Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4815-H4844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2018

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 918 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 8.
Will the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1530

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8) to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors
of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development
of water and related resources, and for other purposes, with Mr. Harper
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 115-711 offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gibbs

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part A of House
Report 115-711.
Mr. GIBBS. 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 9, line 17, insert ``, if determined necessary after
taking into account all relevant factors (including past
successful project completion)'' before the semicolon.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce my amendment to H.R. 8,
the Water Resources Development Act, to provide the Army Corps of
Engineers greater flexibility and the ability to use a variety of
factors in determining financial assurances with respect to section 404
permitted projects.
The Army Corps currently has considerable discretion at the district
level on whether to require financial assurance or a bond of
unauthorized projects. This includes a firm source of funding from a
project or its history of successful completion of projects. The
exclusion of this relevant data in determining a financial assurance
requirement has led to uneven application of the Corps discretion at
the district levels.
As a result, regulatory and financial requirements can be uncertain
for even one private entity from Corps district to Corps district. My
amendment will give a more uniform framework with a wider scope of
factors used in determining the financial mitigation requirements for a
404 project.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for regulatory
certainty, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield to my colleague from Louisiana,
Garret Graves.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important amendment in that it
tries to ensure that mitigation banks and other types of mitigation
mechanisms are viable options to be able to build projects.
In some cases, you have unavoidable impacts. We need to be able to
have options to mitigate for those impacts so we can truly build
projects.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio for raising this issue, for
bringing this up. I do think that we need to continue working on
refining the text a little bit and working together in a bipartisan
manner with our friends on the other side of the aisle to get this to a
place where everyone can agree.
Again, I think it is an important issue for us to address to ensure
that mitigation credits are actually accessible, and I want to see if
the gentleman will be willing to withdraw the amendment with the
understanding that we are going to work with him to ensure that we can
address this issue moving forward through the legislative process.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I think, with the comments from the
subcommittee chairman and the chairman's willingness to work through
this as we go through the process, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

[[Page H4816]]

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Soto

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part A of House
Report 115-711.
Mr. SOTO. 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 8, line 7, insert ``water storage,'' after ``aquifer
recharge,''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment directs the Secretary of the Army
to consider water storage when carrying out a water resource
development feasibility study.
Section 109 requires the Secretary to consult with local governments
and integrate their water management plans when developing a water
resource development feasibility study. My amendment would include
consideration of water storage when developing these studies.
Water storage is an essential tool that many States use to take full
advantage of their water resources. In Florida, we receive over 50
inches of rain annually; however, we don't always get the rain where we
need it. Water may be moved for flood control or water supply.
For example, from November 1, 2017, through June 4, 2018, the South
Florida Water Management District moved approximately 151 billion
gallons of water from Lake Okeechobee to preserve optimal levels for
the ecosystem.
In my own congressional district, our water management district uses
water storage to maintain maximum levels in Lake Toho. Additionally,
these storage areas provide wetland habitat to many endangered species.
Water storage is important and should be a consideration when studying
water resources feasibility.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. This amendment clarifies the section on integrating the
water resources planning to our bill and will help communities and the
Corps work in partnership, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, again, I am prepared to accept the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Royce of California

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House today, it is now
in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part A of House Report
115-711.
Mr. ROYCE of California. 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:

Strike section 120 and insert the following:

SEC. 120. NON-FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PILOT PROGRAM.

Section 1043(b) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)--
(A) in the matter preceding subclause (I)--
(i) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''; and
(ii) by striking ``prior to the date of enactment of this
Act'';
(B) in subclause (I)--
(i) in the matter preceding item (aa), by inserting ``that
have been authorized for construction prior to the date of
enactment of this Act and'' after ``not more than 12
projects''; and
(ii) in item (bb), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(C) in subclause (II)--
(i) by inserting ``that have been authorized for
construction prior to the date of enactment of this Act and''
after ``not more than 3 projects''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:

``(III) not more than 5 projects that have been authorized
for construction, but did not receive the authorization prior
to the date of enactment of this Act;''; and

(2) in subsection (b)(8) by striking ``2015 through 2019''
and inserting ``2019 through 2023''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Chairman, let me start by just thanking
the chairman of this committee, and I thank his committee for working
with me on my proposed changes and for including an additional
amendment in the manager's package.
The amendment before us expands the number of projects eligible under
the non-Federal implementation pilot program, and, as you know, the
pilot program was established by WRDA in 2014. What it does is, it
allows projects that can demonstrate greater cost effectiveness,
greater efficiency to receive direct funding. Savings from this program
then go toward either deficit reduction and other Corps projects.
So the original pilot allowed for 15 projects. This expands the
program to allow for a total of 32 projects. These projects will need
to be authorized and meet the criteria under the program, and if more
projects qualify under this pilot, it has the potential to save
taxpayers more money.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes additional changes to
the pilot program that we authorized in WRDA 2014 for non-Federal
implementation of Corps projects. This amendment will allow future
projects to be included in the program. I appreciate my colleague's
work on this issue, and I am prepared to accept the amendment at this
time.
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. Royce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Royce of California

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in part A of House
Report 115-711.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr.
Keating to offer amendment No. 5.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Insert after section 122 the following (and renumber
subsequent sections and the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 123. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR REGIONAL COALITIONS.

Section 22(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16(a)(1)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to
cooperate with any State, group of States, non-Federal
interest working with a State or group of States, or regional
coalition of governmental entities in the preparation of
comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and
conservation of the water and related resources of drainage
basins, watersheds, or ecosystems located within the
boundaries of such State, interest, or entity, including

[[Page H4817]]

plans to comprehensively address water resources challenges,
and to submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out
such plans.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment
would expand the Army Corps of Engineers' authorization to permit
cooperation with regional coalitions who are seeking to create or
improve water infrastructure in their areas.
The amendment today would help achieve the goal by encouraging towns
and counties to create partnerships with the Army Corps so they can
pursue creative solutions to local infrastructure needs and they can do
this together.
The reason for it is because watersheds do not follow municipal or
even State boundaries, as we know, so it is regional approaches like
the project in Mr. Keating's district that provide effective and
efficient solutions.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support
this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for offering this
amendment. This amendment clarifies the Army Corps' authority to
provide assistance to regional coalitions under certain planning
provisions. This is a good fix to the assistance program, and I am
prepared to accept the amendment at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE of California. 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. Royce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Denham

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. DENHAM. 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 30, strike lines 15 and 16 and insert the following:
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs
(4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
Page 30, line 17, strike ``paragraph (5)'' and insert
``paragraph (4), as so redesignated''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Denham-Costa amendment makes permanent
authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to enter cost recovery
agreements for evaluation and processing of permits for public utility,
natural gas companies, and railroad carriers.
The goal of this policy known as section 214 is to modernize the
evaluation of permits to ensure critical infrastructure projects can be
delivered to the public.
This policy can benefit the Central Valley, Napa, Sonoma, and other
disaster stricken areas by allowing them to rebuild faster so families
can turn on their lights and cool their homes.
I urge support of its passage, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa), my cosponsor.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to also thank the ranking member and the chair of the committee
for allowing us to work with the committee for what is an important
amendment.
The Denham-Costa amendment would make permanent the existing
authority for utility companies to contribute to funds to expedite
permit reviews for the Army Corps of Engineers.

