[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6040-H6058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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. __. RECREATIONAL ACCESS.
Section 1035 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1234) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Recreational Access.--The Secretary shall allow the
use of a floating cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary in the Cumberland River basin if--
``(1) the floating cabin--
``(A) is in compliance with, and maintained by the owner to
satisfy the requirements of, regulations for recreational
vessels, including health and safety standards, issued under
chapter 43 of title 46, United States Code, and section 312
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322);
and
``(B) is located at a marina leased by the Corps of
Engineers; and
``(2) the Secretary has authorized the use of recreational
vessels on such waters.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to authorize the Secretary to impose requirements on a
floating cabin or on any facility that serves a floating
cabin, including marinas or docks located on waters under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary in the Cumberland River basin,
that are different or more stringent than the requirements
imposed on all recreational vessels authorized to use such
waters.
``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Vessel.--The term `vessel' has the meaning given that
term in section 3 of title 1, United States Code.
``(B) Requirement.--The term `requirement' includes a
requirement imposed through the utilization of guidance.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this small legislative
clarification will go a long way to promote tourism and economic
opportunity on Corps lakes.
Beautiful Lake Cumberland, in my Congressional District, is the
largest man-made lake east of the Mississippi. Located within a day's
drive of 87 million Americans and with over 1,200 miles of pristine
coastline, it is the ideal location for families to enjoy a week or a
weekend on a houseboat.
Indeed, Lake Cumberland was once the houseboat capital of America,
but that all abruptly changed when a major Corps rehabilitation project
on the dam coincided with a downturn of the U.S. economy in 2007. The
Corps had to lower the lake by some 43 feet to repair damage to Wolf
Creek Dam, and the houseboat business was all but decimated.
It took 7 years to complete this project and restore lake levels, but
I am proud to say, Mr. Chairman, that Lake Cumberland is now open for
business. Unfortunately, the Corps has not been as eager as others to
bring back the vibrant houseboat industry that once flourished in this
region, or to support the emerging floating cabin industry that
promises to make lake life accessible to more and more vacationers and
families.
With Chairman Shuster's support, we added bipartisan language to the
last WRDA bill to ensure that floating cabins, once garnering safety
approval by the U.S. Coast Guard, would be permitted on Corps lakes.
However, the Corps has since found new and creative ways to continue
banning floating cabins from their lakes, particularly through the
promulgation of overly burdensome guidance with requirements far more
stringent than those health and safety standards expected by the Coast
Guard.
The Coast Guard has successfully safeguarded our maritime system
since its creation in 1790, and it is, therefore, the Coast Guard that
should be the lead Federal agency in regulating the vessels that
navigate our Federal waterways. Today's amendment simply reinforces
congressional intent to ensure that there is one standard for these
floating cabins, and that standard would be set by the U.S. Coast
Guard. Safety should always remain our highest priority, and I am
confident these cabins will create exciting new opportunities at Lake
Cumberland and other Corps lakes.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rouzer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. ROUZER. 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. __. NO WAKE ZONES FOR VESSELS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall work with State and
local officials to establish a no wake zone for vessels in a
covered navigation channel if--
(1) State or local law enforcement officers have documented
that there exist safety hazards that are a direct result of
excessive wakes in the channel;
(2) a State law has been enacted to establish a no wake
zone for the channel or waters adjacent to the channel; and
(3) the no wake zone complies with any recommendation made
by the Commandant of the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of
vessels operating in the zone and the safety of the
passengers and crew aboard such vessels.
(b) Exception.--A no wake zone established pursuant to this
section shall not apply to the operation of a towing vessel,
as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code.
(c) Covered Navigation Channel.--In this section, the term
``covered navigation channel'' means a navigation channel
that--
(1) is federally marked or maintained;
(2) is part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; and
(3) is adjacent to a marina.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I have come here to the floor this
afternoon because there is a specific and, I would argue, unique public
safety concern that I have in my district right along the Intracoastal
Waterway. Specifically, it is right there at Southport Marina.
Let me give you a visual description of what is taking place there.
When you are traveling up the Intracoastal Waterway, particularly from
the south, you can't see the Southport Marina at all. There is not a
no-wake zone there. Because you can't see the Southport Marina, these
boats, particularly the recreational users, fly right on through there.
This is a high traffic area, particularly during the spring and
summer months when you have a lot of recreational boaters on the water.
This is a growing area. In fact, this has been a public safety concern
for some time; so much of a public safety concern, that the State of
North Carolina passed a law requiring that this area adjacent to the
Southport Marina be a no-wake zone. The problem is the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Coast Guard won't recognize it.
So let me give you this mental picture again. You have got the
Intracoastal Waterway, you have a marina that most boaters,
particularly those speeding up from the south, can't see on the left-
hand side. They are flying through there. You have all kinds of boats
coming in and out, recreational boats coming in and out of the marina.
This is a major accident waiting to happen.
The local sheriff's office is quite concerned about this. The local
government and county commissioners, town, and all of the local
citizens are quite concerned about this. Again, I want to
[[Page H6041]]
stress that there has been so much concern about this that the State of
North Carolina passed a law requiring this area to be a no-wake zone.
So this is not an amendment in any way, shape, or form to require or
attempt to persuade the Corps of Engineers or Coast Guard to get in the
business of no-wake zones. However, it is designed to encourage the
Corps and the Coast Guard to work with the locals and the State to
address this significant public safety issue.
The amendment is narrowly crafted so as to avoid creating any other
speed bump, for example, up and down the Intracoastal Waterway. And
there is an exception made for tugboat operators, because I certainly
recognize that they have to maintain a certain speed in order to get
the cargo through the waterway.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
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 would ask the author--I am a bit
puzzled, and we have been unable to get an answer expeditiously from
the Coast Guard--you are saying the Coast Guard will not recognize the
no-wake zone, but the enforcement would fall to the local harbor patrol
or the local authorities. So there is a no-wake zone that the local
officials can fine or penalize people who violate it, can they not?
Mr. ROUZER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROUZER. Here is the situation. There is not a no-wake zone there
because the Army Corps and the Coast Guard do not recognize it. The
State passed a law requiring that there be a no-wake zone, but there is
not one because Federal law, obviously, supersedes State law.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we have got an
issue here that doesn't require legislation. I am not going to object
to this going forward, but I think we can get the attention of the
Coast Guard and figure out what is going on here because I am not
aware--and I live on a boat in D.C. and I have spent a lot of time on
the water and I have been on the Intracoastal Waterway. I am not aware
that the Coast Guard has any authority over locally declared no-wake
zones to preempt them, and I am puzzled as to why they would do that in
this particular case.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I think the problem specifically is that it
is Federal water. I would add, again to paint a mental picture here,
you have State and local officials that want to have a no-wake zone;
and the only reason why there is not a no-wake zone there is because
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard do not recognize it.
Again, I would suspect that is specifically because it is Federal
water.
This amendment is narrowly tailored to address this specific public
safety issue. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROUZER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled because, again, I have been
on segments of the Intracoastal Waterway, which I guess he is saying
are all declared to be Federal waters where there are no-wake zones. So
I don't know what the issue is. I would be happy to work with the
gentleman on this, and I am not going to object to the amendment at
this point.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
comments of the ranking member. And to be quite candid, I don't
understand why they won't follow it either, which is why I am here.
I greatly appreciate the ranking member and his support, and I look
forward to working to get this resolved.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1615
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Meng
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 114-794.
Ms. MENG. 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. ___. ICE JAM PREVENTION AND MITIGATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects under
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s), including planning, design, construction, and
monitoring of structural and nonstructural technologies and
measures for preventing and mitigating flood damages
associated with ice jams.
(b) Inclusion.--The projects described in subsection (a)
may include the development and demonstration of cost-
effective technologies and designs developed in consultation
with--
(1) the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory of
the Corps of Engineers;
(2) universities;
(3) Federal, State, and local agencies; and
(4) private organizations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank my partner in offering this
amendment, Representative Elise Stefanik. Our bipartisan amendment is
simple. It is identical to language in the Senate-passed WRDA that
allows the Army Corps of Engineers to pursue projects and technologies
that prevent and mitigate flood damage that is associated with ice
jams.
Every year, flooding that results from the piling up of frozen ice in
rivers across the United States costs our economy millions of dollars.
When free-floating ice catches on obstructions, such as bridge pilings,
rocks, or logs, flooding can result upstream from the blockage and,
again, downstream when the ice finally releases.
During my time in the New York State Assembly, I can remember hearing
horrible stories from my colleagues in upstate New York and wondering
what more could be done to prepare for these events. I know that my
friend Representative Stefanik's district has been directly impacted by
such floods in the recent past, and I am glad that we could come
together today to offer this amendment.
Currently, research is ongoing regarding the best practices in
planning, design, and construction of Army Corps projects that would
help alleviate future ice jam flooding. I support those efforts and
look forward to new technologies and designs that are being developed
by local universities, State and local agencies, and even private
industry. Together, I know that we can do more to combat the hardships
that are created in American communities every year by ice jam
flooding, and I appreciate the time today to highlight this terrible
problem.
I urge the Army Corps to continue its efforts at the Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I congratulate the gentlewoman on being sensitive to the needs of her
district, which has a very real problem, and this is fully within the
authority of the Corps. I wish they had more money with which to do
more projects around the country. I tried that yesterday, and it didn't
work, but I will certainly be happy to support this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H6042]]
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Moore
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 114-794.
Ms. MOORE. 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. ___. TRIBAL CONSULTATION.
(a) Review.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall begin a review of
the policies, regulations, and guidance related to conducting
meaningful consultation with Indian tribes regarding Corps of
Engineers flood control, environmental restoration, and other
projects or requiring the Corps of Engineers to approve a
permit that may have an impact on tribal cultural or natural
resources.
(b) Contents.--The review required under subsection (a)
shall examine and assess the following:
(1) How tribal consultation rules apply to the permitting
process, especially for projects not on tribal lands but
which may still be continguous to such lands or affect tribal
cultural and natural resources.
(2) How the Corps of Engineers defines meaningful
consultation.
(3) Whether the current process adequately considers tribal
interests including environmental, social, health and well-
being of tribal members.
(4) How the Corps of Engineers informs tribes that it will
not consider concerns or alternatives raised during the
consultation process.
(5) How the Corps of Engineers determines a project's
impact on tribal communities including the Corps ability to
protect cultural and natural resources such as water.
(6) The specific situations by which tribes have access to
high level Corps of Engineers officials such as the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Chief of
Engineers to dispute or otherwise direct concerns about
pending Corps of Engineers projects or permits, including
examples of instances in which the Corps of Engineers
provided such access as part of its consultation with a tribe
regarding a particular project.
