from the
                                              general fund of the
                                              Treasury and \1/2\ from
                                              the Inland Waterways Trust
                                              Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NH,    Portsmouth Harbor   Feb. 8, 2015   Federal: $15,580,000
 ME        and Piscataqua                    Non-Federal: $5,190,000
           River                             Total: $20,770,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FL     Port Everglades     Jun. 25, 2015  Federal: $220,200,000
                                             Non-Federal: $102,500,000
                                             Total: $322,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. AK     Little Diomede      Aug. 10, 2015  Federal: $26,015,000
           Harbor                            Non-Federal: $2,945,000
                                             Total: $28,960,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SC     Charleston Harbor   Sep. 8, 2015   Federal: $224,300,000
                                             Non-Federal: $269,000,000
                                             Total: $493,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. AK     Craig Harbor        March 16,      Federal: $29,062,000
                               2016          Non-Federal: $3,255,000
                                             Total: $32,317,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (2) Flood risk management.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Leon Creek          Jun. 30, 2014  Federal: $18,314,000
           Watershed                         Non-Federal: $9,861,000
                                             Total: $28,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. MO,    Armourdale and      Jan. 27, 2015  Federal: $207,036,000
 KS        Central                           Non-Federal: $111,481,000
           Industrial                        Total: $318,517,000
           District Levee
           Units, Missouri
           River and
           Tributaries at
           Kansas Citys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS     City of Manhattan   Apr. 30, 2015  Federal: $15,440,100
                                             Non-Federal: $8,313,900
                                             Total: $23,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. TN     Mill Creek          Oct. 16, 2015  Federal: $17,759,000
                                             Non-Federal: $10,745,000
                                             Total: $28,504,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. KS     Upper Turkey Creek   Dec. 22,      Federal: $24,584,000
           Basin               2015          Non-Federal: $13,238,000
                                             Total: $37,822,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NC     Princeville         Feb. 23, 2016  Federal: $14,001,000
                                             Non-Federal: $7,539,000
                                             Total: $21,540,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CA     American River      Apr. 26, 2016  Federal: $876,478,000
           Common Features                   Non-Federal: $689,272,000
                                             Total: $1,565,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CA     West Sacramento     Apr. 26, 2016  Federal: $776,517,000
                                             Non-Federal: $414,011,000
                                             Total: $1,190,528,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of       D.  Estimated Initial
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        Costs and  Estimated
                                Engineers        Renourishment  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SC     Colleton County     Sep. 5, 2014   Initial Federal:
                                              $13,733,850
                                              Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $7,395,150
                                             Initial Total: $21,129,000
                                              Renourishment Federal:
                                              $16,371,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $16,371,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $32,742,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H5981]]

 
2. FL     Flagler County      Dec. 23, 2014  Initial Federal: $9,218,300
                                              Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $4,963,700
                                              Initial Total: $14,182,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $15,390,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $15,390,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $30,780,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NC     Carteret County     Dec. 23,       Initial Federal:
                               2014           $24,263,000
                                             Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $13,064,000
                                              Initial Total: $37,327,000
                                              Renourishment Federal:
                                              $114,728,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $114,728,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $229,456,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NJ     Hereford Inlet to   Jan. 23, 2015  Initial Federal:
           Cape May Inlet,                    $14,040,000
           Cape May County                   Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $7,560,000
                                             Initial Total: $21,600,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $41,215,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $41,215,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $82,430,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. LA     West Shore Lake     Jun. 12, 2015  Federal: $466,760,000
           Pontchartrain                     Non-Federal: $251,330,000
                                             Total: $718,090,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CA     San Diego County    Apr. 26, 2016  Initial Federal:
                                              $20,166,000
                                             Initial Non-Federal:
                                              $10,858,000
                                             Initial Total: $31,024,000
                                             Renourishment Federal:
                                              $68,215,000
                                             Renourishment Non-Federal:
                                              $68,215,000
                                             Renourishment Total:
                                              $136,430,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (4) Ecosystem restoration.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL     Central Everglades  Dec. 23, 2014  Federal: $976,375,000
                                             Non-Federal: $974,625,000
                                             Total: $1,951,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WA     Skokomish River     Dec. 14, 2015  Federal: $12,782,000
                                             Non-Federal: $6,882,000
                                             Total: $19,664,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (5) Flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. IL,    Upper Des Plaines   Jun. 8, 2015   Federal: $199,393,000
 WI        River and                         Non-Federal: $107,694,000
           Tributaries                       Total: $307,087,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (6) Flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and 
     recreation.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CA     South San           Dec. 18, 2015  Federal: $69,521,000
           Francisco Bay                     Non-Federal: $104,379,000
           Shoreline                         Total: $173,900,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (7) Ecosystem restoration and recreation.--


[[Page H5982]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.                           Report of
  State        B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. OR     Willamette River    Dec. 14, 2015  Federal: $19,143,000
                                             Non-Federal: $10,631,000
                                             Total: $29,774,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA     Los Angeles River   Dec. 18, 2015  Federal: $375,773,000
                                             Non-Federal: $980,835,000
                                             Total: $1,356,608,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (8) Deauthorizations, modifications, and other projects.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
   A.          B.  Name          Decision        D.  Estimated  Costs
  State                          Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Upper Trinity       May 21, 2008   Federal: $526,500,000
           River                             Non-Federal: $283,500,000
                                             Total: $810,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY     Green River Locks   Apr. 30, 2015  Federal: $0
           and Dams 3, 4, 5,                 Non-Federal: $0
           6 and Barren                      Total: $0
           River Lock and
           Dam 1 Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS     Turkey Creek Basin  May 13, 2016   Federal: $97,067,750
                                             Non-Federal: $55,465,250
                                             Total: $152,533,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. KY     Ohio River          May 13, 2016   Federal: $20,309,900
           Shoreline                         Non-Federal: $10,936,100
                                             Total: $31,246,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. MO     Blue River Basin    May 13, 2016   Federal: $34,860,000
                                             Non-Federal: $11,620,000
                                             Total: $46,480,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
790. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-790.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, strike lines 1 through 8.
       Page 11, line 14, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 11, line 16, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 11, after line 16, insert the following:
       (7) reducing the costs of dredging and dredged material 
     placement or disposal, such as projects that use dredged 
     material for--
       (A) construction or fill material;
       (B) civic improvement objectives; and
       (C) other innovative uses and placement alternatives that 
     produce public economic or environmental benefits.
       Page 69, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COST SHARE REQUIREMENT.

       The Secretary shall carry out the project for ecosystem 
     restoration and recreation, Los Angeles River, California, as 
     authorized by this Act, substantially in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions described in the Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated December 18, 2015, including, 
     notwithstanding section 2008(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1074), the recommended 
     cost sharing.

     SEC. __. PUBLIC ACCESS.

       (a) Recreational Access Permitted.--The Board of Directors 
     of the Tennessee Valley Authority may approve and allow the 
     construction and use of a floating cabin on waters under the 
     jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority if--
       (1) the floating cabin is maintained by the owner to 
     reasonable health, safety, and environmental standards, as 
     required by the Board of Directors; and
       (2) the Tennessee Valley Authority has authorized the use 
     of recreational vessels on such waters.
       (b) Fees.--The Board of Directors may levy fees on the 
     owner of a floating cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority for purposes of ensuring 
     compliance with subsection (a), so long as such fees are 
     necessary and reasonable for such purposes.
       (c) Continued Recreational Use.--With respect to a floating 
     cabin located on waters under the jurisdiction of the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Board of Directors--
       (1) may not require the removal of such floating cabin--
       (A) in the case of a floating cabin that was granted a 
     permit by the Tennessee Valley Authority before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, for a period of 15 years beginning on 
     such date; and
       (B) in the case of a floating cabin not granted a permit by 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, for a period of 5 years beginning on such date; 
     and
       (2) shall approve and allow the use of the floating cabin 
     on waters under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority at such time, and for such duration, as the 
     floating cabin meets the requirements of subsection (a) and 
     the owner of such cabin has paid any fee levied pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       (d) New Construction.--The Tennessee Valley Authority may 
     establish regulations to prevent the construction of new 
     floating cabins.
       (e) Floating Cabin Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``floating cabin'' means every description of watercraft or 
     other floating structure primarily designed and used for 
     human habitation or occupation and not primarily designed or 
     used for navigation or transportation on water.
       (f) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section restricts 
     the ability of the Tennessee Valley Authority to enforce 
     reasonable health, safety, or environmental standards.

     SEC. __. TRIBAL DISPLACEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study related to any remaining Federal 
     obligations to Indian people displaced by the construction of 
     the Bonneville Dam, the Dalles Dam, or the John Day Dam on 
     the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington.
       (b) Factors.--The study shall include--
       (1) a determination as to the number and location of Indian 
     people displaced by the construction of the Bonneville Dam, 
     the Dalles Dam, or the John Day Dam;
       (2) a determination of the amounts and types of assistance 
     provided by the Federal Government to Indian people displaced 
     by the construction of such dams to the present; and
       (3) a determination of whether and how much assistance is 
     necessary to meet any remaining Federal obligations to 
     compensate Indian people displaced by the construction of 
     such dams.

[[Page H5983]]

       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. __. DROUGHT EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Authorized Activities.--With respect to a State in 
     which a drought emergency is in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, or was in effect at any time during 
     the 1-year period ending on such date of enactment, and upon 
     the request of the Governor of the State, the Secretary is 
     authorized to--
       (1) prioritize the updating of the water control manuals 
     for control structures under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary that are located in the State; and
       (2) incorporate into the update seasonal operations for 
     water conservation and water supply for such control 
     structures.
       (b) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out the update 
     under subsection (a) in coordination with all appropriate 
     Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the 
     public.