{time} 1545

Expedited permit review reduces project costs and enhances public
safety by ensuring that projects are completed faster. It just makes
good sense.
Projects could benefit from this permanent authority include work to
stabilize aging transmission line towers in the San Francisco Bay,
replacing natural gas transmission lines over and under waterways, and
restoring water delivery systems associated with hydroelectric
facilities.
A lot of good has come from this amendment. It has broad support from
the utility industry and labor unions. I thank the author of this
amendment for his good cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. 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. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. 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 32, line 16, strike ``and''.
Page 32, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 32, after line 21, insert the following:
(6) an analysis of whether or not the Army Corps of
Engineers--
(A) considers cumulative benefits of locally developed
projects, including Master Plans approved by the Corps; and
(B) uses the benefits referred to in subparagraph (A) for
purposes of benefit-cost analysis for project justification
for potential projects within such Master Plans.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment, which calls for a study on how the Army Corps of Engineers
evaluates projects to advance flood control, hurricane and storm damage
reduction, and promote water quality.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Babin, for his work on this amendment with
me, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work
and collegiality in bringing this bill forward with us today.
The study in my amendment will look at how the Corps currently
calculates the benefits of potential projects and how they can improve
the calculation so that more worthwhile projects are approved.
Specifically, the amendment tasks the National Academy of Sciences to
study whether or not the Corps calculates the total benefits of a Corps
project and considers them in evaluating the cost benefit of smaller
segments or projects within that larger project. At the moment, it is
unclear if the Corps can or cannot do this.
Can the Corps count the benefits of a larger overall project and
apply them to the benefit cost of a smaller segment of that, that is
smaller in scope?
Can the Corps always measure individual pieces of a project for
justification purposes?
These are questions that need real answers.
Mr. Chairman, I raise this amendment today because this is a problem
that affects cities and towns in my State and, frankly, across the
country. In Connecticut, we have rivers that crisscross the State,
leaving many of our communities subject to flooding.
Over the last 150 years, the city of Meriden has experienced 11 100-
year floods, and the two most recent in the 1990s caused $26 million of
property damage. The good news is that this flooding is preventable by
implementing flood prevention and mitigation efforts, which will
protect life and property.
The city of Meriden has been working for 20 years on trying to get
help from the Federal Government. It came to the Corps looking for
help. At this

[[Page H4818]]

point, it has completed many portions of this project. It came to the
Corps to ask for help with a feasibility study. They were told they
could not. The Corps said, We cannot look at that because we can only
look at this segment, we can't look at the benefit of the overall
project.
This is not serving our community well, and it is, frankly, not
serving other communities well either. So we want to ask the National
Academy of Sciences to look at the overall benefit.
Budgets are tight. Everybody is bringing something to the table.
Cities and States and the Federal Government need to do its charge. So
we are asking this body to approve this measure to have the National
Academy of Sciences look at, in fact, what does the Corps do, how can
they do it better, and how can they leverage together the resources to
help our cities and towns?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it will be
very useful to know what the Corps, in fact, does in each and every
district, and then, together, find a better way to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition
to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to
provide better information to the Congress, to Federal agencies, and to
public entities all over the United States to ensure that we understand
the value of investments that we are making, to ensure that we
understand the return on investment that we are making with public
funds at the State and Federal levels.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I
commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this issue up. I think
that there is much we can do to perfect the cost of benefit ratio
process and information provided to the Congress to where we can make
informed decisions to ensure that we are appropriately using the
limited taxpayer resources that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support this worthwhile amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Soto

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SOTO. 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 36, line 8, insert ``universities,'' after ``research
and development centers,''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds universities to the list of
entities the Secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers should consider
when submitting their report to Congress on the use of innovative
materials in water resource development projects.
Section 128 requires the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress
a report that describes the activities of various entities involved in
the development of innovative materials for water development projects.
Currently, as written, the bill mentions centers of expertise,
technological centers, technical centers, research and development
centers, and other similar centers. Universities are often at the
cutting edge of research and, therefore, should be specified for
consideration in preparing the report.
While the current language could already include universities in the
category of ``other similar centers,'' such consideration would be
discretionary. As such, a relevant area of activity may not be
considered for the report because a single word was not added to the
text. As Members of Congress, we ask for reports and recommendations
from government entities so their expertise can be utilized in
assisting the legislative process. Here, the activities conducted at
universities should be considered so we can best capture the relevant
information on the testing, research, development, and identification
to best inform the Army Corps report and their congressional
recommendations to resources development projects.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds universities to the
list of organizations studying innovative materials that is already in
our bill, but I am prepared to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shuster for his support, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. 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 36, line 23, strike ``and''.
Page 36, after line 23, insert the following (and renumber
the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(2) provides recommendations to improve the capacity and
preparedness of the Corps of Engineers workforce; and

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In order to successfully implement the many water infrastructure and
conservation projects authorized under the Water Resources Development
Act, Americans rely on the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps has approximately 37,000 dedicated civilians and military
personnel delivering engineering services. They operate and maintain
13,000 miles of commercial ship channels, 12,000 miles of inland
waterways, 700 dams, and have built 14,500 levees and works on more
than 900 harbors.
Thus, our ability to build a robust infrastructure, to develop
resources, and to implement environmentally conscious conservation
projects, is inextricably linked to the strength of the Corps of
Engineers' workforce. We should be doing everything we can to help the
Army Corps of Engineers recruit, hire, and retain qualified employees
to carry out duties that impact environmental sustainability and
national security.
My amendment addresses this issue by requiring the comptroller
general to provide recommendations to improve the capacity and
preparedness of the Army Corps of Engineers' workforce in its report to
Congress. In providing these recommendations, the comptroller general
will evaluate many challenges, including, but not limited to,
diversity, recruitment, retention, and on-the-job training.
I offer this amendment at a time when the national skills gap is at a
record-high level. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
are 6.7 million unfilled jobs across the country, where employers have
openings but can't find prospective employees with the adequate skills
or training to fill them. Nearly 600,000 of these jobs are in
government services alone.
Despite bipartisan efforts to address this issue, the skills gap
continues to rise each month, up from 6.1 million this time in 2017. We
need to do better.

[[Page H4819]]

I am confident that my amendment will help develop a 21st century
Corps of Engineers workforce, which will, ultimately, benefit
infrastructure, national security, environmental sustainability, and
the overall American economy.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. This amendment adds additional recommendations to a GAO
study on workforce capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shuster for his
support.
Just this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there
are currently more job openings than people looking for work. This
amendment is an important step to closing the skills gap, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Ms. JAYAPAL. 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 36, line 23, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 37, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 37, after line 4, insert the following:
(3) describes how changes to the navigation industry
workforce with which the Corps of Engineers collaborates may
affect safety and operations within the navigation industry.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which
simply adds an important aspect to a GAO study that is already in the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for
their leadership in crafting this bill, and also my friend on the other
side of the aisle, Representative Woodall, for his support as well.