(7) The role of headquarters in overseeing tribal
consultation being done at the District and Division levels.
(8) The effectiveness of the dispute resolution process
that has been developed to elevate tribal concerns to higher
levels of Corps of Engineers oversight and review.
(9) Whether the Corps should undertake a rulemaking process
related to its tribal consultation policies and procedures.
(c) Consultation.--In completing the review required under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for public and
private meetings with Indian tribes and other stakeholders.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after beginning the
review under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to
Congress, and publish in the Federal Register, a report on--
(1) the results of the review;
(2) any proposed changes to the tribal consultation
policies determined necessary as a result of the review; and
(3) if the Secretary determines that no changes to the
tribal consultation policies are necessary, the justification
for such determination.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
We are all aware of the latest controversy surrounding the failure of
the Federal Government to consult with Native American tribes. Wisely,
the Obama administration has postponed work on the Dakota Access
pipeline while it meets to hear tribes' concerns about the inadequacy
of the consulting process in that case and, more broadly, across the
Federal Government. In the bill before us, Mr. Chairman, we are
authorizing billions of dollars in Army Corps of Engineers projects and
providing direction for work it is doing in almost every community
throughout our great country.
There is no question that the Corps' responsibility to undertake this
work and the indigenous people's desire and ability to protect their
cultural and natural resources will continue to clash, and we know that
tribes continue to be frustrated by how Federal agencies, including the
Army Corps, do their so-called consulting with them. I share this
frustration.
I would love to go much further with this amendment, but my
amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply requires the Army Corps to work with
tribes to review its current consultation policies. Let me just read a
little bit, Mr. Chairman, because it sounds good on paper.
``All federally recognized Tribes are sovereign governments and will
be treated with respect. . . . The trust responsibility will be honored
and fulfilled. . . . The Federal Government has a unique legal and
political relationship with Tribal governments that recognizes self-
government and self-determination,'' et cetera.
I include in the Record this policy.
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, November 1, 2012.
Memorandum for Commanders, Directors and Chiefs of Separate
Offices, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Subject: Tribal Consultation Policy
1. This memorandum affirms and formalizes current tribal
consultation procedures for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE).
2. The interaction between the federal government and
federally recognized Indian Tribes (including Alaska Natives)
has its origins in the U.S. Constitution and has been upheld
and defined through Treaties, U.S. Supreme Court cases,
various statutes and regulations, presidential documents and
policies, including the Department of Defense American Indian
and Alaska Native Policy, and the USACE Tribal Policy
Principles, recently reissued on 10 May 2010.
3. The Policy provides an outline of our responsibilities
to federally recognized Tribes as well as a framework for
consulting with them. It is purposefully general in nature
because each of the 565 federally recognized American Indian
and Alaska Native Tribes are distinct and separate
governments, requiring a consultation process that may be
completely unique to them.
4. USACE recognizes the sovereign status of Tribal
governments and our obligation for pre-decisional government-
to-government consultation. USACE also recognizes the unique
role Tribes play as partners in water resources projects and
seeks to develop relationships with all Tribes who may need
our assistance in their capacity building and self-
determination.
5. USACE has an excellent tribal program coordinated by a
tribal liaison at Headquarters and a point of contact or
liaison in each District and Division office. These experts
are ready to support you and answer any questions you have
regarding tribal policies.
6. An accountable process to interact with Tribes is
mandated in Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 06 Nov 2000, and
Presidential Memorandum, Tribal Consultation, 05 Nov 2009.
Please ensure that your staff is aware of and abides by our
Consultation Policy to ensure effective and mutually
beneficial relationships with tribal partners.
Thomas P. Bostick,
Lieutenant General, U.S. Army Commanding.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tribal Consultation Policy
1. References.
a. U.S. Constitution, Articles I, Section 8; Article VI.
b. National Historic Preservation Act.
c. American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
d. Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
e. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
f. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
g. Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, 24 May 1996.
h. Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native
Policy, 20 Oct 1998.
i. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, 06 Nov 2000.
j. Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100, Planners Guidance
Notebook, 22 Apr 2000.
k. Department of Defense Instruction Number 4710.02: DoD
Interactions with Federally Recognized Tribes, 14 Sep 2006.
l. Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and
Enhancement, 13 Dec 2007.
m. Engineer Regulation 1130-2-540, Project Operations--
Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance
Guidelines and Procedures, 11 Aug 2008.
n. Presidential Memorandum, Tribal Consultation, 5 Nov
2009.
o. USACE Tribal Policy Principles, 18 Feb 1998 and 10 May
2010.
p. Announcement of Presidential support for the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Public Papers of the President, December 16, 2010.
2. Purpose. On November 5, 2009, President Barack Obama
issued a Memorandum to the heads of all federal agencies
entitled Tribal Consultation (74 Fed Reg 57881) reaffirming
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 Fed Reg 67249) signed by
President William J. Clinton on November 6, 2000. E.O. 13175
requires all federal agencies to formulate ``an accountable
process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' This document affirms the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' (USACE) commitment to engage in
consultation with federally recognized Tribes.
3. Background. There are responsibilities to Tribes
resulting from the Federal Trust Doctrine, as well as from
Treaties, statutes, regulations, Executive Orders and
agreements between the United States government and tribal
governments. Department of
[[Page H6043]]
Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy, Department
of Defense Instruction number 4710.02: DoD Interactions with
Federally Recognized Tribes, and US Army Corps of Engineers
Tribal Policy Principles (Attachment 1) provide guidance.
For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions
are applied:
a. Tribe: Indian Tribes as defined in E.O. 13175, ``an
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village,
or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges
to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 USC 479a.''
b. Consultation: Open, timely, meaningful, collaborative
and effective deliberative communication process that
emphasizes trust, respect and shared responsibility. To the
extent practicable and permitted by law, consultation works
toward mutual consensus and begins at the earliest planning
stages, before decisions are made and actions are taken; an
active and respectful dialogue concerning actions taken by
the USACE that may significantly affect tribal resources,
tribal rights (including treaty rights) or Indian lands.
4. Applicability. This regulation applies to all HQUSACE
elements, Major Subordinate Commands, District Commands, the
Institute for Water Resources, the Humphreys Engineering
Center Support Activity, and the Engineer Research and
Development Center.
5. General Policy. The Tribal Policy Principles.
a. All federally recognized Tribes are sovereign
governments and will be treated with respect.
(1) Sovereignty is the foundation of tribal governments.
(2) Tribes are responsible for their own governance and
management.
b. The Trust responsibility will be honored and fulfilled.
(1) The federal government has a unique legal and political
relationship with Tribal governments that recognizes self-
government and self-determination.
(2) USACE is committed to supporting projects and programs
beneficial to Tribes through partnership with them.
(3) USACE will ensure that it addresses Tribal concerns
regarding protected tribal resources, tribal rights
(including treaty rights) and Indian lands.
(4) USACE will protect and allow access to protected tribal
resources under USACE jurisdiction to the extent practicable,
and will work to develop and implement access policies as
needed.
(5) USACE will share information that is not otherwise
controlled or classified information.
c. USACE will maintain a government-to-government
relationship with Tribes.
(1) Tribes have a unique and distinctive political and
legal relationship with the United
States.
(2) A Tribe may have access to the Chief of Engineers, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and other high
level individuals if the need arises.
(3) While most interaction will be staff to staff, decision
making will be leader to leader (the head of the Tribe and
the district commander), with the assistance of the local
subject matter expert (typically, the Tribal Liaison).
d. Consultation will be an integral, invaluable process of
USACE planning and implementation.
(1) When appropriate, potentially affected Tribes, as
determined by the Corps, including Tribes whose aboriginal
territories extend to the lands where an activity would
occur, will be contacted by letter, telephone or e-mail
sufficiently early to allow a timely review of the proposed
action. If contacted Tribes notify USACE that other Tribes
are potentially affected, USACE has the responsibility to
notify those Tribes as well.
(2) Any activity that has the potential to significantly
affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights (including
treaty rights) and Indian lands-individual projects,
programs, permit applications, real estate actions,
promulgation of regulations and policies--regardless of land
status, will be reviewed at the district level by an
individual who effectively interacts with Tribes, usually the
Tribal Liaison.
(3) Consultation will be conducted at the district or
division level under the guidance of an individual who
effectively interacts with Tribes, usually the Tribal
Liaison, unless there is a request for HQUSACE (and/or OASA
(CW) in the case of Civil Works) input, or if HQUSACE
determines input is necessary.
(4) Commands will ensure that all Tribes with an interest
in a particular activity that has the potential to
significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal
rights (including treaty rights) and Indian lands are
contacted and their comments taken into consideration.
(5) Consultation procedures for individual projects or
programs may be developed at the local level to meet the
needs of particular Tribe(s).
(6) In recognition of the varied organizations and customs
of different Tribes, written protocols for consultation
procedures may be considered and implemented at the local
level with a specific Tribe.
(7) A dispute resolution process will be developed during
the consultation process, including a provision to elevate
the consultation to higher USACE and/or Tribal levels.
(8) Requests for consultation by a Tribe to USACE will be
honored.
e. USACE will support Tribal self-determination, self
reliance and capacity building by:
(1) Partnering with Tribes on studies, projects, programs
and permitting procedures will be supported and promoted to
the extent permitted by law and policy.
(2) To the extent permitted by law and policy, provide
information on opportunities to compete for requests for
proposals or other potential contracts with USACE.
(3) Sharing appropriate information on USACE programs,
policies and procedures, and public documents.
(4) Utilizing Tribal knowledge for planning purposes and to
inform operational activities.
(5) Supporting Tribal efforts to lease and operate water
resource projects and lands, where appropriate.
(6) Identifying and implementing, within existing
authority, other capacity-building opportunities as they
occur.
f. Protection of natural and cultural resources.
(1) USACE recognizes the importance of strict compliance
with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (NAGPRA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
and other statutes concerning cultural and natural resources.
(2) USACE acknowledges that compliance with the above
statutes may not comprise the full range of consultation, nor
of cultural property and resource protection.
(3) To the extent allowed by law, USACE will protect the
location of historic properties, properties of religious and
cultural significance, and archaeological resources, in
consultation with and when requested by the affected
Tribe(s).
6. Responsibilities of Commanders and other USACE officials
interacting with federally recognized Tribes.
a. Build relationships with Tribes soon after each change
of command by face-to-face interaction at the local
headquarters or at tribal offices when at all possible.
b. Identify and remove procedural impediments to working
with Tribes whenever possible.
c. Share appropriate Corps procedures, regulations and
organizational information with Tribes.
d. Maintain open lines of communication through
consultation with Tribes during the decision making process
for those matters that have the potential to significantly
affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights (including
treaty rights) and Indian lands.
e. Provide Tribes with points of contact on project-related
issues, and issues in general.
f. Encourage partnerships on projects with Tribes wherever
possible.
g. Encourage collaborative partnerships by other federal
and state agencies with Tribes to further their goals and
projects.