     SEC. __. GAO STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives an analysis of the President's budget 
     requests for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2017.
       (b) Considerations.--The analysis to be submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall evaluate--
       (1) the extent to which there is geographic diversity among 
     the projects included in such budget requests; and
       (2) whether the methodologies used by the Corps of 
     Engineers to calculate benefit-cost ratios for projects 
     impact the geographic diversity of projects included in such 
     budget requests.
       Page 75, strike lines 9 and 10.
       Page 75, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
       (1) Project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
     restoration, Hamilton City, California.
       Page 75, line 23, strike ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000,000''.
       Page 78, line 17, strike ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000,000''.
       Page 92, after line 25, insert the following:
       (c) Inventory.--In carrying out the update under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall include an inventory of those lands 
     that are not necessary to carry out the authorized purposes 
     of the project.
       Page 93, lines 14 and 15, strike ``September 30, 2016, 
     $31,233,401'' and insert ``December 31, 2016, 
     $31,344,841.65''.
       Page 106, strike line 6 and all that follows before line 7 
     and insert the following:
       (1) Navigation.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Brazos Island        Nov. 3, 2014  Federal: $116,116,000
           Harbor                            Non-Federal: $88,471,000
                                             Total: $204,587,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. LA     Calcasieu Lock      Dec. 2, 2014   Total: $16,700,000 (to be
                                              derived \1/2\ from the
                                              general fund of the
                                              Treasury and \1/2\ from
                                              the Inland Waterways Trust
                                              Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NH,    Portsmouth Harbor   Feb. 8, 2015   Federal: $15,580,000
 ME        and Piscataqua                    Non-Federal: $5,190,000
           River                             Total: $20,770,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FL     Port Everglades     Jun. 25, 2015  Federal: $220,200,000
                                             Non-Federal: $102,500,000
                                             Total: $322,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. AK     Little Diomede      Aug. 10, 2015  Federal: $26,015,000
           Harbor                            Non-Federal: $2,945,000
                                             Total: $28,960,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SC     Charleston Harbor   Sep. 8, 2015   Federal: $224,300,000
                                             Non-Federal: $269,000,000
                                             Total: $493,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. AK     Craig Harbor        Mar. 16, 2016  Federal: $29,062,000
                                             Non-Federal: $3,255,000
                                             Total: $32,317,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. PA     Upper Ohio          Sep. 12, 2016  Federal: $1,324,235,500
                                             Non-Federal: $1,324,235,500
                                             Total: $2,648,471,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Page 109, strike line 1 and all that follows before line 2 
     and insert the following:
       (4) Ecosystem restoration.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL     Central Everglades  Dec. 23, 2014  Federal: $976,375,000
                                             Non-Federal: $974,625,000
                                             Total: $1,951,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WA     Skokomish River     Dec. 14, 2015  Federal: $12,782,000
                                             Non-Federal: $6,882,000
                                             Total: $19,664,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. WA     Puget Sound         Sep. 16, 2016  Federal: $293,558,000
                                             Non-Federal: $158,069,000
                                             Total: $451,627,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Page 110, before line 3, insert the following:
       (8) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration.--


[[Page H5984]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
                                Report of
A. State       B.  Name          Chief of        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. LA     Southwest Coastal   Jul. 29, 2016  Federal: $2,011,280,000
           Louisiana                         Non-Federal: $1,082,997,000
                                             Total: $3,094,277,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Page 110, strike line 3 and all that follows through the 
     end of the table following line 4 and insert the following:
       (9) Deauthorizations, modifications, and other projects.--


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               C.  Date of
A. State       B.  Name          Decision        D.  Estimated  Costs
                                 Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX     Upper Trinity       May 21, 2008   Federal: $526,500,000
           River                             Non-Federal: $283,500,000
                                             Total: $810,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY     Green River Locks   Apr. 30, 2015  Federal: $0
           and Dams 3, 4, 5,                 Non-Federal: $0
           6 and Barren                      Total: $0
           River Lock and
           Dam 1 Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS,    Turkey Creek Basin  May 13, 2016   Federal: $97,067,750
 MO                                          Non-Federal: $55,465,250
                                             Total: $152,533,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. KY     Ohio River          May 13, 2016   Federal: $20,309,900
           Shoreline                         Non-Federal: $10,936,100
                                             Total: $31,246,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. MO     Blue River Basin    May 13, 2016   Federal: $34,860,000
                                             Non-Federal: $11,620,000
                                             Total: $46,480,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. FL     Picayune Strand     Jul. 15, 2016  Federal: $308,983,500
                                             Non-Federal: $308,983,500
                                             Total: $617,967,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. MO     Swope Park          Jul. 15, 2016  Federal: $20,205,250
           Industrial Area,                  Non-Federal: $10,879,750
           Blue River                        Total: $31,085,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The manager's amendment that I am offering makes technical and 
conforming changes to the Rules Committee print. Specifically, this 
amendment includes a provision to ensure homeowners can assess their 
property on TVA lakes.
  This amendment includes a provision that ensures the appropriate cost 
share is carried out for the Los Angeles River chief's report we are 
authorizing in this bill specifically at the request of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle.
  It also has a provision to have the Government Accountability Office 
carry out a study to determine what Federal obligations are required 
for tribal property affected by the construction of several dams on the 
Columbia River in Washington and Oregon.
  It requires and expedites revisions to water control manuals in 
States in which drought has occurred in the last year.
  Lastly, this amendment contains three chief's reports and two post-
authorization change reports that have been delivered to Congress since 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up the bill 
in May 2016.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-790.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 29, line 7, strike ``, or that'' and insert ``or gross 
     negligence, or that''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would insert gross negligence as a reason for the 
Secretary of the Army to accept and implement non-Federal funding to 
repair, restore, or replace faulty equipment.
  According to the Cornell Law Dictionary, ``gross negligence'' is 
defined as a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the 
safety or lives of others.
  I believe what happened in Flint, Michigan, is a good example of 
another reason that projects could require additional funding--gross 
negligence, gross negligence by individuals entrusted by the public to 
maintain and uphold the proper functioning of water programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the tragedy that happened in my home State of Michigan, 
in Flint, where thousands of innocent citizens were poisoned by the 
negligence of the people they trusted to supply them with clean water 
shows the importance of this amendment.
  Our primary responsibility as Members of Congress is to advocate for 
the best interest of our constituents. How can we say we are doing that 
when an entire city is suffering from the negligence of public figures 
who made bad decisions?
  Residents and individuals affected by an emergency should not be 
penalized for negligent actions taken by those expected to do what is 
best for them. Moving forward, the careless actions of a few 
individuals should never result in

[[Page H5985]]

the public being endangered as a result of the Federal Government being 
unable to assist.
  This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of the Army could 
quickly and efficiently use resources provided by non-Federal entities 
to assist in the maintenance of a defective project. This amendment 
would ensure just that. Gross negligence should never prevent citizens 
from receiving the funding necessary during their time of need.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Babin

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 114-790.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The 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. __. WORK DEFINED.

       Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152, 
     chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 408), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``It shall not be lawful'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) In General.--It shall not be lawful''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Work Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `work' means 
     engineered structures that serve a particular function.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--In this section, the term `work' 
     includes only structures of like kind with those identified 
     in subsection (a).
       ``(3) Exclusions.--In this section, the term `work' does 
     not include--
       ``(A) the river channel as such, whether or not dredging is 
     necessary to maintain navigational depths;
       ``(B) unimproved real estate; or
       ``(C) a particular feature or structure merely because the 
     feature or structure is present within a Federal project.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to direct the 
Corps of Engineers to focus on the tasks that it can do, and should do, 
when it comes to section 408 reviews.
  The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, enacted in the final days of the 
55th Congress, first established the process we know today as a section 
408 review, which I have here in my hand. The provision was intended to 
protect engineered structures built by the Corps that serve particular 
functions, such as seawalls, dikes, levees, and piers, by requiring the 
Corps of Engineers to authorize any requests for substantial work on 
these and similar assets.
  Over time, however, the Corps has expanded its regulatory authority 
far beyond the scope of that statute. Specifically, the Corps now 
requires a review of any proposal for a physical modification or 
structure that touches a Corps project, even if it has no bearing at 
all on navigation or flood control. This has resulted in an overlay of 
additional administrative procedures, delays, and unnecessary costs.
  In my district, at the Port of Houston, the Corps of Engineers is 
currently requiring users to go through the section 408 process, in 
addition to regulatory and real estate protocols, for access to dredge 
material placement sites. In plain English, this means that, for a 
small business to fill up a dump truck full of muck excavated from the 
bottom of a ship channel and carry it off somewhere else, they have to 
fully comply with the same section 408 review that would affect the 10-
mile-long Galveston Seawall.
  These projects, which have no direct impact on the Corps' structures, 
are undertaken by private users, including many small businesses from 
the area who are investing in their facilities, expanding commerce and 
exports, and providing jobs and economic benefits to our State and the 
Nation.
  The additional time and cost as a result of an unnecessary 408 
process, which is borne entirely by private entities or non-Federal 
partners, delays and increases the cost of these critical projects.
  My amendment reinforces the original intent of the Rivers and Harbors 
Act by focusing the Corps on actual navigation and flood control 
assets, allowing them to devote their full attention and resources to 
important safety evaluations and the expedited review and execution of 
project modification requests.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1775, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed 
critical work, ensuring the safety and reliability of America's ports 
and harbors. My amendment supports their mission and the good work they 
do by focusing their resources and attention where it belongs.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, section 408 authorizes the Secretary of 
the Army to grant permission for the alteration of the Corps project if 
the Secretary determines that the proposed alteration would not harm 
the public interest or impair the usefulness of the project.
  I think it is good that we know that proposed modifications do not 
impair the usefulness of the project or harm the public interest.