{time} 1600

The underlying bill directs GAO to report to Congress on the
preparedness of the Army Corps of Engineers to truly make it a 21st
century agency. The study will investigate how the Corps of Engineers
is supporting efforts to invest in recruitment and retention of a
diverse workforce. It will examine how the Corps of Engineers is coping
with the steady trickle of the baby boomer generation retiring, and it
will also look at the Corps of Engineers and how it can better utilize
available and existing technologies in fulfilling its mission.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to understand
how the Corps of Engineers' primary partner in the delivery of its
services, the navigation industry workforce, is also managing the
impending retirements of the baby boomer generation. We need to get a
grasp on what the Corps of Engineers needs to do to prepare for the
graying not only of its workforce, but also the workforce of the
maritime and shipping sectors. What is more, it is critical to
understand how all of this has a bearing on safety and operations
within the navigation industry.
Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Washington, the average age of a
maritime worker is 54 years old. And while the maritime sector is
growing at a rate of 6.4 percent a year, there is a so-called silver
tsunami looming in the next 5 to 10 years. The industries that the
Corps of Engineers intimately works with are expected to be fighting to
fill open positions even more than they are now. That is why, Mr.
Chairman, my amendment directs GAO to make these additional
considerations as it conducts its study.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the
time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this
amendment.
This amendment adds additional considerations to a GAO study that we
have included in our bill. I believe looking at navigation safety is an
important addition.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster very much for
accepting the amendment, and I urge support.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Soto

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SOTO. 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 38, line 3, after ``storm damage reduction'' insert
``(including trough bars, coastal wetlands, and barrier coral
reefs)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

Request to Modify Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Soto

Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
modified by striking ``line 3'' and inserting ``line 2''.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I object to the modification.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would direct the GAO study in
section 130 to specifically consider trough bars, coastal wetlands, and
barrier reefs in their study on the feasibility of natural features
projects for the purposes of flood risk management, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration.
Section 130 directs the Comptroller General to submit to the Congress
a study of consideration by the Corps of Engineers of natural features
and nature-based features in the study of the feasibility of projects
for flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and
ecosystem restoration.
Specifically, one aspect of the GAO study of consideration in H.R. 8
asks for an assessment of the costs, benefits, impacts, and tradeoffs
associated with natural features and nature-based features, as well as
the effectiveness of such features.
My amendment specifies some of the natural features and nature-based
features that could and should be considered by adding the language:
``(including trough bars, coastal wetlands, and barrier coral reefs)''.
In my home State of Florida, we are no stranger to the issue
associated with national features and the role they play in storm
damage reduction, especially after the devastating effects of last
year's hurricane season, but this is by no means a Florida-specific
issue. Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm

[[Page H4820]]

Sandy showed us firsthand what happens when natural flood protection
features do not exist.
This amendment would serve to highlight important natural
infrastructure options to the GAO study, namely, trough bars, coastal
wetlands, and barrier coral reefs were specified with storm damage
reduction concerns in mind. These natural structures buffer shorelines
against waves, storms, and floods, which help prevent loss of life,
property damage, and erosion.
For example, trough bars and sand dunes provide substantial
protection from storm-induced erosion. The larger the trough bar, the
more time it takes to be eroded by waves and the more protection it
provides areas further landward. Coastal wetlands lower flood heights,
filter floodwater, and protect from storm surges. Coral reefs reduce
wave energy by an average of 97 percent, dissipating disproportionately
more wave energy as wave energy increased. Taken together, these
natural features would reduce storm damage and are items that would be
specifically evaluated in the GAO study.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering the
amendment as he originally intended. I understand he has some
conforming and technical corrections he would like to make. We want to
work with the gentleman as we move forward. We are willing to accept
what he has offered today. Again, as we move through the process, we
will work with the gentleman.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept his amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster for his support.
The technical amendment was advised to us by the Parliamentarian.
I thank the chairman again for his support.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sanford

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SANFORD. 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:

Page 40, line 21, strike ``in lieu of'' and insert ``or''.
Page 41, line 1, strike ``in lieu of'' and insert ``or''.
Page 41, line 16, insert ``or reimbursement of funds of an
equivalent amount, subject to the availability of
appropriations'' before the period.
Page 41, line 21, strike the closing quotation marks and
the second period.
Page 41, after line 21, insert the following:
``(c) Application of Reimbursement.--At the request of the
non-Federal interest, the Secretary may apply such funds,
subject to the availability of appropriations, equal to the
share of the cost of the non-Federal interest of carrying out
other flood damage reduction and coastal navigation projects
or studies.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, this is a bipartisan amendment that I wrote
with Members Delaney, Duncan, and others, and I think it simply makes
common sense. What it does is that it ensures the timely payback of
advanced funds to a non-Federal sponsor.
What does that mean in English?
What that means is that we have a program called the advanced project
agreements wherein you have a Federal actor and a local actor, and it
can be that the local actor advances funds to speed the project's
completion. What this amendment says is, if you have advanced beyond
more than your share, then you, on a timely basis, would be paid back
for more than your share.
Now, why is that important?
If we are going to be competitive as a country, what we need to
recognize is that, indeed, time is money. One of the things most
critical to improving our water resources is timely completion of these
projects.
So this is ultimately about recognizing that time is money;
recognizing that, to be competitive, we have got to speed the progress
that we see on these kinds of projects; and, in fact, it ties to what
we all know about competitiveness. I mean, getting things done means a
bias for action; it means not waiting on others; it means showing
initiative; it means, if you go the extra mile, you get rewarded for
it.
Let me give one quick example.
In the port in Charleston, it is a $558 million project. The Federal
share is $287 million; the non-Federal share is $271 million.
In the case of South Carolina, they have gone ahead and saved, if you
will, in their piggy bank $300 million. If they advance the entire $300
million, are they just out of luck or are they held to the original
agreement of this is the Federal share and this is the State share, and
therefore, even if you advance that money, you are going to get that
additional $29 million back?
That, to me, makes imminent common sense, because most of all what it
does is it recognizes that time is money, and allowing local actors to
move more quickly and not wait on Federal activity is something in all
of our respective best interests.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment.
The amendment clarifies repayment requirements for funding advanced
by a non-Federal sponsor. This is a good bipartisan amendment. I am
prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Nolan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. NOLAN. 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. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the construction of a new
lock at the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is vital
to our national economy, national security, and national need
for new critical infrastructure.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Chairman
Shuster for his leadership on this important legislation, subcommittee
Chairwoman Napolitano and the other members of the committee and the
staff as well.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply
expresses a sense of the Congress that the construction of a new lock
at the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is vital to our
national economy, to our national security, and to our vital
infrastructure.
Why? Well, really briefly, that lock is a gateway for the Port of
Duluth and all of the commerce out of Lake Superior. That is the iron
ore; that is the corn; that is the soybeans; that is the forest
products, all of which are essential to our national security, our
national economy.