7. Education. To develop a proactive well-informed
workforce, in-house training, workshops, and an annual
meeting of USACE tribal liaisons have been developed and
should be attended by Corps employees who interact with
Tribes-liaisons, project managers, program managers, real
estate professionals, regulators, leaders, contracting
specialists, etc.
8. Accountability. To assess the effectiveness of USACE
Tribal consultation, professionals who interact with Tribes
will keep records of consultation meetings and other tribal
interactions. These records will be accessible and can be
made available for purposes of reporting to OMB through DoD
as per the reporting requirement in the Presidential
Proclamation of 5 Nov 2009. The report will be synthesized at
HQUSACE and transmitted to DoD (OSD) on a yearly basis. A
copy of this report will be distributed to federally
recognized Tribes upon request.
9. Implementation. USACE will incorporate the six Tribal
policy principles, including pre-decisional consultation,
into its planning, management, budgetary, operational, and
legislative initiatives, management accountability system and
ongoing policy and regulation development processes.
10. General Provision: This policy does not establish new
requirements, but reaffirms procedures and policies already
in place, clarifies responsibilities and establishes clear
measures of implementation success.
Ms. MOORE. Let me be clear. We may need a formal rulemaking process,
but this amendment today doesn't block any pending project or permit
process. I do think it is appropriate, when questions are raised about
inadequate consultation, that we do something here. It is my hope that
this report will guide Congress within a year, when we consider the
next WRDA bill, so that the chairman, the ranking member, and the
underlying bill, itself, will make clear that their support for taking
up WRDA bills on a regular 2-year cycle will include tribal
consultation. Again, these consultations look good on paper, but my
amendment wants to formalize the consultation process and get a report.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H6044]]
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I congratulate my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, for
bringing forward this important amendment.
I think the key thing is what she said at the end, which is that the
process may look good on paper but that that is not good enough when we
are dealing with sovereign nations.
I have restored a tribe in my district and have worked a lot on
tribal issues in my 28 years on the Natural Resources Committee. I have
put an amendment into the FAST Act to allow tribal governance to take
control of their Federal transportation funds so that the State isn't
nicking money off the top and so that they actually can exert their
sovereignty, and we have done that in some other areas for the tribes.
This is, really, a critical amendment.
There is a real issue here. The tribes say, in the case of this
pipeline, that they were not adequately consulted with. The Corps says,
well, the box is checked. Thanks to the President, we are going to have
a review of what really happened here. Obviously, this is not the only
instance, and we need a broader review. We need to be sure that the
Corps is fully cognizant of and recognizes the sovereignty of tribal
nations so that they have in place a real and full consultation process
for anything that may affect any tribe or reservation in the United
States.
I think this is a great amendment and very timely, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the
committee for being sensitive to the needs of native peoples to be
included and involved in things that concern their sovereignty and
self-governance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Peters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. PETERS. 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. ___. STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall design and develop a
structural health monitoring program to assess and improve
the condition of infrastructure constructed and maintained by
the Corps of Engineers, including research, design, and
development of systems and frameworks for--
(1) response to flood and earthquake events;
(2) pre-disaster mitigation measures;
(3) lengthening the useful life of the infrastructure; and
(4) identifying risks due to sea level rise.
(b) Consultation and Consideration.--In developing the
program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with academic and other experts; and
(2) consider models for maintenance and repair information,
the development of degradation models for real-time
measurements and environmental inputs, and research on
qualitative inspection data as surrogate sensors.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would enable the Army Corps of
Engineers to use the best technology available to ensure our
infrastructure is structurally sound and avoid the loss of property,
money, and lives. Specifically, it directs the Secretary of the Army to
use structural health monitoring to evaluate its construction projects
and current infrastructure to mitigate damage from floods, earthquakes,
sea level rise, and other disasters both before and after a major
event.
The increased frequency and magnitude of the extreme weather events
have high recovery costs for the Federal Government. In 2012,
Superstorm Sandy caused an estimated $50 billion in damages and forced
more than 775,000 people to flee their homes. The Federal Government
provided $136 billion in assistance, amounting to $1,160 per taxpayer.
These costs can be prevented. Research has shown that every $1 spent on
preparedness saves $4 in disaster recovery costs. How we prepare before
disaster strikes determines how much we spend and, more importantly,
how many lives we save.
Successful planning and preparation require consultation with experts
and access to the best available data with structural health monitoring
sensors that can detect in near realtime the existence, location, and
severity of the damage to infrastructure. Data from these sensors can
provide essential information on the condition of infrastructure,
ranging from bridges to skyscrapers, following a natural disaster like
an earthquake; but effective management of these structures is not one
size fits all. Access to realtime-specific data through structural
health monitoring technology will enable the Army Corps to prioritize
buildings and structures that need immediate maintenance. By working
proactively rather than reactively, we can avoid further damage and
higher costs.
Data show we will only be more likely to see more extreme weather,
sea level rise, and floods that can significantly damage our buildings
and bridges in the future. Those disasters are not only costly but
dangerous. We need to provide the groups responsible for maintaining
our Nation's infrastructure the tools they need to do so.
I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the committee for
considering this amendment. I ask my colleagues to support this smart,
commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I congratulate the gentleman from California on a very thoughtful
amendment. Actually, I am having a personal experience with this right
now. Since we have discovered we have a major fault off of southern
Oregon, the Corps has decided that they need to come back in and bore
and reevaluate the dams on my Willamette River system. This should be,
I would think, a pretty routine thing for the Corps.
I asked: Why do you have to do that?
They said: Back when we built those dams, we didn't know about it,
and we aren't really quite sure of their seismic stability.
I think there are probably many, many, many other Corps projects in
California, Oregon, and elsewhere that need that kind of scrutiny; so
what the gentleman is doing is shining a light on a problem. As I
mentioned earlier, the Corps has a $2.5 billion backlog on O&M. This
will come out of the O&M budget. I am happy to send this mandate to the
Corps.
In revisiting my objections to the bill yesterday, which is going to
cause me to vote against the bill, underspending the tax which is
levied on all imported goods--paid for by all Americans who buy
imported goods--and diverting that money to other programs when the
Corps has critical needs like this is stupid. I really regret, again,
that my harbor maintenance trust fund amendment was pulled out of the
bill, but this just underlines the need for the Corps to have more
resources.
I urge a positive vote on 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 California (Mr. Peters).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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. __. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF AUTHORIZED PROJECT FOR FLOOD
CONTROL.
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the project
for flood control,
[[Page H6045]]
Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois, phase 2, as authorized
by section 3(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-676; 102 Stat. 4013) and modified by
section 319 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-303; 110 Stat. 3715) and section 501 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53;
113 Stat. 334).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, residents and businesses in the
Chicagoland area are vulnerable to significant urban flooding that has
the potential to cost millions of dollars and to endanger the lives and
livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people.
To address this problem, Congress authorized the Chicagoland
Underflow Plan as a flood risk management project in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988. A key component of the plan is the
construction of the McCook Reservoir, which is a major flood damage
reduction reservoir. This benefits the city of Chicago and 36 suburbs
by aiding flood mitigation. It also helps to protect thousands of
structures and millions of people.
According to the Army Corps' 2015 fact sheet to Congress, the
reservoir is already 65 percent complete and would offer significant
benefits to Chicago residents and businessowners. It is also among the
Army Corps' most economical projects, boasting a 3 to 1 benefit-to-cost
ratio. The second phase of the construction in McCook has a 9 to 1
benefit-to-cost ratio.
Since its authorization in the late 1980s, the congressional intent
of this project has been clear: it is for flood risk management, and it
is constructed to help alleviate flooding problems in the metropolitan
area of Chicago.
{time} 1630
However, the Army Corps omitted funding for the critical second stage
of this project in their FY17 budget due to the mistaken belief that
stage two is related to water pollution control which is not handled by
the Corps. It is, in fact, for flood control and is fully authorized
and documented in the Corps' system as such. That is why my amendment
would ensure that the Army Corps continues to do McCook as flood damage
reduction system, consistent with legislative intent, and expedites the
completion of this vital public work.
After many years of strong support for one of the Corps' most
competitive flood protection projects, now is not the time to abandon
funding for McCook. The livelihood of too many families and businesses
are at stake.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am
not in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to congratulation the gentleman for shining a spotlight on
this. This is something that is critical to his district and region,
and it was authorized in WRDA in 1988. It is past time that this
received positive consideration and moved forward, and I think his
amendment will help in that effort with that. I urge Members to support
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his
support. I want to thank the ranking member for his comments. And I
want to thank all who have worked on this project for so long. We are
getting close.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Vela
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. VELA. 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. __. CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) Release.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and file
in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended deed, or
other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of the
interests of the United States in certain tracts of land
located in Cameron County, Texas, as described in subsection
(e).
(b) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require that any release under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests
of the United States.
(c) Costs of Conveyance.--The Brownsville Navigation
District shall be responsible for all reasonable and
necessary costs, including real estate transaction and
environmental documentation costs, associated with the
releases.
(d) Description.--The Secretary shall release all or
portions of the interests in the following tracts as
determined by a survey to be paid for by the Brownsville
Navigation District, that is satisfactory to the Secretary:
(1) Tract No. 1: Being approximately 1,277.80 acres as
conveyed by the Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron
County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated
September 22, 1932, and recorded at volume 238, pages 578
through 580, in the Deed Records of Cameron County, Texas, to
be released and abandoned in its entirety, save and except
the approximately 347.40 acres.
(2) Tract No. 2: Being approximately 842.28 acres as
condemned by the United States by the Final Report of
Commissioners dated May 6, 1938, and recorded at volume 281,
pages 486 through 488, in the Deed Records of Cameron County,
Texas, to be released and abandoned in its entirety, save and
except approximately 158.14 acres comprised of an
approximately 500 ft. wide strip centered on the centerline
of the Brownsville Ship Channel.
(3) Tract No. 3: Being approximately 362.00 acres as
conveyed by the Manufacturing and Distributing University to
the United States by instrument dated March 3, 1936, and
recorded at volume ``R'', page 123, in the Miscellaneous Deed
Records of Cameron County, Texas, to be released and
abandoned in its entirety.
(4) Tract No. 5: Being approximately 10.91 acres as
conveyed by the Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron
County, Texas, by instrument dated March 6, 1939, and
recorded at volume 293, pages 113 through 115, in the Deed
Records of Cameron County, Texas (said 10.91 acres are
identified in said instrument as the ``Third Tract''), to be
partially released as to the land portion of the tract.