                              {time}  1800

  Now, I share some of the concerns the gentleman has raised. The Corps 
is woefully slow in going through these approvals. I have one pending 
in my own district; and, basically, they say there is not enough money 
in our budget, which was discussed rather exhaustively at the beginning 
here.
  We could help the Corps out if we had a real harbor maintenance trust 
fund and if we were using the taxpayers' dollars for the purposes for 
which they were intended, which would take the pressure off of all 
parts of the Corps' budget. The Corps does have authority to accept--
and I would hope the Corps would be listening to this--local 
contributions to speed up, with contractors or others or over time with 
their own employees, 408 projects. They have been loath to use that 
authority. They should use it.
  I am not certain of the implications of this amendment as to whether 
it truly does protect the integrity of some of these critical projects, 
so that causes me concern. I think that this is worthy of attention, 
but in its current form, I am not quite certain of the impact.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good amendment. I support it. This 
amendment sets guidelines for the scope of work under the section 408 
process, which has been misinterpreted by the Corps of Engineers. It 
takes years for this to be approved.
  Mr. DeFazio just stood up and said he hopes the Corps is listening. I 
hope it is listening, too, but too many times they just don't listen to 
us. They don't take the direction that the Congress puts in front of 
them. They stonewall and drag their feet. Mr. Babin's amendment 
clarifies this, and I believe it is a good government reform amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I urge all Members to 
support it.
  Mr. BABIN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The gentleman from Texas 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, for a private business entity 
to get muck off the bottom of a slip or a channel's having to go 
through this, this is what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Babin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-790.

[[Page H5986]]

  

  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, 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. __. AUTHORIZATION OF FEDERALLY MAINTAINED TRIBUTARY 
                   CHANNELS AS PART OF CHANNEL SYSTEM.

       A project that has been assumed for maintenance by the 
     Secretary under any authority granted by Congress shall--
       (1) be treated as a project authorized by Congress; and
       (2) be planned, operated, managed, or modified in a manner 
     consistent with authorized projects.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the great honors I have here in 
Congress is to represent four great ports--Orange, Beaumont, Cedar 
Bayou, and the biggest port in Texas and one of the largest in the 
world: the Port of Houston.
  When America's astronauts who serve in space look out of their 
windows down at Houston, it is probably hard for them to make out their 
home away from home at Johnson Space Center; but what they can't miss 
is the scale and the strategic importance of the Port of Houston, which 
is right down the road from Johnson Space Center.
  The Greater Houston area is the energy production and chemical 
manufacturing capital of the world, and the Port of Houston's ability 
to ship those goods is directly responsible for billions of dollars in 
economic activity and for hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in 
our State and across the country; but like the city of Houston itself, 
not all of the port's important channels, tributaries, and other 
navigation assets that fall under the purview of the Corps of Engineers 
are within the footprint of what was originally authorized by Congress.
  Instead, many of these channels have been assumed for maintenance by 
the Corps of Engineers over the years. Each one has met the 
requirements of being environmentally acceptable, economically 
justified, and constructed in accordance with Federal permits and 
appropriate engineering and design standards.
  This, in itself, is not a bad thing. In many cases, the construction 
or modification of the channels by non-Federal users has reduced the 
overall Federal cost and has provided for national economic benefits 
well before a Federal project could be accomplished. The downside is 
that channels which have been assumed for maintenance are not 
considered authorized projects. Therefore, while those channels are 
just as important as a federally constructed project, a channel which 
has been assumed for maintenance is treated quite differently from an 
authorized project right next to it, which can disrupt the upkeep and 
the operations of both.
  At this point, I will read from a letter that was sent to my office 
by the Port of Houston that describes how this issue came to its 
attention and why the passage of this amendment is so essential not 
only for our region, but for every port in this country.
  ``The Corps had long identified a navigation safety problem at the 
intersection of the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) and Bayport channel (the 
`Bayport Flare') caused by its design and construction of the HSC, and 
promised to properly correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps 
discovered that while it could construct the part of the corrective 
work which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel, it 
could not construct the second part of the solution within the Bayport 
ship channel because the Bayport channel was not considered 
`authorized' by Congress, but only assumed for maintenance after 
construction. . . . The Corps agreed that the Bayport assumption of 
maintenance was conducted in accordance with laws providing authority 
to the Secretary of the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA 
met all design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel 
as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The Bayport Flare 
deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming, whereby the federal 
government was unable to make a necessary navigation safety correction 
resulting from a deficient federal design because it could only fix 
what it has physically constructed--and not within channels it had 
managed and operated for decades.''
  I include in the Record the full content of this letter.


                                    Port of Houston Authority,

                               Houston, Texas, September 23, 2016.
     ATTN: Ben Couhig,
     Subject: Recommended Provision in WRDA 2016

     Congressman Brian Babin,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Couhig: As Congress prepares to address the 
     nation's water resources requirements this year, the Port of 
     Houston Authority informed Congressman Babin of the inability 
     of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consistently and 
     adequately work to construct and manage federal navigation 
     channels, in part because authorities to do so and supporting 
     policies are limited. As a result, the Port Authority offered 
     the following recommendation:

 Authorization of Federally Maintained Tributary Channels as Part of a 
                             Channel System

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Projects which have been assumed for maintenance by the 
     Secretary of the Army under any authority granted by Congress 
     shall be considered projects authorized by Congress, and 
     shall be planned, operated, managed, or modified in a manner 
     consistent with authorized projects.''
       The need for this language became very clear to the Port 
     Authority as we constructed modification of the Bayport Ship 
     Channel. The Corps had long identified a navigation safety 
     problem at the intersection of the Houston Ship channel (HSC) 
     and Bayport channel (the ``Bayport Flare'') caused by its 
     design and construction of the HSC, and promised to properly 
     correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps discovered 
     that while it could construct the part of the corrective work 
     which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel, 
     it could not construct the second part of the solution within 
     the Bayport ship channel because the Bayport channel was not 
     considered ``authorized'' by Congress, but only assumed for 
     maintenance after construction by PHA. The Corps agreed that 
     the Bayport assumption of maintenance was conducted in 
     accordance with laws providing authority to the Secretary of 
     the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA met all 
     design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel 
     as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The 
     Bayport Flare deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming, 
     whereby the federal government was unable to make a necessary 
     navigation safety correction resulting from a deficient 
     federal design because it could only fix what it has 
     physically constructed--and not within channels it had 
     managed and operated for decades.
       The Houston Ship Channel system includes four tributary 
     channels: Bayport, Barbours Cut, Jacintoport, and Greens 
     Bayou, all of which were constructed by or operated by the 
     Port Authority prior to federal assumption of maintenance. 
     Should a navigation safety problem occur on any of these 
     channels for any reason, the federal government would be 
     unable to restore safe navigation without Congressional 
     action--which might not be possible under current rules.
       In summary, the Corps of Engineers needs the authority to 
     provide for safe navigation for all of its channels; this 
     recommended provision provides for that authority.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Vincent.

  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides a solution by putting 
channels which have been assumed for maintenance on equal footing with 
those that have been authorized, thus eliminating the distinction 
without a difference that currently exists to streamline the process 
and prevent these unnecessary, bureaucratic hang-ups from delaying 
critical safety and navigation work where it is needed the most.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are 1,100 harbors that this would 
apply to across the United States. We have already discussed at great 
length the fact that the Corps has a $2.4 billion backlog of O&M under 
existing authority and, after today, a $74 billion backlog of 
authorized but unconstructed projects.
  I understand the gentleman's concerns, and he is being a great 
advocate for his home port; but I would direct a question to the 
gentleman if, perhaps, he can answer it: With 1,100 ports in America, 
how many other ports are in

[[Page H5987]]

a similar situation? And what would the cost be to the Corps, which 
already has a $2.5 billion backlog in O&M?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that specifically, but I do 
know that, even when there is funding available, they are still unable 
to solve a problem that could be a serious safety deficiency.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's concern. If I could, I would direct another question to the 
gentleman.
  Earlier the gentleman might have heard discussion about our 
collecting an ad valorem tax on the value of imported goods, which is 
about $1.6 billion a year; yet we are only spending somewhere between 
$1 billion and $1.1 billion a year. There is a theoretical balance in 
the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund of $9.8 billion, which 
would go a long way to resolving lots of these problems across the 
country.
  Does the gentleman support the idea of creating a real trust fund and 
actually spending the taxes that are collected for harbor maintenance 
on harbor maintenance and not having them be frittered away somewhere 
else in the government?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. In the right way, I certainly 
would support that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment that allows channels assumed 
for maintenance to be considered equally as authorized projects. Of 
course, we are dealing specifically with the Port of Houston on this; 
so I would encourage all Members from the Houston area on both sides of 
the aisle to support this amendment, which will improve the bill. 
Supporting this amendment is important.
  Also, to those Members from the Houston area on both sides of the 
aisle, this is something that is going to be good for their port, and 
the underlying bill is going to be good for their port in the long run.
  I think it is a fairness amendment, and I thank the gentleman for 
offering it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BABIN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Black