[[Page H4821]]

I would just cite one thing. Homeland Security did a study. They
found that 13 percent of the Nation's gross national product goes
through those locks, which is why we have military protection there;
because if those locks fail from a military attack or if they fail from
obsolescence, which we are in danger of having occur, it would throw
the country into a great depression.
So let me just conclude by saying that these locks and the rebuilding
of them are vital to our national security, our national economy, and
our vital important infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for offering the
amendment.
The amendment expresses a Sense of Congress that construction of a
new lock at the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is vital to
our national economy, national security, and national need for new
critical infrastructure.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention,
and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
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, insert the following:

SEC. __. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Corps of Engineers shall make
efforts--
(1) as part of the mission of the Corps, to identify and
address with respect to covered communities any
disproportionate and adverse health or environmental effects
of the Corps' programs, policies, practices, and activities;
(2) to promote the meaningful involvement of communities of
color in the Corps' project development and implementation,
enforcement efforts, and other activities;
(3) to provide guidance and technical assistance to covered
communities to increase understanding of the Corps' project
planning and management activities, regulations, and
policies; and
(4) to cooperate with State, Tribal, and local governments
with respect to activities carried out pursuant to this
subsection.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Community of color.--The term ``community of color''
means a community of individuals who are--
(A) American Indian or Alaska Native;
(B) Asian or Pacific Islander;
(C) Black, not of Hispanic origin; or
(D) Hispanic.
(2) Covered community.--The term ``covered community''
means each of the following:
(A) A community of color.
(B) A low-income community.
(C) A rural community.
(D) A Tribal and indigenous community.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, 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. Chair, I thank the chairman and madam ranking member.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to this critical bill, which
authorizes billions of dollars in Corps projects.
My amendment is very simple. I can keep it short. It would reaffirm
the need for the Army Corps to make every effort to ensure, as part of
their project planning and implementation process, the fair treatment
of all communities in this vital process.
Mr. Chair, this amendment addresses the continuing concern that
certain vulnerable communities affected by Federal actions often have
little to no input into the planning and implementation of those
activities, and they include low-income communities, both urban and
rural, communities of color, and other marginalized groups such as
Tribes.
By adopting my amendment, the Army Corps could lead in reforming how
Federal agencies engage with vulnerable communities by working
collaboratively with community stakeholders, by outreach, proactive
outreach, and requiring really meaningful involvement and conversations
with these communities of color, including Tribal communities, engaging
them in developing Corps development of the projects and
implementation.

{time} 1615

I would ask that no one would object to requiring that the Corps
spend more time listening to and validating community concerns and
working to resolve them collaboratively at every step of the process,
rather than waiting until a lawsuit occurs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this
amendment. This amendment helps ensure that, as part of the Corps'
activities and mission, they are actively engaged with communities of
color, low-income communities, rural communities, and Tribes. This is
important policy. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, 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. 16 Offered by Mr. Meadows

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. MEADOWS. 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. ___. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE.

The Secretary of the Army shall prioritize the operation
and maintenance of existing infrastructure, improve its
reliability, and, as necessary, improve its resilience to
cyber-related threats.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, the WRDA bill is an important bipartisan
piece of legislation that provides for improvements to our Nation's
water resources infrastructure, including ports and inland waterways,
locks, dams, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration.
Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my good friend, Chairman Shuster, for
his leadership on moving forward with yet another WRDA bill through the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and I am so proud to serve
on that committee under his leadership.
But seldom in Congress do things actually end up being like they were
promised; and I can tell you, under the leadership of this chairman,
not only are we voting on yet another WRDA bill, but we are doing it in
a transparent, policy-focused manner. And it is this return to regular
order that the chairman has truly encouraged so many of his members,
not only on the committee, but off the committee.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds one provision to this important bill:
It directs the Secretary of the Army to prioritize the operation and
maintenance of existing infrastructure and improve their reliability.
The last thing the taxpayers want to do is spend needlessly money on
expensive new infrastructure if the existing roadways, highways,
bridges, ports, airports, water and sewer systems are aging and in
disrepair.
We have heard all of this before from a number of our stakeholders
and, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, if America
fails to invest in its existing ailing infrastructure by 2025, the U.S.
economy can be

[[Page H4822]]

expected to lose almost $4 trillion in Gross Domestic Product,
resulting in a loss of some 2.5 million jobs.
Therefore, as we look at this legislation, it is critically important
that we repair, rebuild, and modernize the infrastructure we have.
I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
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, as the gentleman explained, this is an
important amendment. Cyber-related threats are a major concern to the
Nation's critical infrastructure, and I believe this will help ensure
that it is protected. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and 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. Meadows).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Mast

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. MAST. 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. ___. CLARIFICATION FOR INTEGRAL DETERMINATION.

(a) WRDA 2000.--Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-541) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including
in-kind credit, toward the non-Federal share for the
reasonable cost of any work performed in connection with a
study, preconstruction engineering and design, or
construction that is necessary for the implementation of the
Plan if--
``(i)(I) the credit is provided for work completed during
the period of design, as defined in a design agreement
between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor;
``(II) the credit is provided for work completed during the
period of construction, as defined in a project cooperation
agreement for an authorized project between the Secretary and
the non-Federal sponsor;
``(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before
the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary
and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement
between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing
for such credit; or
``(IV) the credit is provided for work carried out by the
non-Federal sponsor in the implementation of an authorized
project implementation report, and such work was defined in
an agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal
sponsor prior to the execution of such work;
``(ii) the agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of
the credit, including in the case of credit provided under
clause (i)(iii) conditions relating to design and
construction; and
``(iii) the Secretary determines that the work performed by
the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the project.''.
(b) Timing.--Section 601(e)(5) of the Act referred to in
subsection (a) is further amended by inserting after
subparagraph (B) the following (and redesignating any
subparagraphs accordingly):
``(C) Timing.--In any case in which the Secretary approves
credit under subparagraph (B), in writing or by electronic
agreement with the non-Federal sponsor, the Secretary shall
provide such credit for work completed during the period of
construction under an agreement that prescribes the terms and
conditions for the in-kind contributions not expressly
defined.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mast) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman,
Chairman Shuster, and the committee for all of their work on WRDA. It
has been timely, and they have been a joy to work with.
WRDA 2000, however, authorized a plan known as the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and it granted the authority to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to provide credit to
the State of Florida for reasonable cost of any work that was performed
toward the completion of the project. However, current law does have
some ambiguity that my amendment clarifies with respect to when the
work is performed.
Now, the Army Corps ultimately has the discretion to determine what
work performed by Florida is integral to the project, and this
amendment makes no change to that discretion whatsoever.
Questions have been raised with regard to the scope of the Army
Corps' authority to grant credit for work Florida has done that is not
explicitly stated in the Project Partnership Agreement. My amendment
clarifies that, so long as the Secretary and Florida agree that the
work completed during the construction phase is integral to the
project, the Secretary does, in fact, have the authority to provide
credit for that work that is done.
I appreciate the full committee and the subcommittee's leadership
working with me on this language, and I encourage my colleagues to
adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does clarify there were
crediting responsibilities between the Corps and non-Federal sponsors
in the Everglades, so I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our
attention. I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Chairman, again I applaud the committee on their work,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. PEARCE. 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. ___. COST SHARE PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