(5) Tract No. 9: Being approximately 552.82 acres as
condemned by the United States by the Final Report of
Commissioners dated May 6, 1938, and recorded at volume 281,
pages 483 through 486, in the Deed Records of Cameron County,
Texas, to be released and abandoned in its entirety, save and
except approximately 88.04 acres comprised of an
approximately 450 ft. wide strip along the new centerline of
the Brownsville Ship Channel.
(6) Tract No. 10: Being approximately 325.02 acres as
condemned by the United States by the Final Report of
Commissioners dated May 7, 1935, and recorded at volume 281,
pages 476 through 483, in the Deed Records of Cameron County,
Texas, to be released and abandoned in its entirety, save and
except approximately 61.58 acres comprised of an
approximately 500 ft. wide strip centered on the new
centerline of the Brownsville Ship Channel.
(7) Tract No. 11: Being approximately 8.85 acres as
conveyed by the Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron
County, Texas, to the United States by instrument dated
January 23, 1939, and recorded at volume 293, pages 115
through 118, in the Deed Records of Cameron County, Texas
(said 8.85 acres are identified in said instrument as the
``First Tract''), to be released and abandoned in its
entirety, save and except a narrow area along the channel.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Vela) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. VELA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which is cosponsored by Representative Farenthold and provides for the
release of Army Corps easements on certain tracts of land that are
located at the Port of Brownsville in Cameron County, Texas. This
amendment was written in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers,
and they have signed off on this language. The purpose of this release
of land is to allow for economic growth at the Port of Brownsville.
These tracts of land are the property of the port and have been under
easement to the Army Corps for decades.
These easements were originally granted to the Army Corps in the
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, but have never been used. Returning control of
the property to the Port of Brownsville will not
[[Page H6046]]
hinder Army Corps projects at the port.
Under my amendment, parts of seven tracts would be released subject
to the conditions that the Secretary considers appropriate and
necessary to protect the interests of the United States.
The Port of Brownsville is responsible for all reasonable and
necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental
documentation costs, making the amendment budget-neutral.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to congratulate the
gentleman on his amendment. I can confirm that the Corps of Engineers
has said they have no objection to this. I guess just somehow, they
couldn't get through the bureaucracy to release the land until the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vela) brought this amendment to the floor. So
the gentleman is doing a public service for his constituents and I
believe the Nation, holding onto property unnecessarily. I recommend
our colleagues support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VELA. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, ranking member,
Representative Farenthold, the Army Corps, and the committee staff for
their work on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the
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. Vela).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM.
Section 210(d)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(d)(1)(B)) is amended in the matter
preceding clause (i) by striking ``For each of fiscal years
2015 through 2024'' and inserting ``For each fiscal year''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I am offering this amendment
because Great Lakes ports and harbors are facing a crisis. I want to
thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness to work on this
situation, not just in this bill but in previous bills as well.
The Great Lakes navigation system is a critical international
waterway that extends from the western end of Lake Superior to the Gulf
of St. Lawrence Seaway on the Atlantic Ocean, a distance of over 2,400
miles. The U.S. portion of the system includes 140 harbors and over 600
miles of maintained navigation channels. This system can handle 200
million tons of cargo that generate and sustain around 130,000 good-
paying jobs and an $18 billion support to our economy in the eight
Great Lakes States and around the country.
However, 16 million cubic yards of sediment clogged these ports and
waterways in the Great Lakes. It is estimated that it would cost nearly
$200 million to make them fully functional.
In addition, the critical Soo Locks, joining Lake Superior and Lake
Huron, require $115 million to complete maintenance rehabilitation
while Great Lakes breakwaters and jetties need $250 million for
repairs. We must act before the crisis in the Great Lakes grows even
worse.
Just 2 years ago, the House overwhelmingly passed the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act 412-4, and it was later signed into law.
WRRDA 2014 included a provision that temporarily set aside 10 percent
of Army Corps priority funding for the Great Lakes navigation system.
Consistent with the spirit of WRRDA 2014, my amendment provides the
140 federally maintained commercial and recreational Great Lakes ports
and harbors with access to dependable funding by ensuring that the set-
aside does not expire. These Federal harbor channels, like Pentwater,
White Lake, Ludington, Muskegon, Holland, and Grand Haven in my
district, are the lifeblood of these communities.
The Federal Government must meet its obligation to communities across
the Great Lakes region. These ports and harbors are engines of economic
growth that create jobs for American workers, farmers, and
manufacturers.
As the chairman knows, it would be my preference to ensure that ports
and harbors across our Nation are properly maintained by using the
harbor maintenance trust fund for its intended purpose: harbor
maintenance.
By working together since 2011, we have made significant progress. In
fiscal year 2011, only 47 percent of the harbor maintenance tax that
was paid into the HMTF was used to dredge and maintain our harbors
because this trust fund was raided, frankly, to pay for unrelated
projects.
Because of the progress we have made, the harbor maintenance trust
fund will retain 76 percent of the revenues that are intended for water
infrastructure improvements and harbor dredging under this year's
Appropriations Committee-passed funding bill. This is a huge win for
coastal communities in all of these different States and, frankly, for
our entire Nation.
I look forward to building on the success in the future and would
like to thank the chairman for working with us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am
definitively not in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the gentleman on this,
creating a permanent set-aside for this critical harbor maintenance in
the Great Lakes.
I have a similar amendment targeted toward small ports in the base
bill. But, as the gentleman mentioned, what this points to is the fact
that the Corps is stretched too thin. They have a $2.5 million backlog
on operations and maintenance, yet there is $9.8 billion in the
nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund. That is, there is $9.8
billion in taxes that has been paid by shippers and passed on to
consumers that hasn't been spent on harbor maintenance.
Were we to create a harbor maintenance trust fund next year and, say,
it was to be fully obligated, we would have an additional $500 million
in current revenues to invest in operations and maintenance, let alone
the $9.8 billion that harbor maintenance and construction is owed from
past collections.
So I think this is an excellent amendment. I recommend it to my
colleagues. The Great Lakes need this sort of attention, but we have
got to get to the underlying problem which is insufficient funds.
I thank the gentleman for his support also on that issue.
I urge a positive vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 2-minutes
remaining.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan, and I
rise to support his amendment which establishes a permanent use of
priority funds for the Great Lakes navigation system.
Mr. Chairman, the 2014 WRRDA bill included a temporary provision to
set aside these funds for the Great Lakes to address the maintenance
backlog. The Huizenga amendment continues this effort and ensures the
140 federally maintained ports and harbors on the Great Lakes,
including the Port of Monroe in my district, have dependable funding as
they continue to move over 200 million tons of cargo each year, and, I
would add, Mr. Chairman, without producing any potholes, needing no
guardrails or bridges.
They sustain good jobs and drive economic growth in Michigan and
across
[[Page H6047]]
the country. I urge support of this amendment and the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the work that both
the chairman and the ranking member put into this particular issue that
is so important to those of us that border the Great Lakes. I urge my
colleagues to pass this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Joyce
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. JOYCE. 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. ___. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE.
Section 118(c)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Focus areas.--In carrying out the Initiative, the
Administrator shall prioritize programs and projects, to be
carried out in coordination with non-Federal partners, that
address the priority areas described in the Initiative Action
Plan, including--
``(i) the remediation of toxic substances and areas of
concern;
``(ii) the prevention and control of invasive species and
the impacts of invasive species;
``(iii) the protection and restoration of nearshore health
and the prevention and mitigation of nonpoint source
pollution;
``(iv) habitat and wildlife protection and restoration,
including wetlands restoration and preservation; and
``(v) accountability, monitoring, evaluation,
communication, and partnership activities.
``(C) Projects.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out the Initiative, the
Administrator shall collaborate with other Federal partners,
including the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force established
by Executive Order No. 13340 (69 Fed. Reg. 29043), to select
the best combination of programs and projects for Great Lakes
protection and restoration using appropriate principles and
criteria, including whether a program or project provides--
``(I) the ability to achieve strategic and measurable
environmental outcomes that implement the Initiative Action
Plan and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
``(II) the feasibility of--
``(aa) prompt implementation;
``(bb) timely achievement of results; and
``(cc) resource leveraging; and
``(III) the opportunity to improve interagency,
intergovernmental, and inter-organizational coordination and
collaboration to reduce duplication and streamline efforts.
``(ii) Outreach.--In selecting the best combination of
programs and projects for Great Lakes protection and
restoration under clause (i), the Administrator shall consult
with the Great Lakes States and Indian tribes and solicit
input from other non-Federal stakeholders.
``(iii) Harmful algal bloom coordinator.--The Administrator
shall designate a point person from an appropriate Federal
partner to coordinate, with Federal partners and Great Lakes
States, Indian tribes, and other non-Federal stakeholders,
projects and activities under the Initiative involving
harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes.'';
(2) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (J)(ii), funds
made available to carry out the Initiative shall be used to
strategically implement--
``(I) Federal projects;
``(II) projects carried out in coordination with States,
Indian tribes, municipalities, institutions of higher
education, and other organizations; and
``(III) operations and activities of the Program Office,
including remediation of sediment contamination in areas of
concern.'';
(B) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``(G)(i)'' and inserting
``(J)(i)''; and
(C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) Agreements with non-federal entities.--
``(I) In general.--The Administrator, or the head of any
other Federal department or agency receiving funds under
clause (ii)(I), may make a grant to, or otherwise enter into
an agreement with, a qualified non-Federal entity, as
determined by the Administrator or the applicable head of the
other Federal department or agency receiving funds, for
planning, research, monitoring, outreach, or implementation
of a project selected under subparagraph (C), to support the
Initiative Action Plan or the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
``(II) Qualified non-federal entity.--For purposes of this
clause, a qualified non-Federal entity may include a
governmental entity, nonprofit organization, institution, or
individual.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraphs (E) through (G) and inserting
the following:
``(E) Scope.--
``(i) In general.--Projects may be carried out under the
Initiative on multiple levels, including--
``(I) locally;
``(II) Great Lakes-wide; or
``(III) Great Lakes basin-wide.
``(ii) Limitation.--No funds made available to carry out
the Initiative may be used for any water infrastructure
activity (other than a green infrastructure project that
improves habitat and other ecosystem functions in the Great
Lakes) for which financial assistance is received--
``(I) from a State water pollution control revolving fund
established under title VI;
``(II) from a State drinking water revolving loan fund
established under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300j-12); or
``(III) pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.).
``(F) Activities by other federal agencies.--Each relevant
Federal department or agency shall, to the maximum extent
practicable--
``(i) maintain the base level of funding for the Great
Lakes activities of that department or agency without regard
to funding under the Initiative; and
``(ii) identify new activities and projects to support the
environmental goals of the Initiative.