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, 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. __. DAM SAFETY REPAIR PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall issue guidance--
       (1) on the types of circumstances under which the 
     requirement in section 1203(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n(a)) relating to 
     state-of-the-art design or construction criteria deemed 
     necessary for safety purposes applies to a dam safety repair 
     project;
       (2) to assist district offices of the Corps of Engineers in 
     communicating with non-Federal interests when entering into 
     and implementing cost-sharing agreements for dam safety 
     repair projects; and
       (3) to assist the Corps of Engineers in communicating with 
     non-Federal interests concerning the estimated and final 
     cost-share responsibilities of the non-Federal interests 
     under agreements for dam safety repair projects.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
improve cost sharing for dam safety repairs and will promote 
transparency at the Army Corps of Engineers. To start, let me tell you 
about how this issue has impacted my district.
  Recently, the Corps of Engineers executed a dam repair project in 
Tennessee's Center Hill Lake. That is all well and good, as we like to 
keep our dams and our waterways up to code; but the problems came when 
the Corps failed to communicate to localities in my district as to how 
the dam repair project would be classified and, therefore, what their 
financial responsibilities would be.
  Federal statute says that the Army Corps of Engineers can designate 
dam projects as being in one of two categories: ``safety assurance'' or 
``major rehabilitation.'' If the project is classified as a safety 
assurance, the costs to the utility providers, townships, and other 
stakeholders may be minimal; but if the project is classified as a 
major rehabilitation, you could have a scenario like what occurred in 
my district, in which the town of Cookeville, Tennessee, is now on the 
hook for a $1.5 million repair bill that they had not budgeted for 
because they had never been told to do so.
  You know how this story ends, Mr. Chairman. The city has to pass 
along those costs to someone. So my constituents in Cookeville could be 
paying higher water bills for the foreseeable future all because the 
Corps of Engineers wouldn't be up front with them about what they would 
owe.
  This story is not unique. A December 2015 GAO report studied nine 
different dam projects nationwide and found that, across the board, the 
Corps did very little to communicate to local communities what their 
cost-sharing responsibilities would be. The report further found that, 
in some instances, the Corps had failed to apply a provision known as 
the state-of-the-art provision that reduces the sponsors' share of the 
costs in these projects. That means, Mr. Chairman, that communities 
like Cookeville, in my district, may have been on the hook for bills 
they never would have needed to have paid if only the Corps had been 
transparent and had followed the rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I may not be able to get Cookeville or the other 
communities that are cited in the GAO report their money back, but I 
can make sure that this never happens again. That is really what my 
amendment seeks to do. In short, this amendment directs the Army Corps 
of Engineers' district offices to effectively communicate with the 
sponsors and to implement cost-sharing agreements during dam safety 
repair projects, not afterwards. It will ensure that these arrangements 
are shared with all stakeholders so that in others' towns and in my 
town they aren't left holding the bag.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because it does 
seem that this amendment and the others that are being offered 
underscore a problem that I didn't think we were going to have with the 
reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We have spent 
quite a bit of time in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
under the leadership of the chairman trying to come to some common 
understanding and bipartisan agreement about this. Unfortunately, that 
is not where we are today.
  In my view, water transportation and infrastructure has always been a 
bipartisan priority in the country. I agree with the comments of some 
of my colleagues that moving forward with a bipartisan bill is vital to 
the public health, the safety, and the economic welfare of our 
communities and this Nation.
  I have the distinct honor of being able to represent Maryland in 
Congress. I know how important this bill is to our State since we have 
such a long coastline, the Chesapeake Bay; and several of its 
tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Severn River, and the

[[Page H5988]]

Potomac, all flow through the Fourth Congressional District, all 
requiring support under the Water Resources Development Act. These 
resources provide billions of dollars of economic activity for our 
State. Maintaining and modernizing Maryland's waterways and its ports, 
including the Port of Baltimore, is essential.
  Unfortunately, we reported a bill out of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in May that focused on such authorization and 
on Corps compliance with the new project selection process that was 
created in the 2014 law. Under that law, as well, we would have been 
able to allow the Corps, beginning in 2027, to use the funds collected 
in the harbor maintenance trust fund for eligible harbor dredging and 
other activities, removing those expenditures from the annual 
appropriations process.
  Very sadly--and as we heard today here on the floor--by dropping the 
trust fund language, Republicans have effectively undermined the 
measure by removing a key provision that originally created bipartisan 
support for the bill. This is really a sad moment, indeed, because now, 
yet again, money that should be used for our harbors and our ports is 
being used in a trust fund as a piggy bank for completely unrelated 
spending. These kinds of spending restrictions have created a large 
surplus in the trust fund, even as critical harbor dredging needs go 
unmet.
  I rise today in opposition to the bill, unfortunately. It is a bill I 
thought I would actually be able to come to the floor and support with 
the chairman's leadership.
  Unfortunately, we are also not able to include in our House bill aid 
for the Flint water crisis: $100 million to repair and replace the 
city's drinking water infrastructure, $20 million in loan forgiveness 
for prior Flint city loans taken out to build its water infrastructure, 
and $50 million for various public health activities. That is what the 
Senate did. It is what we could have done, and it is unfortunate that 
we could not do this here today.
  I hope that before we leave out of this Congress in the lameduck 
session, which we anticipate later after the election, that we are 
going to be able to find a resolution to these problems that indeed 
cross the aisle.
  Again, as I said, I am not in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment, but I think that it is really important for us to understand 
and underscore that where we should be here is with the bipartisan bill 
that we agreed to in May in our committee. It is really unfortunate 
that we find ourselves once again lining up in partisan lines and not 
able to support a harbor maintenance trust fund for the use of the 
money for which it was intended, and that is to maintain and upgrade 
our Nation's ports and harbors.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
important amendment to the floor. It does several things. The first 
thing it does is it directs the Corps of Engineers, as the gentlewoman 
pointed out, to just communicate, to give direction to the folks that 
are involved in these projects.
  We keep spinning our wheels in these projects. We are spending more 
money than we have to, and this highlights a problem that we face with 
the Corps.
  Again, this amendment establishes and implements cost-sharing 
agreements during the dam safety repair projects. Of course, it makes 
all parties involved communicate so we can get these projects moving 
forward, so I think it is a good governance amendment.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear what this 
amendment does. I do want to say that we have worked with the Corps of 
Engineers, which helped us to draft this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Blum

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. BLUM. 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. __. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF AUTHORIZED PROJECT FOR FLOOD 
                   RISK MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the project 
     for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 
     authorized by item 3 of the table in section 7002(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 
     128 Stat. 1366).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Blum) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking on the floor of the U.S. 
House is remarkable timing. The city of Cedar Rapids, the largest city 
in my district, is currently experiencing major flooding of the Cedar 
River, cresting 11 feet above flood stage today.
  In 2008, just 8 short years ago, the same river crested at over 19 
feet above flood stage. Yes, you heard that correctly, 19 feet above 
flood stage.
  I was in Cedar Rapids this weekend sandbagging alongside volunteers 
to prepare for this disaster and saw firsthand the amazing response 
from the community as thousands of eastern Iowans came together to 
protect their city. I want to thank Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and 
his team for their tireless work to prepare the city for the flooding, 
as well as the administration of Governor Branstad for their 
assistance.
  Today's flooding further underscores the need for the administration 
to include the Cedar Rapids flood project in their budget. This project 
was approved by Congress in the 2014 WRRDA bill, and my amendment today 
calls on the administration to expedite this project. Cedar Rapids has 
spent untold millions of dollars on this disaster--money spent on a 
short-term solution--while the city waits for the administration to 
release the approved funding for the long-term fix.
  Since taking office in 2014, I have worked hard to get the authorized 
funding released, joining my colleague from Iowa, Representative 
Loebsack, in reaching out to the Army Corps of Engineers, the House 
Appropriations Committee, President Obama, and his Office of Management 
and Budget, stressing the importance of this project.
  The bottom line is: How many more Cedar Rapids floods will it take 
before the administration includes this project in their budget? How 
many times will families have to evacuate their homes? How many times 
will businesses have to cease their operations? How many times will 
employees be negatively impacted by the flooding? How many times must 
this happen before the administration includes this project in their 
budget?
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the entire Iowa delegation for their support on 
this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment and make it clear, once again, that Congress believes the 
Cedar Rapids flood project should receive the funding that was approved 
in 2014.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
bringing this good, bipartisan amendment to the floor. I have seen the 
pictures on TV of what is happening out there in Cedar Rapids, and our 
thoughts and prayers are with that community out there tonight as they 
fight that challenge.
  Again, this amendment, as the gentleman explained, expedites the 
Cedar River project. I think this infrastructure project getting done 
quicker is

[[Page H5989]]

important. I have always supported getting these things done faster 
because I believe time is money. The longer these things go, the more 
expensive they get. This amendment goes a long way into making sure 
that this project is pushed out there faster and it gets done. So I 
appreciate my colleague from Iowa for bringing this. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bost

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. BOST. 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. 1__. REVIEW OF BENEFITS.