Not later than September 30 of the first fiscal year
following the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall pay the outstanding balance of the Federal cost share
for any project carried out under section 593 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 380).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I would like to join my
colleague from North Carolina in recognizing the leadership of Chairman
Shuster on this important bill and the manner in which it is brought
forward with full amendment process allowed.
My amendment is fairly simple. It simply asks that the Corps of
Engineers would pay their bills. The Corps of Engineers, according to
an authorization under WRDA of 1999, is allowed to enter into projects
where a cost share is joined in with communities and organizations
throughout the States.
Many locations in New Mexico are still owed money for projects that
were commissioned over a decade ago. The town of Bernalillo, the city
of Rio Rancho, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, and the
county of Bernalillo all have projects that are owed money.
One of those projects, a simple arsenic treatment facility, cost $12
million. The Corps and the community both agreed that they would move
forward with the project and the cost sharing agreement. A decade
later, the Corps still owes money on that particular project.
At one point, the Corps expressed they had forgotten that they owed
that money; so it is just important for the government to pay its bills
on time.
This amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. It just
authorizes that and ensures it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.

[[Page H4823]]

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Secretary to
pay the Federal cost share for projects in Central New Mexico. I
appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our attention, and I am
prepared to accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title I, insert the following:

SEC. __. LOCKS ON ALLEGHENY RIVER.

The Corps of Engineers may consider, in making funding
determinations with respect to the operation and maintenance
of locks on the Allegheny River--
(1) recreational boat traffic levels; and
(2) related economic benefits.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
acknowledge Chairman Shuster's leadership on this, and thank the entire
committee and all the staff. I sure appreciate all the hard work.
This amendment allows the Army Corps of Engineers to strongly
consider the large number of recreational boats that use the locks on
the Allegheny River in my district when prioritizing operation and
maintenance projects.
River communities on the Allegheny, like Kittanning, Ford City,
Freeport, East Brady, and others, rely on recreational boating for
their economic well-being. In recent years, the Army Corps of Engineers
and a local nonprofit, the Allegheny River Development Corporation,
have developed a successful private-public partnership. Their
partnership has resulted in private money being raised to keep the
locks operational only on summer weekends and for recreational use.
This amendment will allow the Army Corps of Engineers the flexibility
it needs to help keep the locks open throughout the summer tourism
months once again.
Speaking on this issue, a commissioner in Armstrong County once said
to me: ``You know, Washington has taken away our coal jobs, now they're
trying to take away our river.''
Because of the hard work of people like Linda Hemmes and other
community leaders, the river is still open to thousands of boaters who
enjoy the Allegheny River on summer weekends. But even the weekend lock
operations are still very much at risk, and it is my hope that this
amendment will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize funding
so the river remains passable all summer long for decades to come.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman explained, the Allegheny
River, the locks, and the dams are, again, used considerably for
recreational boat traffic, and the Corps should take this into
consideration. This is a good amendment. I am prepared to accept it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Schrader

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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. ___. ASSISTANCE RELATING TO WATER SUPPLY.

The Secretary may provide assistance to municipalities the
water supply of which is adversely affected by construction
carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster,
Ranking Member DeFazio, Subcommittee Chairman Graves, and Ranking
Member Napolitano, and their staffs for working with us on this
amendment.
The amendment simply provides communities with the certainty that the
Army Corps has the authority to help them mitigate any detrimental
impacts to municipal water supplies that may happen due to a Corps
construction project. It is a commonsense amendment, and I am glad to
offer it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition, but I don't plan to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures the
Corps of Engineers can help mitigate any detrimental impacts to the
water supply as a result of a Corps of Engineers project. I appreciate
my colleague's work on this, and I do accept this amendment and urge
support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Jayapal

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Ms. JAYAPAL. 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. ___. NOISE POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND MITIGATION.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
the potential opportunity for integrating noise abatement and
noise mitigation technologies and practices into improvements
and operations in harbors and inland harbors.

{time} 1630

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which
simply asks the Corps of Engineers to explore what opportunities exist
to incorporate noise abatement and noise mitigation technologies and
practices in the Corps of Engineers.
Noise has a bearing both on the land and in water, and as maritime
transportation and travel increase and as vessels increase in size,
communities along our Nation's waterways stand to be affected the most.
Seattle's residential population and our maritime sector are both
growing. And importantly, the liveability of our communities and the
strength of our maritime sector will depend on how we address the
challenges that come with that growth. At the same time, as sound
travels more efficiently in the water, we need to be certain that we
understand how we minimize the disruption to maritime environments.

[[Page H4824]]

Underwater wildlife--like the endangered southern residents, orcas--
are especially vulnerable to noise destruction, because they are so
dependent on underwater sounds for basic life functions. The Port of
Vancouver, BC, recently investigated whether limiting the speed of
ships would reduce noise and help our overall community. Over the
period of the study, ambient noise dropped 44 percent. So research into
this area is emerging, but it is clear that more needs to be done.
In providing guidance to mitigate noise in 2014, the International
Maritime Organization identified more than just speed, but also ship
design, on-board machinery, and navigation as factors to take into
consideration.
In the Puget Sound region, the Corps of Engineers is uniquely placed
to lead this effort and unite stakeholders behind solutions that
protect the maritime environment, ensure the liveability of our
communities, and support our growing maritime sector.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to
it.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentlewoman for offering this amendment that requires a study for the
use of noise abatement technologies at ports. I think this is a good
amendment, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much and I urge
support. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Love). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 22 printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. __. PROPERTY ACQUISITION.