``(G) Revision of initiative action plan.--
``(i) In general.--Not less often than once every 5 years,
the Administrator, in conjunction with the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force, shall review, and revise as
appropriate, the Initiative Action Plan to guide the
activities of the Initiative in addressing the restoration
and protection of the Great Lakes system.
``(ii) Outreach.--In reviewing and revising the Initiative
Action Plan under clause (i), the Administrator shall consult
with the Great Lakes States and Indian tribes and solicit
input from other non-Federal stakeholders.
``(H) Monitoring and reporting.--The Administrator shall--
``(i) establish and maintain a process for monitoring and
periodically reporting to the public on the progress made in
implementing the Initiative Action Plan;
``(ii) make information about each project carried out
under the Initiative Action Plan available on a public
website; and
``(iii) provide to the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works a yearly detailed description of the
progress of the Initiative and amounts transferred to
participating Federal departments and agencies under
subparagraph (D)(ii).
``(I) Initiative action plan defined.--In this paragraph,
the term `Initiative Action Plan' means the comprehensive,
multi-year action plan for the restoration of the Great
Lakes, first developed pursuant to the Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Conference Report accompanying the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-88).
``(J) Funding.--
``(i) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this paragraph $300,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2017 through 2021.
``(ii) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph creates,
expands, or amends the authority of the Administrator to
implement programs or projects under--
``(I) this section;
``(II) the Initiative Action Plan; or
``(III) the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment. I
would like to start today by thanking Chairman Shuster, subcommittee
Chairman Gibbs, and the rest of the members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for the committee's thorough review of the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; here and after, GLRI. The GLRI
ensures we work together as a country to protect and preserve one of
our most important national treasures and economic assets, the Great
Lakes.
According to recent estimates, if the Great Lakes region were a
country its GDP would be the third largest in the world. The Great
Lakes currently generate 1.5 million jobs and $60 billion in wages
annually and provides the foundation for a $30 billion tourism economy.
Whether it is manufacturing, mining, engineering, agriculture, or
fishing, the Great Lakes support a wide variety of jobs and industries,
but the Lakes' importance doesn't stop there.
The Great Lakes does not just provide jobs; it provides a resource.
You see, the Great Lakes holds 6 quadrillion gallons of fresh water.
They contain 95 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States
and more
[[Page H6048]]
than 20 percent of the world's surface freshwater. It provides drinking
water to 46 million people.
The text of this amendment is the same as the text of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Act of 2016, which just passed this House
unanimously on April 26, 2016.
I offer my amendment today in hopes that it will finally pass in the
Senate, which overwhelmingly passed a similar provision in their WRDA
bill. The difference between the House and Senate versions are small
but they are important. This amendment includes important changes to
current law that reflect feedback from the Government Accountability
Office and key stakeholders.
My amendment enhances the non-Federal stakeholder outreach the EPA is
required to conduct to ensure regular consultation with States and
tribes and better communication with NGOs.
This amendment also includes a coordinator to address harmful algal
blooms in Lake Erie which reduces duplication and increases
transparency. It requires more robust, adaptive management by the EPA
and the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to update the GLRI action
plan every 5 years.
None of these changes were included in the Senate bill. Adding them
to the House WRDA bill will make sure these thoughtful provisions,
which enhance transparency, accountability, and local planning, are
maintained as we fight to get this bill passed.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but 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 that I support.
It authorizes, as my colleague explained, the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. Mr. Joyce has championed this bill and worked very hard, as
has Ms. Kaptur, on this important issue.
In fact, the GLRI bill passed through the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and passed the House by a voice vote, so I firmly
stand behind Mr. Joyce's amendment. I support it and would urge all my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has also been very active in
this campaign.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Joyce for yielding, and
I urge strong support of his amendment. I thank him for his vigilant
and necessary championing of our Great Lakes, the largest body of
freshwater on the face of the Earth. I want to thank Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member DeFazio, and Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs for helping us
to elevate to national importance and to large numbers of our citizenry
the sheer magnitude of what these freshwater seas actually represent
for our country and the world.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been very effective in
beginning to address the severe and unique concerns confronting our
Great Lakes. During the first 5 years of GLRI, Federal agencies and
their partners removed 42 beneficial-use-impairment listings in 17
areas of concern, quadrupling the number of beneficial use impairments
removed in the preceding 22 years. For example, this year the
Environmental Protection Agency made an important designation at the
Black River area of concern near Lorain, Ohio. It is the largest EPA
GLRI investment, and it will bring that area of concern to completion,
an area so critically damaged by decades of industrial waste that
drains directly into Lake Erie, our life source.
Programs like the GLRI, which have proven effective, deserve our
praise and support. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
Mr. Joyce's amendment to protect one of our greatest national and
global treasures, the Great Lakes, which represent and contain 20
percent of the world's freshwater. Just to put it on the record, God
isn't making any more freshwater. This equals 20% of all that exists.
We have to take care of it and shepherd it into the future.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Joyce for his
leadership on this amendment and his bipartisan efforts to ensure
resources to protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. In April,
the House joined together to unanimously pass Mr. Joyce's amendment to
formally authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative program, the
same goal as his amendment today.
The Great Lakes are a vast, strategic resource, and a source of pride
for the State of Michigan and all surrounding States, and our country,
as well, as a whole, with this massive, very special resource. I
encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment and help
protect and preserve the Great Lakes for the benefit of our environment
and the economy for generations to come.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I will say my piece if I could. It is with
a heavy heart that I come to the House floor today. My mother passed
away early this morning, Pat Shuster--Patricia Shuster. I want to thank
all my colleagues for their condolences and kind words.
Some may wonder why am I here today. Well, it is what my mother would
have wanted. In fact, she would have insisted that I do my job and
finish my work. So I know my mother is smiling down on me today.
Mom, my work is almost done. I love you and will miss you forever.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the Great Lakes, I know I
can sound like a broken record. In fact, some have recently called me
here the Great Lakes guy. I am proud of that, and I am proud to support
this amendment, proud to stand up for one of our country's greatest
natural resources and economic powerhouses. I hope you all join me in
support to protect and preserve our national treasure, the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce).
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 Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Bridenstine
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 72, strike lines 19 through 21.
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. 2__. TULSA AND WEST TULSA, ARKANSAS RIVER, OKLAHOMA.
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the projects for flood
risk management, Tulsa and West Tulsa, Oklahoma, authorized
by section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 645;
chapter 377).
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the study under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall address project deficiencies,
uncertainties, and significant data gaps, including material,
construction, and subsurface, which render the project at
risk of overtopping, breaching, or system failure.
(B) Addressing deficiencies.--In addressing deficiencies
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall incorporate
current design standards and efficiency improvements,
including the replacement of mechanical and electrical
components at pumping stations, if the incorporation does not
significantly change the scope, function, or purpose of the
project.
(3) Prioritization to address significant risks.--In any
case in which a levee or levee
[[Page H6049]]
system (as defined in section 9002 of the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301)) is
classified as a Class I or II under the levee safety action
classification tool developed by the Corps of Engineers, the
Secretary shall expedite the project for budget
consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
While the current version of the bill includes language for a
feasibility study on the Tulsa-West Tulsa levees, this amendment simply
strengthens the language by aligning the House version of the bill with
the already Senate-passed bill. It requires the Army Corps of Engineers
to prioritize funding for construction if the study finds the levees
are at a high risk for failure. In order to get priority, the Corps
feasibility study must conclude that the Tulsa levees are category 1 or
2, the highest safety risk.
The current infrastructure that encompasses the 20 miles of levees in
the Tulsa system was constructed over 70 years ago, rendering the
levees woefully outdated. In fact, the Corps has assessed that the
levees are among the most high-risk levees in the country. These levees
protect billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure, including homes
and businesses and even energy production facilities. The potential
loss of life and destruction of property in the event of a breach would
be absolutely devastating to my district.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply aligns the House bill with the
Senate bill and helps protect life and property. I urge a ``yes'' vote
on 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 Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Courtney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. COURTNEY. 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 III, add the following:
SEC. ___. STONINGTON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.
The portion of the project for navigation, Stonington
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of May 23, 1828 (4
Stat. 288; chapter 73) that consists of the inner stone
breakwater that begins at coordinates N. 682,146.42, E.
1231,378.69, running north 83.587 degrees west 166.79' to a
point N. 682,165.05, E. 1,231,212.94, running north 69.209
degrees west 380.89' to a point N. 682,300.25, E.
1,230,856.86, is no longer authorized as a Federal project
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a simple amendment that adds to the list of projects
deauthorized through WRDA a stone breakwater in Stonington Harbor in
Stonington, Connecticut.
If the amendment passes, it will return the breakwater to the town of
Stonington. I can report confidently that all the stakeholders in that
region, the town of Stonington, and the State of Connecticut strongly
support this amendment.
It is a breakwater that was built in 1827, operated for a number of
years; but in the mid-20th century, the Army Corps abandoned the wharf,
and it has really deteriorated since as a result of storms, Hurricanes
Donna and Gloria and Superstorm Sandy. The town created an Old
Stonington Harbor Wharf/Breakwater Task Force, which, again, has put
together a reconstruction plan. It has received funding from the State
of Connecticut. All of this is on standby, subject to deauthorization,
which the Army Corps tells us is necessary for legal title to switch.
Again, it is a simple amendment. I want to, again, salute the hard
work of the task force, which was headed by Peter Tacy; the First
Selectman of Stonington, Rob Simmons, who was my predecessor in the
Second Congressional District seat; and also to State senator Andy
Maynard, who worked hard on this project and is retiring from the
Connecticut General Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I do not
oppose the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Courtney's amendment and
urge adoption of it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging Chairman
Shuster in a colloquy with respect to the Kildee-Moolenaar amendment
that the House will consider shortly. First, I thank him for his
efforts, and for the efforts of Ranking Member DeFazio, as well as
Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and Mr. Hoyer, who late in the evening
yesterday worked to reach an agreement on this amendment.
The amendment authorizes $170 million for the Corps of Engineers to
replace public and private infrastructure in communities such as my
hometown of Flint that have received an emergency declaration due to
lead contamination in their drinking water. My constituents have been
waiting for the help they need for more than a year since they were
told their drinking water was poisoned. This is a very important step
toward getting them the help they deserve and putting this aid on the
President's desk.
As the chairman knows, the Senate has passed $220 million to assist
communities like Flint with lead issues in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
vote of 95-3. That package includes funding for water infrastructure
replacement and for programs to help address the impacts of lead
exposure on children and pregnant women nationwide. It also creates a
Federal advisory committee to study the effects of lead exposure on
communities, and it suggests ways to reduce it.