       When reviewing requests for repair or restoration of a 
     flood risk management project under the authority of section 
     5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941, (33 U.S.C. 
     701n(a)(1)), the Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to 
     consider all benefits to the public that may accrue from the 
     proposed rehabilitation work, including, flood risk 
     management, navigation, recreation, and ecosystem 
     restoration.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster for helping with the 
effort on this amendment.
  The purpose of my amendment is simple. I believe that the Army Corps 
of Engineers should consider all potential economic benefits of 
repairing levees following a flood disaster. Right now, the Corps may 
only consider flood prevention when allocating rehabilitation 
assistance of levees. This makes no sense.
  The Corps manages inland waterways for a multitude of purposes. In 
many cases, Federal and non-Federal levees work together in an 
integrated system. How can we ignore the benefits of repairing a levee 
when doing so would improve navigation and other Corps responsibilities 
along with it?
  The repair of the Len Small Levee in Alexander County, Illinois, is 
just one example of our failing to see the forest for the trees. The 
levee was breached in last winter's floods. Millions have been spent on 
riprap to maintain navigation on the river. Even more money will be 
needed to maintain navigation if further flood damage occurs. Despite 
that fact, the Corps has ignored the navigation benefits and costs of 
making interim repairs.
  My amendment helps address this issue, but further reforms to the 
Corps levee repair program must be made. I hope to work with the 
chairman and ranking member to address these issues with the programs 
in future legislation.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this piece of legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 8 will not 
be offered.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Dold

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. DOLD. 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. 1__. FEDERAL COST LIMITATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 
                   COSTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       Section 506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) A project carried out pursuant to this subsection may 
     include compatible recreation features as determined by the 
     Secretary, except that the Federal cost of such features may 
     not exceed 10 percent of the ecosystem restoration costs of 
     the project.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Dold) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 5303.
  Imagine for a moment, Mr. Chairman, spending millions of dollars on 
wetlands restoration without allowing people to visit these areas. 
Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are asking the Army Corps of 
Engineers to do with projects that are funded by the Great Lakes 
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program, or GLFER.
  GLFER is a program for improving aquatic habitats and the Great Lakes 
watershed. Through a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and State and local government, 
funds are made available for restoring wetlands and preservation of 
coastal habitat along the Great Lakes shorelines.
  Individual projects require a non-Federal partner--like a State, 
local government, or nonprofit--to contribute at least 35 percent of 
the project costs to operate and maintain the completed project.
  In my district, GLFER funds have been used to restore wetlands along 
the Lake Michigan shoreline at Fort Sheridan, and nearby they have been 
used to restore wetlands on Northerly Island right in the heart of 
downtown Chicago.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about ensuring parity. Every other wetland 
restoration program within the Army Corps of Engineers is allowed to 
use up to 10 percent of the funds for any project for compatible 
recreation features. GLFER-funded projects are unique in that the Army 
Corps is not allowed to use funds for that purpose. My amendment would 
simply change that policy.

                              {time}  1830

  Very simply, my amendment will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to 
use GLFER funds, not to exceed 10 percent of the total project amount, 
to build complimentary recreation features like walking trails, bike 
paths, fishing stations, picnic shelters, and benches.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district along Lake Michigan, one of the 
greatest natural resources our Nation possesses. My amendment would 
expand outdoor recreation opportunities and give families access to 
enjoy these restored wetland areas. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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. __. NON-FEDERAL INTEREST SELECTION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in carrying out an authorized and 
     funded water resources development project, the Secretary 
     shall solicit and accept bids from non-Federal interests. If 
     a non-Federal interest can demonstrate greater cost 
     effectiveness and project delivery efficiency than the Corps 
     of Engineers for such project, the Secretary shall transfer 
     the funds to the non-Federal interest for project completion.
       (b) Savings.--Funds saved in project delivery by a non-
     Federal interest under subsection (a) shall be used as 
     follows:
       (1) 20 percent for deficit reduction.
       (2) 80 percent for other projects of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member was talking 
earlier about this extraordinary backlog of projects that we have 
within the United States Army Corps of Engineers to carry out important 
projects like flood protection, hurricane protection, and ecological 
restoration.

[[Page H5990]]

  We do, in fact, have a backlog that goes on for years and years. In 
fact, as I mentioned earlier, it takes us, in many cases, over 40 years 
to take a project from development through the construction phase. 
These are critical projects that, in many cases, save people's lives.
  Just recently in the State of Louisiana, we had an extraordinary 
flood event. Thirteen people lost their lives as a result of that 
event, yet there was a project, the Comite project, that could have 
tempered flooding in many of these areas. What our amendment does is it 
simply allows for non-Federal sponsors to bid to carry out the 
construction or other aspects of projects. It is a way to save money to 
expedite delivery.
  In my previous job, Mr. Chairman, I actually was the non-Federal 
sponsor for billions of dollars in projects with the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers. There were a number of examples where we were able 
to build the entire project for the one-third, or approximately one-
third, cost-share estimate that the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers estimated the project was to cost, and we were able to do it 
in a fraction of the time.
  What this does, it allows for the non-Federal sponsor to carry out 
the project. It returns 20 percent of the cost savings back to the 
United States Treasury for deficit reduction, and it takes 80 percent 
of the cost savings and reinvests it back into priority Corps of 
Engineers' projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author, it seems 
to me that if we are going to transfer responsibility for carrying out 
projects from the Corps of Engineers--these would be, again, taxpayer 
dollars--would these projects be covered by the provisions of Davis-
Bacon?
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. Right now, as the 
provision is written, as you know, it is silent on that issue, and so 
it doesn't address the Davis-Bacon issue, as I am aware the Corps of 
Engineers would be complying with.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, well then, you know, given that, I 
mean, we have had myriad debates on the floor of the House and in the 
committee over the years from those who come in and say: gee, we can do 
it a lot cheaper if we pay minimum wage; we can do it a lot cheaper if 
we bring in illegal immigrants; you know, on and on and on.
  Sure, you can do things more cheaply, but the idea and the bedrock of 
Davis-Bacon is we pay skilled workers a living wage that is the 
prevailing wage in the local area. The committee has never passed an 
amendment gutting Davis-Bacon, despite many attempts on the committee. 
I feel that this would, unfortunately--the way the gentleman has just 
phrased it, says it is silent on the issue--undermine Davis-Bacon, and, 
therefore, I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go back and say 
what I said before. In previous projects that I have worked with in the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers, we have been able to save 
Federal taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, cumulatively hundreds of 
millions of dollars by carrying out the projects through the non-
Federal sponsor, allowing for county governments, parish governments, 
State governments, levee districts, water boards, and others to carry 
out projects.
  If we are able to demonstrate greater efficiency and taxpayer cost 
savings, why would we not allow for that mechanism to carry out these 
projects? It expedites delivery of projects. These are critical 
projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, in the State of Louisiana, in the 
flood we just had last month, we had 13 people die because of a project 
that has been in the Corps of Engineers process for 30 years; 30 years, 
Mr. Chairman.
  I really wonder what someone who would oppose this amendment would 
tell the families of those people who died as a result of the Corps' 
inaction. This is absolutely inappropriate. We have a way to save 
taxpayer dollars, to reduce the deficit, and to free up more resources 
for high-priority Corps of Engineers projects and make our communities 
and our ecosystem more resilient.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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. ___. LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS.

       (1) In general.--Permission for alterations by a non-
     Federal interest to a Federal levee, floodwall, or flood risk 
     management channel project and associated features may be 
     granted by a District Engineer of the Department of the Army 
     or an authorized representative.
       (2) Timely approval of permits.--On the date that is 120 
     days after the date on which the Secretary receives an 
     application for a permit pursuant to section 14 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the ``Rivers and Harbors 
     Appropriation Act of 1899'') (33 U.S.C. 408), the application 
     shall be approved if--
       (A) the Secretary has not made a determination on the 
     approval or disapproval of the application; and
       (B) the plans detailed in the application were prepared and 
     certified by a professional engineer licensed by the State in 
     which the project is located.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it 
simply puts a cap on the amount of time that the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers can consider permission under section 408. This 
process has to do with alteration, any changes, or impacts that could 
occur to a Corps of Engineers project.
  I want to be clear, this doesn't expand the Corps of Engineers' 
authority in any way. All this does is it simply puts a cap, a time 
certain. Here is the reason why, Mr. Chairman. In the State of 
Louisiana, we have lost 1,900 square miles of our coast, 1,900 square 
miles of wetlands, some of the most ecologically productive areas on 
the North American continent. We have lost that.
  Part of the remedial efforts that Congress has authorized and we have 
been waiting decades for the United States Corps of Engineers to act 
upon are projects to reconnect the river system with the adjacent 
estuary. That is how south Louisiana was built. It is a product of the 
Mississippi River. It is a deltaic plain.
  These projects are strongly supported by the environmental community 
and others, yet the Corps of Engineers has said that it is going to 
take them years to consider this impact or not on the levee system. So 
we are going to sit here and wait years for more wetlands to erode, and 
for more of our environment and more of our ecological productivity to 
degrade. This puts a time certain. It gives 120 days for the Corps of 
Engineers to make a decision on whether or not there are impacts to the 
project. It allows us to move forward in a time certain.
  Mr. Chairman, a quick story. When I was working on these projects for 
the State, the Corps of Engineers came to us on the first one we 
submitted, and

[[Page H5991]]