(a) In General.--In requiring or acquiring an interest in
land, the Secretary shall, in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, prefer the minimum interest in real property
necessary to support a project or action.
(b) Determination.--In determining the proper interest in
land under subsection (a), the Secretary shall first consider
a temporary easement estate or other interest designed to
reduce the overall cost, reduce the time, and minimize
conflict with property owners related to such action or
project.
(c) Procedures Used in State.--The Secretary shall consider
and attempt to replicate, to the maximum extent practicable
and consistent with Federal laws, the procedures that a State
has used to acquire interests in land, provided that such
procedures are generally consistent with the goals of a
project or action.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my
amendment to H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of 2018.
Madam Chair, my amendment is a commonsense and cost savings amendment
that would allow the Army Corps of Engineers much-needed flexibility
when acquiring certain rights to the procurement of land.
Specifically, it would direct the Secretary to prefer acquiring the
minimum interest necessary in real property needed to support a project
or an action. This allows flexibilities for the Corps to consider the
use of a temporary easement estate or other interest to facilitate a
reduction in overall project cost, to reduce project time, and minimize
conflict with property owners related to the project or action.
This approach will allow the Corps to take a more sensible approach
to projects and not force the Federal Government to purchase more
property in order to undertake critically needed projects.
Historically, in my home State of Louisiana, many of the projects are
accomplished through partnerships between the Federal Government and
State and private landowners who often can offer more favorable and
economical terms than the Federal Government's outright purchasing of
property.
As we have heard throughout debate on the underlying bill, there are
countless and widely known deficiencies in the way business is
conducted by the Corps. Many of these issues are caused by bureaucratic
regulations that get in the way of real progress being made in a manner
that is responsible to the taxpayers we represent.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend from
Louisiana, a colleague, for offering this amendment.
As the gentleman stated, what is happening right now, the Corps of
Engineers is requiring non-Federal entities, like the State of
Louisiana and other States around the country and other private
partners and local governments to acquire land in fee title, and then
that is then absorbed as part of the overall cost of a project.
In many cases in our home State, 82 percent of coastal Louisiana is
owned by private landowners. These landowners are willing to donate the
project, servitude or easement to ensure these projects can be built.
And these are environmental projects for coastal restoration and other
wetland construction-type projects. It reduces overall project cost. It
incentivizes cooperation between landowners and government entities
trying to restore the coast. This is in the best interest of taxpayers.
It is in the best interest of the Corps of Engineers. It is absolutely
good policy, and I want to thank the gentleman for the amendment. I
urge adoption of the amendment.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chairwoman, I thank my colleague from
Louisiana for supporting the bill, and I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment, as well as
final passage of the chairman's bill.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Babin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NAVIGATION SAFETY.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) high use Federal navigation projects, including those
with numerous deep draft vessel calls per year, should ensure
safe 2-way traffic by design vessels recommended by
authorized navigation studies; and
(2) the Secretary should consider the benefits of the
safety modification or improvement to commercial navigation
in evaluating such modifications or improvements.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who has
the

[[Page H4825]]

great privilege to represent four Texas ports in my district in Texas,
it is truly an honor to offer this amendment today on their behalf.
Right now, the Corps of Engineers is in the midst of a study of the
Houston Ship Channel to evaluate potential improvements. This study
will examine the process for widening the channel and extending the 45-
foot depth further inland. This is a necessary and well-intentioned
study for an extremely worthy project.
However, everyone involved in producing it is discovering that the
Corps processes involved are outdated and inefficient. These processes
are unable to adequately evaluate the national benefits of the
improvements being studied or the implications of major operational
changes in the future.
As a result, unless reforms are made, this Corps study and others
like it will not recognize the benefits of widening a waterway like the
Houston Ship Channel in certain areas; areas that can lead to a
restriction of one-way traffic in the future, as vessels become larger
and larger over time.
The Houston Ship Channel is the busiest waterway in the Nation. It
supports the top exporting region and the largest petrochemical
manufacturing center in the United States. Ensuring an efficient
waterway now and into the future is critical for the region, for the
State of Texas, and for the Nation.
This amendment takes a first step in righting this process by having
this Congress to make clear to the Army Corps of Engineers the
importance and the benefits of projects to improve two-way traffic
safety in high-volume areas in deep draft navigation channels.
And while I certainly want to go further and eventually get these
formulas fixed into the law, I understand that this needs to be an
incremental process.
I want to thank Chairmen Shuster and Graves, and Ranking Members
DeFazio and Napolitano, and their staffs, for working with us to get
this process underway with this very commonsense amendment.
Madam Chairwoman, I urge adoption of my amendment and the underlying
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment intends to cut
through the bureaucracy to expedite decisions that are being made. In
the case of this amendment, it is designed to address an issue in Texas
where you have high-volume port projects and there are safety and
navigational improvements that are needed.
We support the intent of the gentleman's amendment to cut through the
bureaucracy to ensure that decisions are expedited and cost savings
result, and urge support of the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Chair, I also rise in strong support of amendment
No. 8, by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
I am very proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor. The Texas Gulf
Coast is not just the export capital of the United States and energy
capital of the world, it is a national treasure lined with vibrant
communities, fisheries, key military assets, and outdoor recreation
that millions call home.
But as we saw with the 1900 Galveston hurricane; Hurricane Rita in
2005; Hurricane Ike in 2008; and Hurricane Harvey just last year, all
of those great assets that I just spoke of are at risk of finding
themselves literally in the eye of the very next storm.
That is why leaders in my State have come together to produce this,
the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan, a roadmap for the local,
State, and Federal officials to study and construct projects to keep
our coastal communities safe, restore and preserve our beaches and
wetlands, and provide energy security for all Americans.
A summary of the Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan by the Texas
General Land Office can be found at: http://www.glo.texas.gov/coastal-
grants/projects/texas-coastal-resiliency-master-plan.html.
Madam Chair, this amendment will require the National Academy of
Sciences to study and report on whether the Army Corps should measure
the cumulative benefit of a holistic plan like the Texas Coastal
Resiliency Master Plan when determining benefit-to-cost ratios. I am
confident that the answer will be yes. This study is an important step
to get us there.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Bost

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. BOST. Madam 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. __. COST AND BENEFIT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT.

(a) Cost Benefit and Special Conditions.--Section 5(a) of
the Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33
U.S.C. 701n(a)), as amended by this Act, is further amended
by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Cost and benefit feasibility assessment.--
``(A) Consideration of benefits.--In preparing a cost and
benefit feasibility assessment for any emergency project
described in paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall
consider the benefits to be gained by such project for the
protection of--
``(I) residential establishments;
``(ii) commercial establishments, including the protection
of inventory; and
``(iii) agricultural establishments, including the
protection of crops.
``(B) Special conditions.--
``(i) The Chief of Engineers may carry out repair or
restoration work described in paragraph (1) that does not
produce benefits greater than cost, if the non-Federal
sponsor agrees to pay, or contribute to, an amount sufficient
to make the remaining costs of the project equal to the
estimated value of the benefits of the repair or restoration
work and the Secretary determines the damage to the structure
was not as a result of negligent operation and maintenance,
and that repair of the project could benefit other Corps
project missions.
``(ii) Non-Federal payments pursuant to clause (i) shall be
in addition to any non-Federal payments required by the Chief
of Engineers which are applicable to the remaining costs of
the repair or restoration work.''.
(b) Continued Eligibility.--Nothwithstanding a non-Federal
flood control work's status in the Rehabilitation and
Inspection Program, any unconstructed emergency project for
the non-Federal flood control work that was formulated during
the three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which
this Act was enacted but that was determined to not produce
benefits greater than costs shall remain eligible for
assistance under Section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (55
Stat. 650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 701n) until the last day of
the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which this
Act was enacted if the non-Federal sponsor agrees, in
accordance with section 5 as amended by subsection (a) of
this section, to pay, or provide contributions equal to, an
amount sufficient to make the remaining costs of the project
equal to the estimated value of the benefits of the repair or
restoration work and the Secretary determines the damage to
the structure was not as a result of negligent operation and
maintenance, and that repair of the project could benefit
other Corps project missions.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I wish to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking
Member DeFazio for their support of the amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to help local communities recover
from flood disasters. Under current law, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers can only repair a non-Federal levee if the flood protection
benefit outweighs the cost. However, the standard can't always be met,
especially in rural communities, with specific economic and demographic
changes.