To my friend, Mr. Shuster, do I have your commitment to bridge the
gap between my amendment and the Senate package so that the final bill
we send to the President provides the much-needed relief to my
constituents and the families of Flint?
Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman and recognize that this is an
important issue to him and his constituents back home in Michigan. In
2016, no one, no one should be afraid to drink the water that comes out
of their tap. That is something I think we all can agree on. It is in
that spirit that I have committed to working together as we bridge the
differences between the two Chambers that these bills will ensure a
mutually agreeable solution. I am committed to getting this vital
infrastructure bill to the President's desk. I look forward to working
with the gentleman and those on the other side of the aisle to move
this forward.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I look forward to
working with the chairman on this and working to successfully get this
bill out of the House today so that we can work on it with the Senate.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank the ranking
member's support for my amendment and also the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for his support. I want
to express my deepest condolences for his loss.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H6050]]
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Newhouse
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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. __. KENNEWICK MAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Claimant tribes.--The term ``claimant tribes'' means
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Nez
Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation, and the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids.
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation.
(3) Human remains.--The term ``human remains'' means the
human remains that--
(A) are known as Kennewick Man or the Ancient One, which
includes the projectile point lodged in the right ilium bone,
as well as any residue from previous sampling and studies;
and
(B) are part of archaeological collection number 45BN495.
(b) Transfer.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law, including the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), or law of the
State of Washington, not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall transfer the human remains to the
Department, on the condition that the Department, acting
through the State Historic Preservation Officer, disposes of
the remains and repatriates the remains to claimant tribes.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--The transfer shall be subject to
the following terms and conditions:
(1) The release of the human remains to the claimant tribes
is contingent upon the claimant tribes entering into
agreement with the Department.
(2) The claimant tribes are in agreement as to the final
burial place of the human remains.
(3) The claimant tribes are in agreement that the human
remains will be buried in the State of Washington.
(4) The claimant tribes are in agreement that the
Department will take custody of the human remains upon the
transfer by the Secretary.
(d) Cost.--The Corps of Engineers shall be responsible for
any costs associated with the transfer.
(e) Limitations.--
(1) In general.--The transfer shall be limited solely to
the human remains portion of the archaeological collection.
(2) Secretary.--The Secretary shall have no further
responsibility for the human remains transferred pursuant to
subsection (b) after the date of the transfer.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan
amendment that is based on the text of H.R. 4131, the Bring the Ancient
One Home Act of 2015, which was bipartisan legislation introduced by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), my friend and colleague. I
was very proud to cosponsor this bill, and I am honored to lead this
amendment with my Pacific Northwest colleagues: Representatives Heck,
Kilmer, and Walden. I appreciate their commitment to this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago the skeletal remains of a human being
determined to be roughly 9,000 years old were found on Federal land
near the Columbia River in my central Washington district. These
remains are often referred to as the Kennewick Man, but the tribes
prefer the more respectful name of The Ancient One, which is how I will
refer to him.
Because The Ancient One was found on lands managed by the Army Corps
of Engineers, the nearly fully intact skeleton was turned over to the
Corps.
{time} 1700
The tribes involved--the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla and the Wanapum Band of Priest Rapids--have, for two
decades, worked to repatriate the Ancient One and return him for proper
burial that would follow practices used by these Columbia Basin tribes
for thousands of years; or, as they say, for time immemorial. The
tribes believe that the spirit of the Ancient One cannot rest until he
is reburied, and I think it is important that we respect that belief.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or
NAGPRA, was enacted into law in 1990 to address the treatment of Native
American cultural items, including human remains, with the goal of
returning these items to tribes. In other words, NAGPRA was enacted to
facilitate the return of skeletal remains such as the Ancient One.
In January of 2000, both the Corps of Engineers and the Interior
Department determined the Ancient One was indeed of Indian descent and
should be returned for proper burial. In June of 2015, University of
Copenhagen geneticists released findings that clearly tied the DNA of
the Ancient One to modern Native Americans, and a subsequent study by
the University of Chicago reached similar conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply return the Ancient One back
to the Columbia Basin tribes, who are in total agreement that he should
be reburied. I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition,
although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, initially, I would like to
invoke an expression from Indian Country in the Northwest. I raise my
hands in respect first to the chair of the standing committee, Mr.
Shuster, who has my deepest condolences, and to my friends, Mr.
Newhouse, Mr. Walden, and my roommate, Mr. Kilmer.
The story of the Ancient One, or Kennewick Man, as he is known, is
very familiar to those of us who live in the Northwest. As the
gentleman from Washington indicated, two college students stumbled upon
a skull of the Ancient One on the waters of the Columbia River 20 years
ago. That accident unearthed one of the most important archeological
discoveries in North American history. Think about it: a skeleton
virtually fully intact that is 9,000 years old. Since that time, as has
been indicated, the five tribes of the region have struggled for two
decades for their right to properly honor, as is their cultural way,
and rebury their ancestor.
But there is another story here that I think is important to tell.
For generations, American archeologists and collectors raced across the
West to collect native artifacts that they shipped back to museums or,
more sadly, sold for a profit. Those museums were filled for years with
Indian remains from graves, burial platforms, and battlefields that
were desecrated, desecrated simply because the nonnative people did not
understand the heritage and culture of native people. This era of
looting and desecration is, in fact, a stain on our Nation's history.
Thankfully, that wasn't the case with the remains of the Ancient One.
This is, in part, because in 1990, in its wisdom, this institution
passed a law to protect Indian remains and cultural items from
desecration.
In the last 26 years since its enactment, that law has allowed the
Federal Government to return thousands of remains and artifacts to
native tribes, and that is exactly what this amendment will do. It
would enforce our existing laws and return the Ancient One to the five
tribes in the Columbia River Basin, which they have fought for for two
decades. They fought against a group of scientists that seek to study
these remains in order to learn more about how humans first populated
North America.
I don't mean to impugn the motives of these scientists. We all want
to support greater scientific discovery; but, frankly, these efforts to
prevent the reburial of the Ancient One ignore these tribes' sovereign
rights, traditions, and, in fact, their most sacred beliefs.
Throughout American history, the Federal Government and the American
people have not always--if we are honest with one another--upheld our
vital responsibility to respect the treaty rights of the peoples who
have been here since time immemorial. It is something we continue to
struggle with--I get that--but we can't let it happen here again.
[[Page H6051]]
As my friend from Washington said, the science is settled. The
Ancient One is in fact an ancestor of the native peoples of the
Columbia River Basin, and he belongs with them. We need to do
everything in our power to ensure he is returned as quickly as
possibly. That is why I was honored to introduce the Bring the Ancient
One Home Act, along with my colleagues here. That is why I am so proud
to work closely with Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Kilmer on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it has been 20 years, and that is 20 years too long. It
is vital that we act now to properly honor the Ancient One. For that
reason, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friends, Representative
Newhouse and Representative Heck, for taking the lead on this effort.
I rise today in support of this amendment because the Ancient One has
been separated from his family for far too long. It is time he return
home.
For 20 years, as you heard my colleague point out, the Ancient One
has been stuck in limbo while the scientists and lawyers have debated
what the Native American community knew to be true: that he is their
ancestor. Now that three independent DNA analyses have confirmed his
ancestry to the native people of the Columbia Plateau, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers must expedite his repatriation so that his
descendants may honor his life.
This legislation will help speed up the process and ensure that the
Ancient One's descendants have the opportunity to lay his remains to
rest in their ancestral burial grounds. Only then will the Ancient
One's story finally be complete and will his spirit be able to rest.
That is why I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to
accept this amendment. It is very important to the native people of
central Washington.
I, again, want to extend my thanks to Representative Heck,
Representative Walden, and Representative Kilmer. I would like to
extend a word of condolence to Chairman Shuster. We are all part of an
extended family, and I want to make sure that he understands that we
share with him his loss.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kildee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 114-794.
Mr. KILDEE. 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__. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-580; 106 Stat. 4835) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(g) Additional Assistance.--Notwithstanding any
limitation on project purposes identified in subsections (c)
or (f), or limitation on authorization, the Secretary may
provide additional assistance under subsection (a), and
assistance for construction, to any community identified in
subsection (c) or (f), in any State for which the President
has declared an emergency under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), as a result of the presence of chemical, physical,
or biological constituents, including lead or other
contaminants in the eligible system, for the repair or
replacement of public and private infrastructure.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes
under paragraph (g), there is authorized to be appropriated
$170,000,000 to remain available until expended.''
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 897, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is something, obviously, I
have been working on for some time. It would bring urgently needed aid
to my hometown of Flint, Michigan.
For over a year, the Flint water crisis has been public, and we have
not yet been able to act here in Congress. It has been even longer
since the residents of Flint have been drinking or using water that is
basically poisoned with lead--2 full years.
To be clear, what happened in Flint was a failure of government at
every level of government. Through this amendment, Congress can take
its rightful place in fulfilling its obligation and its responsibility
to help my hometown recover.
The amendment would authorize $170 million to restore the safety of
water infrastructure in communities like my hometown of Flint that have
lead in their water. More importantly, it would create a concrete
commitment from both bodies of Congress to get aid for my hometown to
the President's desk.
The Senate passed similar legislation by a vote of 95-3. This
amendment would ensure that the House also supports communities like
Flint that are suffering with this terrible problem.
We have just waited an awful long time for this. We have worked very
hard to get this amendment in a bipartisan fashion to the floor. I want
to thank all my friends, but particularly Mr. Moolenaar, who cosponsors
this amendment with me.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition, though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
First, I also want to congratulate and express my appreciation to my
colleague, friend, and neighbor from Flint, Mr. Kildee, for his work on
this and for his advocacy of his hometown.
I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, the crisis in Flint was caused by
failures of government at all levels. The Federal Government played a
significant role in causing this crisis, and Congress has held multiple
hearings to investigate. Members on both sides of the aisle have found
fault with the Federal Government's actions in Flint.
Today, the House has the opportunity to acknowledge those failures
and do right by the people of Flint. While the Federal Government
failed, the pipes in Flint were damaged beyond repair and residents
were poisoned with lead. That is why fixing the water infrastructure in
Flint is a proper role for the Federal Government and a step forward
for the city and its residents.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, listen, we all know what happened in Flint
was a tragic failure at every level, and folks there are rightly tired
of the finger pointing. They want answers.
Is it asking too much for the EPA to tell folks when lead levels are
too high? I say no. This is why this very body passed the Kildee-Upton
bill earlier this year, 416-2, that would force the EPA to alert
families when lead levels are too high.
Is it asking too much for us to tackle this problem in a fiscally
responsible manner? I say no. That is why we have a responsible
solution right in front of us. This provision will be fully paid for
when conferenced with the Senate.