they said: It is going to take us approximately 3 years to come back 
and give you an answer on that. Three years, Mr. Chairman, that we are 
waiting to, again, carry out projects to restore the environment. But 
they said: However, if you give us--and I think the number was $1.5 
million, we will reduce that time to closer to 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, in the private sector, that is called a bribe. In the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers, I guess it is the status quo. It 
is absolutely inappropriate. We have got to have time certain. They 
shouldn't be able to extort dollars out of project sponsors just to 
carry out projects to restore the environment and mitigate impacts 
caused by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. This is consistent 
with things we have done in the past in terms of giving a time certain 
for consideration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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. ___. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall expedite carrying out the projects 
     listed under paragraphs (29) through (33) of section 212(e) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 
     2332(e)) and is authorized to proceed to construction on such 
     any such project if the Chief of Engineers determines the 
     project is feasible.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, beginning around August 11, we 
had a 1,000-year flood event. This flood event was approximately 7 
trillion gallons of water. It dropped 31 inches of rain in some of the 
peak areas that is the national average annual rainfall. We received it 
in about 36 hours in some of the peak areas. Again, to translate this 
for my Yankee friends, if this were snow, this would have been about 25 
feet of snow. So, really, just an extraordinary event.
  Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that there were projects that date 
back to the 1970s and the 1980s that provided for flood protection for 
this region. We had 13 people who died. We have over 100,000 homes that 
were flooded. Areas like the Comite Basin and the Amite Basin are 
priority areas. I want to say it again. These are areas that have 
projects that have been authorized by Congress previously in the 1970s, 
the 1980s, and I believe even the 1990s, yet projects that have been 
moving at a snail's pace. So what this amendment does is it simply 
expedites the delivery of these projects.
  Mr. Chairman, this is critical. Let me explain why. Right now, you 
have communities like Denham Springs where FEMA just came out and 
determined that 45 percent of the homes in that town are significantly 
flooded with significant damage. What that means is that they are going 
to have to now comply with the updated base flood elevations and, in 
some cases, lift the slabs of their homes, which may be $100,000 or 
more per home, per business, just to now come into compliance with the 
new base flood elevations to be able to rebuild their homes.
  This is on top of the perhaps $80,000 they are going to have to spend 
rebuilding their home, $40,000 they are going to have to spend 
replacing their vehicles, and perhaps $50,000 replacing their clothes 
and other contents of their homes. It makes it absolutely unaffordable.
  We have got to provide certainty. By expediting projects that were 
previously authorized, Mr. Chairman, we can eliminate the need for many 
of these homeowners to have to elevate their homes, and provide 
financial certainty and a path forward for these folks to actually be 
able to get back in their homes and recover our communities from what 
is believed to be the fourth most expensive flood disaster in United 
States history.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to raise a 
question.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman--he has stated 
they are authorized. On this side, there is some confusion. Have these 
gone through a study and then the chief has submitted a report to us? 
Is that what we are doing is ratifying a Chief's Report, which is the 
process to be followed in this bill so as not to have earmarks? Or are 
these at an earlier stage, where they haven't had a Chief's Report, 
and, therefore, we are now about to authorize projects that are 
specific without following the procedures that everyone else has had to 
go through?
  I understand what has happened is a tragedy there, but there are 
other places where there have been floods and other people might want 
to say: Well, gee, we don't have a report yet either, but we want to 
authorize something right now.
  Can the gentleman tell me, do we have the Chief's Report, or is what 
has been authorized just a study which isn't yet completed?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I will answer that. We believe the projects are already 
authorized. Back in 2007, in 33 United States Code section 2332(i)(2), 
it states there that ``all studies and projects carried out under this 
section from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be fully funded 
within the program funding levels provided in this subsection.''
  We believe that these are one of the projects cited in that. We 
believe these have been authorized.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman is saying 
that this is consistent with all of the other projects in this bill, 
except perhaps the earmark project for Texas, which was earmarked in an 
appropriations bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, yes, we believe it is. Prior to 2007, these 
projects were authorized. So, under that law, these things are 
authorized. They are not earmarked.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up 
on the chairman of the committee's comments.
  The 2007 cite that Chairman Shuster referenced goes back to actually 
a WRDA 1999 provision. I believe it is section 212 of WRDA 1999 that 
actually provides the study and project implementation authorization. 
The 2007 language that was cited amends the 1999 language. So these 
projects were previously addressed by Congress.
  I want to say it again, Mr. Chairman. We have a backwards policy in 
regard to Federal disasters where we come in and spend billions of 
dollars after a disaster instead of spending millions of dollars 
before, making our communities more resilient.
  I am going to say it again. Thirteen people died here. We have 
incredible financial uncertainty and folks' inability to get back in 
their homes because they may be faced with a $100,000 or more cost to 
elevate these slabs to come into compliance with the new base flood 
elevation. By expediting these projects, we can eliminate that 
financial uncertainty and we can get people back in their homes and 
restore our community as quickly as possible.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Long

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 114-790.

[[Page H5992]]

  

  Mr. LONG. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TABLE ROCK LAKE, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary--
       (1) shall include a 60-day public comment period for a 
     Table Rock Lake Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline 
     Management Plan revision; and
       (2) shall not finalize a revision for the Table Rock Lake 
     Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline Management Plan 
     during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Shoreline Use Permits.--During the period described in 
     subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall lift or suspend the 
     moratorium on the issuance of new, and modifications to 
     existing, shoreline use permits based on the existing Table 
     Rock Lake Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline 
     Management Plan.
       (c) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) carry out a study on the need to revise permit fees 
     relating to Table Rock Lake to better reflect the cost of 
     issuing those fees and achieve cost savings; and
       (B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Requirement.--The Secretary shall complete the study 
     under paragraph (1)(A) before adopting any revision to the 
     Table Rock Lake Shoreline Management Plan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Long) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, Table Rock Lake, near Branson, Missouri, is 
one of the premier destinations in the Ozarks, especially for my 
constituents in the Seventh Congressional District.
  The Army Corps of Engineers is currently undertaking a revision of 
the lake's Shoreline Management Plan and has in place a moratorium on 
dock permits to halt development around the lake.
  What this means is, if you purchased a home or land in this area with 
the hopes of putting in a dock, you can no longer do so. If you already 
have a dock and it needs to be updated, you can't even update it.
  I have met with the Corps and the lake community throughout this 
process, and the overwhelming consensus from my constituents is that 
their voices are not being heard on this issue that will have far-
reaching effects for those living on the lake and for its economy.
  My amendment would extend the public comment period to ensure that 
those directly impacted by the shoreline plan will have a say in it. My 
amendment also lifts the moratorium on dock permits and extends the 
timeframe of the final plan to ensure that the Corps has enough time to 
incorporate the community's concerns into its updated plan.
  I am proud to work with Senator Blunt and Chairman Shuster on this 
commonsense issue. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 114-790.


                  Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Mica

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. MICA. 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. 1__. ADJUSTMENT TO COST BENEFIT RATIO.

       For any navigation project carried out by the Army Corps of 
     Engineers with non-Federal funds, the Secretary may, after 
     completion of any portion of the authorized project, adjust 
     the authorized benefit cost ratio.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a simple amendment. It does make an adjustment to the 
benefit-cost ratio for any navigation project carried out by the Army 
Corps of Engineers with non-Federal funds.
  This gives the Secretary, after the completion of any portion of the 
authorized projects, the ability to adjust the authorized project's 
benefit-cost ratio.
  Unfortunately, we have some projects with elongated channel 
configurations, where the terminals are located at the end of the line, 
and they are significantly disadvantaged when competing for Federal 
funding because the cost of these projects has escalated, lowering the 
benefit-cost ratio to below the threshold required by OMB for budgetary 
purposes.
  This amendment would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary 
to revise the benefit-cost ratio after completion of portions of the 
projects with non-Federal funds. Remaining portions of the project 
could be eligible to compete for Federal funding based on a revised 
benefit-cost ratio.
  This amendment does not guarantee any Federal funding to any project, 
but is simply a path forward to enable projects to be in a position to 
fairly compete for Federal funding.
  The authority could be applicable to any authorized navigation 
project which is placed at a competitive disadvantage due to the 
configurations, again, of the shipping channel.
  The amendment builds upon the reforms that we were able to put in the 
WRRDA bill of 2014, which streamlines some of the Corps' processes. It 
also provides flexibility to adapt to local initiatives and maximizes 
the ability of non-Federal interests to more fully participate in 
project development and ultimately reduce Federal costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I understand the 
gentleman's frustrations, and on its surface, it is a great idea. The 
problem is, unless things are reformed at the Office of Management and 
Budget, the trolls under the bridge with the green eye shades who have 
way too much clout here in Washington, D.C., and are invisible, this 
will empower them further, potentially. They rank projects according to 
cost effectiveness.
  So you can essentially move your project up if you can afford to put 
more money in it and it will jump ahead of other projects which were 
higher-ranked, cost-effective projects, but OMB is going to choose the 
one at the top, which will empower communities that can afford to 
contribute more and perhaps perpetually push communities that can't 
afford to contribute more than their regular share to the bottom of the 
heap, never to be funded.
  Of course, I already talked about the backlog of now $74 billion of 
authorized unfunded projects while we still misspend the trust fund 
moneys on other parts of the government. That, of course, was subject 
to earlier debate where the Republicans stripped that out of the bill, 
which would have helped deal with some of these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I think it will save money and actually 
benefit projects that start with non-Federal dollars and can be a great 
advantage to some of those ports and other waterways that are at a 
disadvantage because of the distance of the project.
  So I ask support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Mica

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I offer 
as the designee of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H5993]]


  

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. ___. LAND TRANSFER AND TRUST LAND FOR THE MUSCOGEE 
                   (CREEK) NATION.

       (a) Transfer.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and for the 
     consideration described in subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the land 
     described in subsection (b) to be held in trust for the 
     benefit of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
       (2) Conditions.--The land transfer under this subsection 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (A) The transfer--
       (i) shall not interfere with the Corps of Engineers 
     operation of the Eufaula Lake Project or any other authorized 
     civil works projects; and
       (ii) shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as 
     the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to 
     ensure the continued operation of the Eufaula Lake Project or 
     any other authorized civil works project.
       (B) The Secretary shall retain the right to inundate with 
     water the land transferred to the Secretary of the Interior 
     under this subsection, as necessary to carry out an 
     authorized purpose of the Eufaula Lake Project or any other 
     civil works project.
       (C) No gaming activities may be conducted on the land 
     transferred under this subsection.
       (b) Land Description.--
       (1) In general.--The land to be transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (a) is the approximately 18.38 acres of land 
     located in the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of sec. 3, T. 10 
     N., R. 16 E., McIntosh County, Oklahoma, generally depicted 
     as ``USACE'' on the map entitled ``Muscogee (Creek) Nation 
     Proposed Land Acquisition'' and dated October 16, 2014.
       (2) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     land to be transferred under subsection (a) shall be 
     determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (c) Consideration.--The Muscogee (Creek) Nation shall pay--
       (1) to the Secretary an amount that is equal to the fair 
     market value of the land transferred under subsection (a), as 
     determined by the Secretary, which funds may be accepted and 
     expended by the Secretary; and
       (2) all costs and administrative expenses associated with 
     the transfer of land under subsection (a), including the 
     costs of--
       (A) the survey under subsection (b)(2);
       (B) compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (C) any coordination necessary with respect to requirements 
     related to endangered species, cultural resources, clean 
     water, and clean air.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues for support 
of this noncontroversial amendment.
  This amendment would facilitate simply a land transfer from the Army 
Corps of Engineers to the Department of the Interior to hold in trust 
for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The language is supported by the 
Corps, the State of Oklahoma, and by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. It 
was included in the Senate-passed WRDA bill, which passed 
overwhelmingly in bipartisan fashion.
  It received a zero budget impact from CBO. The Muskogee (Creek) 
Nation will be paying fair market value to the Corps for land.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 will 
not be offered.


               Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. 1__. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

       Section 3149(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2020'' and inserting ``2025''; and
       (2) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2016''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with a local, unique issue 
involving privately owned cabins on privately owned land near Lake Kemp 
in Texas.
  When reconstructing the dam in the late 1960s, the city of Wichita 
Falls entered into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers that the 
city would require all of these privately owned cabins owners below a 
certain elevation to be removed by January 1, 2000, because there was 
concern it could potentially flood. But 50 years later, there has never 
been a flood, and there never will be a flood, because the lake has 
been full several times.
  The 2007 WRDA bill prevented the Corps from requiring the city to 
evict the landowners until at least 2020, and, at the same time, the 
U.S. and the Corps were released from any liability. This amendment 
would simply extend that time period for an additional 5 years.
  The amendment also preserves the full property rights for the 
landowners. You have got some of these cabin owners who have been there 
for years, and the city does not have the desire or the funds to force 
them off the land.
  So the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this is a local situation. This 
amendment gives local folks an added opportunity to solve their issues. 
I hope Members will support it as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1900


             Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, 
                   TEXAS.

       In carrying out the comprehensive planning authorized by 
     section 4091 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1187), the Secretary shall 
     consider studies, data, and information developed by the Gulf 
     Coast Community Protection and Recovery District to expedite 
     completion of the plan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Weber) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a very important 
amendment to the State of Texas. This amendment is noncontroversial and 
mirrors language by Senator Cornyn in the Senate's version of WRDA.
  Thanks to Chairman Shuster for making our ports and waterways a 
critical national priority and for bringing this important legislation 
to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require the Army Corps of 
Engineers to take into account the existing data, studies, and 
information developed by the Gulf Coast Community Protection and 
Recovery District when conducting the Coastal Texas Protection and 
Restoration Study authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007.
  The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Restoration District, or 
GCCPRD, was formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike by six Texas 
counties encompassing Houston and Southeast Texas. The counties were 
Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Chambers, Jefferson, and Orange.
  Hurricane Ike struck this region in 2008, caused $37.5 billion in 
damage nationwide, making it the third costliest hurricane in United 
States history. The storm caused over 100 fatalities, washed away 
homes, flooded communities, and shut down much of the Nation's and 
region's energy production.
  The effects of another major hurricane on the Houston region and our 
Nation would be devastating. Over 6 million people call this area home, 
and

[[Page H5994]]

many work in critical economic sectors like health care and energy 
refining. The impact would be felt in every congressional district 
across the country.
  For example, according to reports published immediately after 
Hurricane Ike made landfall, gas prices spiked between 30 and 60 cents 
per gallon across many States due to the disruption in energy 
production in the Houston region.
  In 2013, the Texas General Land Office entered into an agreement with 
GCCPRD to conduct a three-phase Storm Surge Suppression Study. The 
phase three report was released this past June.
  In addition to this study, the GLO and the Army Corps of Engineers 
are moving forward in partnership on the Coastal Texas Protection and 
Restoration Study. Once completed, this study will make the case for 
coastal infrastructure projects that would qualify for Federal dollars 
and would protect our vulnerable coastal communities in a major part of 
this Nation's energy production. The study received funding in the 
President's fiscal year 2017 budget, but the current timeline for 
completion of this study is over 5 years. Mr. Chairman, it has been 8 
years since Hurricane Ike, and this time line is unacceptable.
  So, Mr. Chairman, protecting the Texas coast from dangerous storms is 
a critical Federal interest and a national priority. This amendment 
would simply require the Army Corps to tap into an existing pool of 
data and information developed by Texans in an effort to shorten the 
completion timeline of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Study.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. 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. __. CORPS LEVEES THAT AFFECT COMMUNITY-OWNED LEVEES.

       Where Federally owned and operated levees increase flood 
     risk and compromise the accreditation of community-owned 
     local flood protection systems, it shall be the policy of the 
     Corps of Engineers to act expeditiously with actions required 
     to authorize, fund, identify, and implement improvements to 
     reduce and negate negative impacts to community-owned flood 
     protection system accreditation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Shuster, and 
members of the staff for working so hard on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address situations where 
community-owned levees and federally owned U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
levees are hydraulically connected. These hydraulically connected 
levees are close enough to one another in the same water system and can 
have a huge impact on each other. So when a local flood protection 
system is in need of repairs, we cannot allow Federal inaction to stand 
in the way. Without action from the Corps, improvements to local levees 
have limited effect and are insufficient, making it difficult to 
achieve accreditation.
  Why is this important? Not only does it put people and property in 
flood zones at risk, but it also increases costs for individuals and 
businesses in our communities, mandating flood insurance and 
classifying any development as ``high risk.''
  I am seeing this in my district, where the City of Des Moines has 
been working with the Corps since 2011. I know my district is not 
alone. I see it in other districts as well.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to have local governments be 
hindered by Federal inaction, inaction on property the Federal 
Government took responsibility for years ago.
  In the end, this amendment will establish a policy that will reduce 
and, ultimately, negate the negative impacts to community-owned flood 
protection system accreditation caused by the Army Corps of Engineers' 
failure to act.
  I urge adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I have got to say, we are 
not quite certain what it does. It seems to require the Corps of 
Engineers to take action for anything that relates to a Federal project 
which is a locally owned flood control.
  I have no idea what the implications of this are. So my staff called 
the Corps and said: How many projects do you think this would affect, 
and what do you think the impacts would be? The Corps of Engineers said 
they had no idea.
  I would like to address a question to the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, since the Corps has no idea what this amendment does, 
what the financial implications are, since it would seem to give the 
Federal Government liability for all these local projects that are 
anywhere downstream or related to a Federal project, could the chairman 
explain to me what this amendment will do, since the Corps can't?
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. My understanding is that it is a sense of Congress to 
ask the Corps to act----
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, it is not a sense of Congress, as 
offered. It is actually--it is quite definitive language. ``Where 
Federally owned and operated levees increase flood risk and compromise 
the accreditation of community-owned. . . . it shall be the policy of 
the Corps of Engineers to act expeditiously with actions required to 
authorize, fund, identify, and implement improvements to reduce and 
negate negative impacts to community-owned flood protection system 
accreditation.'' It seems to me that it is pretty definitive with the 
``shall'' part there.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Well, it does say ``shall'' and it does ask the Corps to 
act expeditiously, which I think all of us want to encourage the Corps 
to do that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Okay. Good luck with that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Esty

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Ms. ESTY. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CORROSION PREVENTION.

       Section 1033 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the corrosion prevention 
     activities encouraged under this section that includes--
       ``(1) a description of the actions the Secretary has taken 
     to implement this section; and
       ``(2) a description of the projects utilizing corrosion 
     prevention activities, including which activities were 
     undertaken.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to

[[Page H5995]]

the Water Resources Development Act, which would require the Secretary 
of the Army Corps to implement a corrosion prevention strategy for our 
Nation's water infrastructure.
  Preventing corrosion is a bipartisan issue and affects every State, 
district, and local community. In Connecticut and across the country, 
corrosion shortens the lifespan of our critical water systems, harms 
the environment, and endangers public health and safety.
  Many of our Nation's water systems are over 100 years old. What's 
more, according to a study conducted by the Federal Highway 
Administration in 2002, the corrosion of water and sewer systems across 
the United States costs the American taxpayers nearly $36 billion a 
year, a number that has only increased in the ensuing 14 years.
  By implementing strategies to prevent corrosion, we can extend the 
lifespan of these water projects, save money, and ensure that we have 
continued access to safe drinking water for years to come.
  Surely, we can all agree that by preventing corrosion we are being 
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, as well as protecting 
citizens' health and safety.
  So let's be clear. This is not a substitute for the serious 
conversation that this country needs to be having on updating and 
bringing into the 21st century our roads, bridges, highways, sewer 
systems, and water systems; but we do need to work toward extending the 
lifespan of current Federal infrastructure, and we need to work hard on 
that today.
  Today, we have the opportunity to engage in a bipartisan effort on 
corrosion prevention, something that will be an important first step to 
extend the lifespan and the safety of these systems. It is the and it 
is the sensible thing to do.
  When corrosion control technologies are properly installed and 
maintained, corrosion is largely preventable. It is inexpensive and it 
saves lives.
  So again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I say a special thank you to my cosponsor, 
co-chair of the House Corrosion Prevention Caucus, Congresswoman Esty, 
for introducing this amendment that will help the taxpayers protect 
America's aging infrastructure.
  Corrosion in our Nation's infrastructure reduces the lifespan of our 
investments, costs our taxpayers billions of dollars, threatens our 
environment, and endangers our public safety. If left unchecked, 
corrosion affects many sectors of our economy, including defense 
projects, energy development, ports, water infrastructure, utilities, 
roads, rails, bridges, and other critical American assets.
  The good news is that corrosion is an issue that can be tackled to 
extend the life and value of our Federal investments. When properly 
maintained, corrosion is largely preventable.
  I have dealt with corrosion my whole adult life. Serving in our Navy 
for 9 years, I have seen young sailors fighting corrosion on our ships 
with a paint scraper, a paint brush, and a bucket of gray paint--the 
glory of the so-called paint and chip detail.
  Working for the Houston region, I know how corrosion can impact our 
investment in our ports and waterways. Investing in corrosion 
prevention now will save the taxpayers billions down the road.
  If my colleagues want to know more about corrosion prevention, come 
to Houston, Texas, headquarters of NACE, National Association of 
Corrosion Engineers, International.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. OLSON. This amendment would simply require the Army Corps to 
submit a report on corrosion prevention activities for our Nation's 
infrastructure, including water and sewer systems. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bipartisan, commonsense amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if Connecticut and Texas can agree on 
this, then Congress ought to be able to agree on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague and 
the co-chair of the Corrosion Prevention Caucus.
  I am a Navy daughter and the daughter and granddaughter of civil 
engineers, so believe me, I have learned a lot about corrosion and 
corrosion prevention in my life.
  Again, this is the sort of bipartisan fix we need to be engaged in in 
this body. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Olson, my good friend, 
the chairman, Mr. Shuster. I urge all our colleagues to support this 
commonsense amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1915


                  Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Esty

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Ms. ESTY. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NORTH ATLANTIC COASTAL REGION.