{time} 1645

The Len Small Levee in southern Illinois is a perfect example. The
levee breached in the winter floods of January 2016. Several thousand
acres of infrastructure and agriculture land were destroyed when the
levee gave way. The Corps estimated the cost of repairing the levee
would be higher than its

[[Page H4826]]

flood protection benefits, leaving local residents with no recourse.
My amendment provides new hope in my district and elsewhere. It
allows local sponsors to pay the difference between the cost of
repairing a levee and its projected flood protection benefits.
My amendment does not increase the Federal Government's share of the
costs for repairs. Let me repeat that. My amendment does not increase
the Federal Government's share of the costs of the repairs. This is a
fiscally responsible way to give a lifeline to rural communities
struggling to rebuild after a disaster.
The amendment is supported by the National Waterways Conference and
the American Farm Bureau.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment is designed to
largely address, I think, a flaw that this underlying bill addresses in
the cost-to-benefit ratio calculations used by the Corps of Engineers,
by OMB, and others.
This particular amendment is focused on emergency repairs. What this
does is it allows the non-Federal entities to pay a higher non-Federal
cost share for repairs to levees.
There are many issues with how OMB and the Corps calculate cost-to-
benefit ratios. This is a fix for emergency repairs while we work on
the underlying bill for the larger fixes.
Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Bost for offering this amendment. We
are prepared to accept it. I urge adoption, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his support of the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Heck

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. HECK. Madam 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. __. STUDY ON STORMWATER RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a study on the compliance of projects and
properties constructed or renovated by the Corps of Engineers
with stormwater runoff requirements.
(b) Requirements.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include an analysis of--
(1) the extent to which the Corps of Engineers has complied
with section 439 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17094) for projects and properties
constructed or renovated since February 1, 2010;
(2) the feasibility of the Corps of Engineers to meet the
requirement to restore the predevelopment hydrology of
properties under the ``maximum extent technically feasible''
standard created under the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007;
(3) potential changes to the Corps of Engineers' budgeting,
planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies
that could increase the agency's ability to meet the
requirement described in paragraph (2);
(4) potential changes to the guidance described in the
Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff
Requirements for Federal Projects under section 438 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act, issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency and dated December 2009, that
could increase the Corps of Engineers' ability to meet the
requirement described in paragraph (2).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Heck) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HECK. Madam Chair, my amendment is simply about making sure the
Federal Government is setting the example in leading the way in
addressing the single largest source of water pollution in America,
which is stormwater runoff.
Most of us probably don't think about it, but, frankly, when rain
falls--and it does a lot in my neck of the woods--and flows through our
streets, it picks up all sorts of pollutants. We are talking about some
really nasty stuff, frankly: toxic chemicals like arsenic and flame
retardants, as well as oils and pesticides. This stormwater hurts our
lakes, rivers, and waterways. In fact, in many bodies of water, it
accounts for 80 percent of the pollution.
It not only hurts our environment. Just as importantly, it hurts our
businesses that depend on clean water, as an example, Washington's
shellfish industry, which employees literally thousands of people.
There are probably no places in America that are more impacted by
stormwater runoff than in my home on the Puget Sound, which is the
largest estuary in the United States. Studies by the Washington
Stormwater Center in Puyallup, Washington, have shown that stormwater
can kill a salmon within hours. They have time-lapsed films. But you
don't have to watch them in time lapse because it happens that quickly.
Salmon and other fish are our way of life in Washington, and we are
talking major business impact--a $30 billion economy.
Salmon also serve as a vital resource of immeasurable value to the 19
federally recognized Tribes in Puget Sound. They are the Salmon People,
and salmon--chinook salmon, specifically--are also the prey of choice
for our beloved southern resident orcas, which we are precariously
close to losing altogether. There are fewer today than when they were
listed under the Endangered Species Act many years ago.
So, if we fail to address the problem posed by stormwater, these
resources will continue to decline, and our region will lose
irreplaceable icons of life in the Pacific Northwest.
Now, granted, we are doing a lot to address this threat already, but
it is nowhere near enough. If we are going to truly address the
problem, then the Federal Government needs to set the example.
The good news is that Congress already knows this and acknowledges
this because, in 2007, this body passed a law which requires Federal
agencies to reduce stormwater runoff when they develop or redevelop
property. That is just a commonsense requirement.
Since it was enacted over a decade ago, there has been no
accountability for Federal agencies to show they are meeting these
standards. So this brings us to my amendment. It would simply direct
the GAO to study whether the Army Corps of Engineers has been able to
meet these stormwater runoff mitigation requirements, and if they
aren't, what changes they can make to improve their ability to meet
them.
Madam Chair, if we are going to help our businesses and communities
impacted by stormwater runoff, it is vitally important that the Federal
Government set the example and lead the way.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment directs the
Comptroller General to conduct a study and report on the Army Corps of
Engineers' ability to comply with Federal stormwater requirements. This
is an issue that affects districts across the United States.
I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this
amendment up, for raising this issue, and we are prepared to accept it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

[[Page H4827]]

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO PUERTO RICO.