Is it asking too much for our kids to have access to safe drinking
water? I say no. I was just in Flint with my friend, Mr. Kildee. We
ought to be focused on working together to get the job done.
Folks in Flint have been asking these questions for more than 2 years
now. And you know what? They deserve answers, action, and results. It
is time to stand up and deliver.
[[Page H6052]]
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am so thankful that Congress is stepping up finally
to do the right thing by providing assistance to the people of Flint.
Flint has suffered a manmade disaster because of the failure of
government at every level of government: the local level, the county
level, the State level, and, certainly, the Federal level. Certainly,
the State of Michigan has acknowledged their responsibility and has
been taking some corrective action, but this disaster is beyond the
ability of the city, county, and State to deal with. It requires the
Federal Government to accept culpability as well and to buck up, and it
is entirely appropriate and necessary that we do so.
Helping the people of Flint, Mr. Chairman, especially the children--
these are American children, these are American babies, not from some
other foreign country where we give plenty of foreign aid--speaks to
who we are as a people.
{time} 1715
And we are Americans, compassionate, never turning our back on our
own when they need help; and certainly our fellow American citizens of
Flint need our country's--this country's--help right now.
So I will be very proud to vote ``yes,'' and I urge all of my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), my friend and member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is going to be from the heart. My family is
originally from Flint, on my mom's side. I have had very many fond
memories growing up as a child going and visiting aunts and uncles and
cousins. I have recently visited those who have been affected, and it
is tragic.
Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that if these were folks that had
been affected by the breach of a dam or by a nuclear plant meltdown, we
would not be turning our backs on them; we would be taking care of
them. We should be doing the exact same thing with the folks in Flint.
These folks have experienced failure of government at all levels for
decades: local, State, and the Federal Government. That has been well
acknowledged. But what we have not talked about is how we are going to
then care for those citizens.
Let's fix the management issues, but, more importantly, let's care
for our fellow citizens and make sure that those children, especially,
are going to have the same opportunity as every other child in Michigan
and the United States.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I want to compliment
everyone who has been involved in this bipartisan solution. It is an
example of Congress working together to solve a problem.
This is something that those of us--and many of us have traveled to
Flint--have listened to the stories of the families of children who
have been poisoned. It is a tragedy on the national level. Presidential
candidates have been there.
This is something concrete that Congress can do to move the ball
forward and help Flint with its healing and making a huge difference in
the lives of residents in Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say how much I appreciate the efforts on behalf of my
home community by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As you have
heard, Congressman Moolenaar, my neighbor, has been there right along.
Congresswoman Miller stepped up immediately after this crisis became
known and articulated a need for Federal intervention very early in the
process. Mr. Huizenga obviously has been there, with roots in Flint,
and has come to my community.
There is not much more I can say about what Mr. Upton has been
willing to do, working with me initially on legislation to reform the
EPA's obligations regarding notification and now, of course, working
with us to get this amendment before the House of Representatives.
It broke my heart when this whole episode began, to see my own
hometown, the place that has given me virtually everything that I have,
go through the worst crisis that it could ever even imagine, a crisis
that was a threat to its very existence. So I am grateful for the help
of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding, and I am happy to support this amendment.
The people of Flint have gone over 2 years without clean drinking
water in their homes. They are still being exposed, still being harmed.
I think it is a disgrace that we are still fighting about providing
them with essential Federal aid.
I want to commend my colleague Mr. Kildee and Democratic leaders in
the House and the Senate who kept attention on the plight of this
community and worked tirelessly for the opportunity to offer this
amendment.
I hope to see this amendment pass shortly, but our work will not be
done. We will have to work to go to conference with the House and the
Senate WRDA bills and ensure that the people of Flint receive the funds
that they need.
Safe drinking water is essential to every person in this country, and
provisions to ensure safe drinking water should not be a partisan
issue. So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this
amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank my colleagues. I hope and
pray that I have strong bipartisan support for this effort. It has
surely been demonstrated by my friends who have spoken.
This is one of those issues that should and ought to transcend some
of the divisions that often occupy this House. It is a matter simply of
doing what is right for the people of my hometown and the people of
this country, and it means a lot to me that so many have stood with me
in this time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5303, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
Across the country, my colleagues and I hear from communities and
businesses about the need to invest in infrastructure. The federal
investment in infrastructure has fallen to a paltry level, and our
communities are feeling the consequences of this every day. Not only
does investing in infrastructure put people to work, it also allows for
the efficient movement of people and goods, an essential aspect of
commerce, economic growth, and public safety. The lack of robust
investment threatens our global competitiveness and the safety and
quality of life of our constituents.
The original Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill included
language that would set a schedule to direct all of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) revenues to be used for the maintenance
of U.S. harbors instead of the current process of transferring a
portion to the Treasury to cover unrelated debts. Our nation's harbors,
ports, and waterways have a backlog of important projects that are key
to our country's competitiveness. By moving HMTF funding off-budget, it
would have provided much-needed funding for these projects. As the
Senate and House negotiate the final legislation, I support directing
all Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues to be used for harbor
maintenance.
I applaud Ranking Member DeFazio for securing a set-aside of at least
10 percent of the revenues from the HMTF to be used for small ports.
This provision will benefit many communities in Oregon that rely on
small ports to get goods to market, which will help local economies
thrive. These small ports can't compete for Harbor Maintenance funding
alongside the large, deep-draft ports, so a set-aside is vital to their
survival.
Additionally the Willamette Falls at the end of the Oregon Trail and
the Willamette Locks were an important element of American settlement
of the West. Repair and reopening of the Willamette Falls Locks is an
essential part of the future economic and cultural heritage of the
area. A final disposition study of the Locks
[[Page H6053]]
is underway by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is important that this
study fully consider all economic, recreational, historic, and cultural
significance of the locks at the national, state, or local level.
The Columbia River is a powerful economic force in Oregon. It helps
carry goods to market and provides food to tribal populations and
others. We must reduce pollution and contamination of this critical
resource. I joined my colleagues Reps. Blumenauer and DeFazio in
introducing H.R. 2469, the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of
2015, which includes grants for projects that help preserve and protect
the waterway. As the Senate and House negotiate the final legislation,
I support the inclusion of the Columbia River Restoration Act in the
final bill.
I share the frustration of so many families in Oregon and across the
nation whose children have been exposed to lead in their school
drinking water and their neighborhoods. Families shouldn't have to
worry about whether the drinking water in their homes or schools poses
serious risks to their children's health. The Flint, Michigan crisis
continues, and children and families desperately need aid to restore
quality drinking water. I supported Rep. Kildee's amendment to bring
aid needed to communities suffering from water contamination
emergencies.
Invasive mussels have destroyed infrastructure in Western States and
are costly to eradicate once they've multiplied. Accordingly,
prevention is important. Watercraft inspection stations help protect
the Columbia River basin from being permeated by zebra and quagga
mussels. I am pleased that Rep. Herrera Beutler's amendment was adopted
to allow funds to be used for watercraft inspection stations in
Northwestern states.
I am supporting this bill today and will continue working with my
colleagues to dedicate HMTF revenue for its intended purpose.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Kildee
Amendment to H.R. 5303, the ``Water Resources Development Act,'' which
authorizes variety of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water resources
development projects, feasibility studies, and relationships with
nonfederal project sponsors.
Specifically, I would like to congratulate my colleague
Representative Dan Kildee who represents Michigan's 5th District on his
amendment, which bring much needed relief to the people of Flint
Michigan who have gone without safe potable water for over 2 years.
The Kildee Amendment provides $170,000,000 in funding to repair and
replace the damaged water pipes that are the source of the toxic lead
and chemical laced water flowing to Flint, Michigan homes.
For the past two years, Flint, Michigan has lived in a state of fear
of the water flowing from the faucets in their homes.
It is beyond shocking and unacceptable that tens of thousands of
citizens have been exposed to toxic levels of lead in their drinking
water.
The trust and ability to protect our citizens' basic right to clean
water has been shaken nationally by the severity and length of time
this disaster has been allowed to fester without Congressional action.
Each of us in this body has a duty to ensure justice and protection
of our citizens.
This was not a disaster in hiding, it was in plain sight for 2 years,
but Congress refused to act until forced to do so by a deadline that
they could not control.
We must not let the plight of Flint and the provision of relief let
us forget that we must:
address the harms caused;
get an accounting of what happened;
understand how the water was poisoned;
make the lives of people damaged by this tragedy whole;
find justice for those lives that may have been lost; and
determine and provide for the long-term health needs of those
impacted.
Flint, Michigan like so many communities across the nation really
felt the brunt of the financial crisis created by the abuse of new home
lending practices and deceptive investment schemes that hid the
weaknesses in the economy until the great recession spread across the
nation beginning in late 2008.
The financial damage done to communities like Flint in the form of
steep declines in property values, which caused significant declines in
property tax income.
This was not just Flint's problem, but a national reality--for
financially strapped cities, towns, school boards, and municipal
governments.
This shared economic crisis resulted in new leadership being sent to
Congress and to governors' mansions across the nation.
Michigan was one state that turned to new leadership to solve
problems and restore fiscal health to the state and local economies.
Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan was sworn into office in 2011 to
solve problems and restore fiscal health to his state.
On December 1, 2010, Michael Brown took office as Flint's state-
appointed emergency manager.
One of the first acts of the newly elected leaders in the state of
Michigan was to drastically change the powers that could be exercised
under the state's emergency manager law to include special provisions
regarding the declaration of a local government financial emergency.
Over the 22 years the original emergency management law had been in
place only 7 jurisdictions had been under emergency management, but
following the 2011 changes to that law 10 jurisdictions were placed
under emergency management.
On Election Day in 2011 the state declared that an emergency
financial manager should assume control over the city of Flint.
The conditions in Flint are a cautionary tale on what happens when
money has more value than people in the minds of those charged under
public oath to serve, defend and protect Constitutional Rights.
On April 25, 2014, the city of Flint switches water supply from Lake
Huron, which cost the city about $1 million each month to the Flint
River to save money.
The Flint River had long been known by residents to be contaminated
by industrial pollution.
The water out of the Flint River was not safe, but it could have been
treated to prevent the erosion of lead pipes that contaminated the
water, the introduction bacteria and other toxins into the homes,
schools, workplaces, and churches of the community, but that would have
cost money.
Shortly after the switch citizens began to complain about the color,
taste, order, and reported rashes.
In August and September 2014, city officials issued boil water
directives to citizens after a coliform bacterium was found in the
water.
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water
than the general population.
Immuno-comprised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing
chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with
HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants
can be particularly at risk from infections if exposed to water born
bacteria.