       Section 4009 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 
     Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1316) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``a study to determine 
     the feasibility of carrying out projects'' and inserting ``a 
     comprehensive assessment and management plan'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Study'' and 
     inserting ``Assessment and Plan''; and
       (B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``study'' and inserting ``assessment and plan''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1) by striking ``study'' and 
     inserting ``assessment and plan''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which makes an important change to the North Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem 
Restoration Study. My amendment expands the scope of the study from a 
mere feasibility study to a comprehensive assessment and management 
plan.
  First established in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development 
Act, the North Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Study is a state-
of-the-art approach for bringing together the latest science on 
restoring coastal ecosystems at scale.
  The proposal in my amendment is an important change because it will 
allow the United States Army Corps of Engineers to undertake critical 
habitat restoration projects of tidal marshes, beaches, dunes, and fish 
spawning areas across a region spanning from Maine to Virginia.
  Due to the varying habitats and ecosystems along the entire North 
Atlantic Coast, individual States currently are struggling to 
adequately address environmental and ecological issues that span the 
entire region.
  Challenges arising from, for example, algal bloom, fish depletion, 
and water quality issues know no boundaries and, frankly, defy the 
efforts of States to coordinate activities. Beyond that, we simply lack 
the expertise in each and every State to address these shared problems. 
What has resulted is a fragmented, State-by-State approach to solving 
interconnected environmental problems that need holistic solutions.
  My amendment addresses this problem by creating a comprehensive, 
cooperative, and regional approach to environmental restoration and 
management. By fostering collaboration on coastal restoration projects 
between the Army Corps, State, and local partners, we can more 
effectively tackle environmental issues and restoration of coastal 
ecosystems.

[[Page H5996]]

  My change will help States along the entire North Atlantic United 
States solve major water quality issues like eutrophication, algal 
bloom, fish depletion, and threats to shellfish like the ones we are 
currently facing in Long Island Sound.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and I appreciate 
the gentlewoman for bringing it forward. I urge all Members to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Ms. FRANKEL 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ACQUISITION OF BEACH FILL.

       Section 935 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2299) is amended by striking ``if such materials 
     are not available from domestic sources for environmental or 
     economic reasons''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment on 
behalf of myself and Mr. Curbelo of Miami, Florida. It is a very 
excellent commonsense amendment. It is an authorization that requires 
no money, and it strikes an archaic, 30-year-old provision from law.
  I would like to explain how it affects our home State of Florida. 
Quite simply, the law is an obstacle to Florida's tourism and shoreline 
protection. We are one of the top travel destinations in the world. We 
have over 100 million visitors with a $70 billion impact to Florida's 
economy, and beaches play a very big role not only for visitors, but 
for our shore protection and for protection of our property, people, 
and the environment.
  Just like Northern States have to fix their potholes after a bad 
winter, in Florida, we have to restore our beaches. What has happened 
is that Dade and Broward Counties have run out of useable sand to 
dredge off our coast to put back on the beaches. After the Sandy 
Hurricane, our sand supply is completely depleted. We now have to rely 
on sand from northern counties. Taking sand from inland is very, very 
expensive. To try to take sand from the coastal communities literally 
causes a public uproar and threats of litigation. It is our version of 
water wars. We call them sand wars in Florida.
  There is a very easy solution, and that is to allow the counties in 
south Florida to buy sand from the Bahamas.
  What is preventing that?
  There is language in a 1986 law--a 1986 WRDA bill written at a time 
when sand in south Florida was very plentiful. The language prevents 
State and local governments anywhere in the country from buying foreign 
sand to replenish their shorelines without the Army Corps first 
finding--and this requires a study and another study--that there is no 
domestic sources of sand for environmental or economic reasons. It is 
one more task that an overburdened agency does not need to perform.
  So what this amendment does is it simply strikes that outdated 
requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to help end the sand wars and support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PRIORITIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall give priority to a project for flood 
     risk management if--
       (1) there is an executed project partnership agreement for 
     the project; and
       (2) the project is located in an area--
       (A) in which there has been a loss of life due to flood 
     events; and
       (B) with respect to which the President has declared that a 
     major disaster or emergency exists under section 401 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5170).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that has 
received bipartisan support. It is supported by Congressman Gene Green 
of Texas as well as Congressman John Culberson of Texas.
  This amendment is quite simple. What it does is accord the Army Corps 
the requirement to prioritize projects wherein we have had a loss of 
life, a disaster declaration has been issued, there is a partnership 
agreement in place, and the funds have been authorized for the 
partnership.
  In Texas we have had--and across the country, I might add--floods 
that are no longer classified as 100-year floods. Indeed, they are 
being classified as billion-dollar floods. We have had the Memorial Day 
flood, which was more than $1 billion, and the Tax Day flood, which was 
more than $1 billion. Between the two, we had more than 15 lives lost--
approximately 17 to be more accurate.
  This amendment would give us the opportunity to have some of the 
projects on the Corps' docket completed such that we can eliminate some 
flooding and minimize additional flooding.
  I am honored to say that the Corps is aware of this amendment, and I 
am grateful to the Rules Committee for making it in order. I thank the 
chairperson and the ranking member for assistance given as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
forward. It is very similar to an amendment that Mr. Young from Iowa 
brought forward, and I think that was a good amendment. I think this 
is. So I support it and urge all my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Many areas have faced severe frequent floods in recent years. Too 
many of these disasters have deadly consequences for our communities.
  Since the beginning of the 114th Congress, more than 200 Americans 
have died as a result of flooding. In Texas alone, 77 people have 
perished as a result of flooding in under 2 years. Heavy rains and 
flooding killed eight people in 1 week this last April.
  This amendment would go far to address these tragedies by allowing 
the Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize flood control projects for 
areas that have lethal flooding to provide security and peace of mind 
to residents in these communities.
  Both Congressman Al Green and I represent different parts of Houston,

[[Page H5997]]

Harris County. His area was pretty devastated, along with the northwest 
part where Congressman McCaul represents, and a number of other folks. 
But there is a reason why we are called the coastal plain in the 
Houston area, because when it floods, we fill up the bayous, we fill up 
the rivers, and the only place it goes is in our businesses and in our 
homes. That is why this amendment is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
protect our most vulnerable communities.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, again, the 
chairperson, the ranking member, and the Rules Committee as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 114-790.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. 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. 1__. WATERCRAFT INSPECTION STATIONS.

       Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 
     610) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary may establish, operate, and maintain new or 
     existing watercraft inspection stations to protect the 
     Columbia River Basin to be located in the States of Idaho, 
     Montana, Oregon, and Washington at locations, as determined 
     by the Secretary in consultation with such States with the 
     highest likelihood of preventing the spread of aquatic 
     invasive species at reservoirs operated and maintained by the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall also assist the States 
     referred to in this paragraph with rapid response of any 
     Quagga or Zebra mussel infestation.''.
       (B) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``Governors of the'' 
     before ``States''; and
       (2) in subsection (e) by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) assist the States in early detection of Quagga and 
     Zebra mussels;''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple technical 
correction to clarify congressional intent to assist Northwestern 
States in prevention and monitoring of aquatic invasive species.
  Western States are seeing a troubling spread of quagga and zebra 
mussels, which are an invasive species that quickly destroy 
infrastructure for hydropower, water supply, filtration systems, and 
fisheries.
  Once this species becomes established and spreads, it is difficult 
and very costly to eradicate. In some States, invasive mussels are 
already costing industries and businesses hundreds of millions of 
dollars in damage and repair.
  For communities in the Columbia River basin, an infestation would be 
devastating to production of clean, renewable hydropower, which means 
steep rate hikes for families and businesses that are located in our 
region and are currently thriving due to the low cost of energy.
  Communities would also suffer severe damages to fisheries and boats, 
putting all users and recreators of the Columbia and Snake River 
systems at risk.
  Prevention is the first line of defense and the cheapest tool to use 
against invasive species. Watercraft inspection stations are 
particularly crucial in successful monitoring and detection. These 
stations intercept thousands of boats from all over the country to 
inspect and decontaminate.
  This is why Congress authorized funds under the 2014 WRRDA to support 
watercraft inspection stations that protect the Columbia River basin 
from mussel invasion. Unfortunately, these funds have yet to actually 
reach the stations due to an ambiguity in the law.
  This amendment simply clarifies that funds authorized under WRDA are 
intended to assist in establishing new watercraft inspection stations 
and support coverage for existing stations in Northwestern States.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good-government amendment to ensure that 
Federal funds are being used for the purpose for which Congress 
intended.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
bringing this forward.
  We are one of the last refuges in the United States free of the zebra 
mussel, which is incredibly destructive and expensive. This will help 
us protect the integrity of our vital riverine resources.
  I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this forward, and I fully 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
support. Let's get this amendment moving.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carter of Georgia, 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. 
5303) 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________