Several deaths are under investigation because they may be linked to
the polluted water sent to Flint residents' homes.
In October 2014 the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
blames cold weather, aging pipes, and a population decline for the poor
water quality.
In January 2015, the Detroit water systems offers to reconnect Flint,
and would waive the $4 million connection fee, but 3 weeks later the
state appointed emergency manager declined the offer.
In February 2015, a memo from Governor Snyder's office plays down the
problem and states that the water is not an imminent ``threat to public
health.''
In February 2015--the same month the governor's office declared that
the water was safe tests revealed that it contained 104 parts per
billion of lead in drinking water drawn from taps in the home of Lee
Anne Walters one of today's witnesses.
The Environmental Protection Agency requires action when levels reach
15 parts per billion of lead contamination, but scientist state there
is no safe level of lead contamination.
On February 27, Miguel Del Toral an EPA expert reported that the
state was testing water in a manner that would profoundly underestimate
lead levels.
On March 12, 2015, Veolia a consultant group hired by Flint reports
that the city's water meets state and federal standards, but fails to
report on lead levels.
Elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially
for pregnant women and young children.
Infants and young children are typically more vulnerable to lead in
drinking water than the general population.
While the state declared the water safe to drink and the EPA received
assurances that testing was being performed and the results showed no
worries, behind the scenes something very different was happening in
state offices located in Flint Michigan.
On January 9, 2015, e-mails among Flint government employees at the
Department of Technology, Management and Budget, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, and the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal
Assistance.
The emails revealed that employees at government departments in the
city of Flint were concerned about Flint's water quality and in
response the state paid for water coolers to be placed in government
offices located in the city of flint on each occupied floor, and
positioned near the water fountain, so state workers could choose which
water to drink.
The core concern of the emails was the levels of a group of chemical
compounds called ``TTHM'' or ``total tri-halomethanes, that were
identified in the Flint drinking water.
TTHM are produced when organic matter in natural water reacts
chemically with chlorine disinfectants.
[[Page H6054]]
Chlorine disinfectants are added to drinking water to destroy the
microbial pathogens that could make consumers sick or even kill them.
Disinfection byproducts TTHM can be minimized in drinking water by
reducing organic matter in water before chlorination--in other words
through treating the water.
While the people of Flint Michigan continue to complain about the
taste and smell of the water--which ranged from a dull grey grime to
rust color in appearance government officials provided themselves with
access to bottled water at the taxpayers' expense.
The amount of chlorination added to the water in excess of what
should have been created another problem--people were now consuming and
bathing in water contaminated with TTHM.
The amount of chlorination added to the water in excess of what
should have been created another problem--people were now.
Flint Mayor Karen Weaver announced that her goal would be to replace
13,000 lead pipes at a cost of $2-3,000 for each pipe for a total of
about $42 million.
No one knows the reality of undertaking a massive effort such as what
will be needed, so the cost could easily be much higher than estimates.
Flint cannot be another Katrina where the poor, people of color and
marginalized are shutout of jobs as well as the political and decision
making processes regarding their homes, neighborhoods or city.
Replacing the lead pipes of Flint must include the cost of repairing
homes that will be damaged to access the pipes; repaving driveways, or
re-sodding lawns that are dug up to get to pipes, and restoring
sidewalks that are damaged to access pipe.
The repair and restitution of potable water to residents of Flint
will not be the end of the story.
We must recognize and acknowledge that there will be long term health
consequences for every person exposed to the toxic water for 2 years.
There are health impacts for children, their parents, and
grandparents that cannot and should not be ignored.
Our next step must be a public fund to compensate those who have long
term health impacts or diminished ability to be productive over the
full course of their work careers.
We will continue to work to help the people of Flint, Michigan in
order to restore them to health and eliminate their fear.
In closing, let me again express my appreciation and thanks to
Congressman Kildee for his steadfastness in advocating his amendment
and to Energy and Commerce Chair Upton, Congressman Conyers, and
Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence for their tireless efforts to ameliorate
the suffering of the people of Flint Michigan.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MASSIE. 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 Michigan
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-794 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Joyce of Ohio.
Amendment No. 19 by Mr. Kildee of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Joyce
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Joyce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407,
noes 18, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 569]
AYES--407
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--18
Amash
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Collins (GA)
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Franks (AZ)
Gosar
Hice, Jody B.
Jones
Lummis
Massie
McClintock
Mulvaney
Palmer
Sanford
Weber (TX)
Woodall
NOT VOTING--6
Denham
Kirkpatrick
Poe (TX)
Ribble
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
[[Page H6055]]
{time} 1744
Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama and Mr. WEBER of Texas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kildee
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284,
noes 141, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 570]
AYES--284
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Granger
Graves (LA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke
NOES--141
Allen
Babin
Barr
Barton
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Walker
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Amash
NOT VOTING--5
Kirkpatrick
Poe (TX)
Ribble
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
{time} 1755
Mr. ROTHFUS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. JOYCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Emmer of Minnesota). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Yoder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Emmer of Minnesota, 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, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 897, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DeFazio moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5303 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end of title IV, add the following:
SEC. __. NO CORPS FUNDING FOR SOCCER FIELDS, BASEBALL FIELDS,
BASKETBALL COURTS, OR SPLASH PARKS.
Notwithstanding item 1 of the table in section 401(a)(8),
the Secretary may not carry out the project for the Upper
Trinity River, Modified Central City, Fort Worth, Texas--
(1) if the Secretary determines that any portion of the
project is for the construction of a soccer field, baseball
field, basketball
[[Page H6056]]
court, or splash park using Federal funds provided through
the Corps of Engineers; or
(2) notwithstanding section 116 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447; 118
Stat. 2944), until the Secretary has determined that the
project is economically justified.
Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for
5 minutes.
{time} 1800
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard over 2 days, the Corps'
budget is tight--a $2.4 billion backlog in operations and maintenance
and, after today, a $74 billion backlog in authorized projects. Now,
deep in this bill is a line item that provides an authorization for an
$810 million lavish waterfront development project in Fort Worth,
Texas. My amendment simply guarantees fiscal discipline and regular
order in two parts.
First, it guarantees that no Corps of Engineers funds will be used to
build soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, or splash
parks as part of the project. Second, it requires the Secretary of the
Army to determine that the project is economically justified. That is
it. That is all this does.
The proponents of this will say there are no funds that are going to
be used for soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, or
splash parks. However, this has been extracted from the Web site of the
developer of the project. This is the official Web site. These are all
included.
They say: We are going to use local funds.
There is a little gimmick here. Corps projects that have been
authorized and have been found to be economically beneficial have to
have local cost sharing. In this case, big parts of the local cost
share are these things which are not qualified for a Corps project.
They say: Those aren't going to be Federal funds.
This is going to reduce the burden on the local people to match, and
it is going to increase the burden on the taxpayers. In fact, if this
does not authorize these things, all the Secretary has to do is to say
they are not going to be constructed with Federal funds. If Members
don't want to take my word for it, listen to the Taxpayers for Common
Sense and National Taxpayers Union.
``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. . . . `'
If I am wrong and the National Taxpayers Union is wrong, the Secretary
only has to confirm that.
Secondly, we are going to require the Secretary to determine the
project as economically justified. Why would Congress insist on
economically justifying a $510 million Federal project? A better
question might be: Why wouldn't you insist on this?
Every other chief's report in this bill had to go through an economic
analysis by the Corps of Engineers and be found to be a net benefit to
the taxpayers of the United States. This project did not. Yes, there
was a private analysis done that said this is a great project, but
there was no study done by the chief's office, and it has not been
economically justified.
This project started out as an earmark in 2004 at a cost of $220
million. In this bill, it is a renewed earmark at $810 million, and the
Federal share has gone from $110 million to $527 million. Anybody out
there who has a need for a port or a harbor or anything else, think
about that as you are in a very long line, and $527 million is going to
get ahead of you with an earmarked project which includes these sorts
of features.
I urge Members to observe regular order, not to do an earmark by any
other name, and require this project to be economically justified and
not to construct sports facilities.
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 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. We are going to
stand up and say that the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal
sponsor have made it clear that it is not responsible for constructing
baseball fields, basketball courts, and soccer fields. Not only has the
Corps said to us that it is not included in this--they have confirmed,
and they have reconfirmed--but, in fact, an independent board did a
cost-benefit analysis on this. An independent board did one. This
motion simply stops the forward motion of this bill.
When I became chairman, I committed to making sure that, in every
Congress, we would pass a WRDA bill and get back to regular order like
we used to do, but there was a 7-year gap; so here, today, we have a
bill. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a good bill.
I look around this Chamber, and there are Members here who have
projects in this that are important to their districts and that are
important to their States. Most importantly, it is important to the
Nation that we move this bill forward. If we delay on this bill, we are
going to delay these jobs. This is a critical bill for us. It does some
very, very good things. There are good benefits in here.
First, it reasserts congressional authority by restoring the 2-year
cycle to WRDA. It restores congressional authority. That means we in
this House and in the Senate--in Congress--get to tell the
administration what they are going to do. We are not going to sit here
and have them direct us and say this is what we will do. We don't know
who those faceless, nameless bureaucrats are, and I am tired of that. I
will not let that happen on my watch. There is a return to regular
order. As I said, there are unelected bureaucrats making those
decisions for us.
[[Page H6057]]
Secondly, it is fiscally responsible. We authorize over $9 billion in
projects, but we de-authorize. We have taken it, and we have balanced
it out so it is fiscally responsible.
Finally, it keeps American jobs in America by strengthening our
competitiveness--not Republican and Democratic jobs, American jobs. In
each Member's district and in each Member's State, this bill is going
to help America be competitive so that our goods and products can go
out of these ports efficiently to world markets and so they can come in
and get on our store shelves efficiently and save Americans money.
This is an important economic development bill for this Nation. Let's
get this bill done. Let's get into conversations with the Senate, and
let's get this on the President's desk. Let's help strengthen America.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 243, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 571]
AYES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--7
Doyle, Michael F.
Kirkpatrick
Lowey
McDermott
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
{time} 1812
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 399,
noes 25, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 572]
AYES--399
Abraham
Adams
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bost
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
[[Page H6058]]
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pocan
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Quigley
Rangel
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--25
Aderholt
Amash
Brooks (AL)
DeFazio
Ellmers (NC)
Franks (AZ)
Gohmert
Gosar
Green, Gene
Huelskamp
Jones
Jordan
Labrador
McKinley
Miller (FL)
Neugebauer
Palmer
Perry
Pitts
Polis
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Salmon
Sensenbrenner
Sewell (AL)
NOT VOTING--7
Boyle, Brendan F.
Kirkpatrick
McDermott
Pingree
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1820
Mr. GOHMERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________