(a) Water Resource Projects in Puerto Rico.--It is the
sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers should proceed
with a sense of urgency, and viewing requirements in the most
favorable light, in evaluating and programming the actions to
be taken to complete current phases, initiate pending phases,
and prepare the reports necessary to proceed with the water
resources projects necessary for flood control, dam repair,
beach erosion control, and harbor navigation improvement in
Puerto Rico, as well as for repair and mitigation required by
hurricane and severe weather event damages that occurred
between September 2017 and March 2018.
(b) Cano Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration Project.--It is
the sense of Congress that the Secretary should advance the
project for ecosystem restoration, Cano Martin Pena, San
Juan, Puerto Rico.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, this amendment calls
on the Army Corps of Engineers to consider urgently and favorably those
projects and proposals pending before them for flood control, dam
repair, beach erosion, and harbor navigation in Puerto Rico, as well as
for the repair and mitigation required in the aftermath of Hurricanes
Irma and Maria and, more specifically, that the Secretary should
advance the project for ecosystem restoration at Cano Martin Pena in
San Juan.
Between projects that had been proposed or planned before the
disaster and those resulting from the disaster, the Army Corp of
Engineers has before its consideration over 45 different projects or
proposals for flood and erosion control for protection of life and
property on the island. These projects are in all sorts of phases, from
initial studies to planning, to pending construction start, to waiting
for the next phase to be funded, and to inactive projects that may be
reactivated.
While we wait for decisions, we have towns like Toa Baja where,
during the last hurricane in September, more than 12,000 families were
flooded out of their homes. Every decade, that kind of town suffers
losses from different kinds of floods while there is a project already
designed and approved that could have greatly mitigated that kind of a
hazard and by now would have cost less than the accumulated losses from
the last hurricane.
Those are the kinds of projects that are already approved by the Army
Corps in that part of this amendment. In Ciales and Guayanilla, the
mayors have gathered the studies and plans, but it has not yet been
made part of the Corps schedule.
Among the works that merit special attention is the Cano Martin Pena
Project, which has been an example of community partnership and has
been an important part of the Corps' program in Puerto Rico, for the
ecosystem restoration, protection of lives in the community, and
control of flooding in an area that extends from the San Juan business
district to the international airport.
The community has been an outstanding local partner, showing great
drive to move forward their part of the program, but the project has
been very slow because of the limited funding by phases.
It is important at this point in time as we face a new hurricane
season that our people get the sense of urgency from the Federal
Government. When you know that the next storm is coming and danger is
on the horizon, you will also want to know that the necessary work has
been done. That is the reason this amendment is so important, and that
is the reason I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting Chair. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment expresses the
sense of Congress that projects in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Irma and Maria be expedited, that these be considered a
priority, and that the Corps of Engineers advance these projects as
quickly as possible.
My friend from Puerto Rico hosted myself, Mr. DeFazio, Chairman
Shuster, and others in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the storms, and
certainly the devastation there was extraordinary.
It is important to advance projects like this because as folks are
looking at whether they are going to reinvest back in their
communities, whether they are going to stay in their communities,
whether they are going to rebuild their homes and businesses, knowing
that things aren't going to be back in the same degree of vulnerability
is very important.
We have got to send a message to these victims of hurricanes in 2017
and other disasters that these communities are going to be built back
smarter, they are going to be safer, and the investments they are
putting back in their homes and businesses are wise investments.
I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I want
to thank her for her tireless work in the recovery of Puerto Rico. We
are prepared to accept, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Gibbs

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. GIBBS. Madam 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. ___. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS.

(a) In General.--For purposes of dredged material
management plans initiated in or after fiscal year 2018, the
Secretary shall expedite the dredged material management plan
process in order that studies make maximum use of existing
information, studies, and innovative dredged material
management practices, and avoid any redundant information
collection and studies.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on how the Corps of Engineers intends to meet the
requirements of subsection (a).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chair, my amendment would expedite the process the
Army Corps of Engineers conducts to study and implement the dredged
material management plans, or DMMPs.
In my home State of Ohio, the Port of Cleveland has had difficulty in
recent years coming to a resolution with the Army Corps of Engineers
over the disposal of dredged material from the Cuyahoga River's Federal
navigation channel. While the channel depth is maintained each year,
the uncertainty from year to year does not provide the confidence
necessary to northeast Ohio's communities, and it does not give the
Port of Cleveland the ability to conduct long-term planning without
considerable and avoidable risks.
To help private and public entities working with the Army Corps on
dredged material management plans, my amendment ensures the Army Corps
works diligently with local partners to conduct the DMMPs in an
efficient manner.
My amendment also directs the Army Corps of Engineers to consider

[[Page H4828]]

alternative uses for and creative tools to collect dredged material,
lightening the load on contained disposal facilities and increasing
their lifespan.
The Port of Cleveland and many entities across the country rely on
these dredged material management plans. They should not have to wait
as long as 4 years for these studies and plans to be completed.
In the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, we
implemented a 3 by 3 by 3 rule in which studies should cost no more
than $3 million, take no longer than 3 years, and include the district,
division, and headquarters staff concurrently. When DMMPs are
developed, they should be held to the 3 by 3 by 3 rule.
Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to provide a timely process for
DMMP planning and implementation. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Barton). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 1700

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Ohio for offering this amendment.
DMMP's dredged material management plans are plans to manage the
sediment that results from dredging activities. It can hold up the
navigation of channels for ships and vessels. It can obstruct activity
at ports.
This is what the rest of the world would call common sense. It
ensures that we are not collecting redundant information, we are
building upon information that exists, and that we have a limit or goal
of 2 years in completing this.
This makes sense. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this
amendment forth, which we are prepared to accept.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his
support. He is absolutely right. When these projects are held up,
economic activity can be stifled. We saw this happen in Cleveland. So
it is very important this be adopted in the Water Resources Development
Act.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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. __. FEASIBILITY OF CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT, ILLINOIS.

Section 3061(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1121) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and maintenance
of any project authorized to be carried out pursuant to the
feasibility study identified in paragraph (1) shall be
carried out at 80 percent Federal expense and 20 percent non-
Federal expense.
``(3) Consultation.--After construction of any project
authorized to be carried out pursuant to the feasibility
study identified in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
consult with the Governor of the State in which the project
is constructed and seek Congressional authority to construct
any new technologies not included in the Chief's Report.''.
Page 52, after line 24, insert the following:
(21) Projects under the Great Lakes Mississippi River
Interbasin Study Brandon Road Study.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, addressing the issue of aquatic invasive species has
not always been one where all of the Great Lakes States have seen eye-
to-eye on. However, this amendment reflects an agreement between myself
and my good friend, Mr. Mitchell, as well as our two States and our two
Governors.
First, this amendment clarifies that the operation and maintenance of
any project authorized subsequent to the Chief's Report for the Brandon
Road Study is done at an 80-20 Federal/nonFederal cost share. For
reference, O&M on the existing electrical barriers in place on the
Illinois River is at 100 percent Federal expense, as was authorized by
Congress. So with this language, we are making it clear that Illinois
wants to have some skin in the game on this project.
In addition my amendment requires the Corps, following the
construction of any project authorized subsequent to the Chief's Report
for the Brandon Road Study, to consult with the Governor of the State
where the project is located and seek congressional approval before
constructing any additional technologies at the project in the future.
Finally, as part of the compromise worked out with my colleagues from
Michigan and other Great Lakes States, my amendment directs the Corps
to expedite the completion of the Brandon Road Study, which we expect
to be completed by next February.
Now, let me be clear. It is no secret that the State of Illinois has
had concerns with this project and its potential impact on our economy.
The Illinois waterway is a critical artery for the movement of
agricultural goods and other products that support our region's
economy, and disruptions to commercial navigation could have negative
repercussions to our ability to get those goods to market.
In addition, my home State of Illinois has taken significant steps to
reduce the Asian carp population by using existing measures. In fact,
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources recently reported in 2012
the State has reduced the Asian carp population by 93 percent. Much of
this is due to the critical Great Lakes restoration initiative funding,
which I continue to proudly support.
Yet, in an offer of good faith, our Governor has submitted a letter
of intent for the State of Illinois to serve as the non-Federal
sponsor, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and urging
the support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to 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 amendment is the result of a lot of
work between a number of Great Lakes members. I appreciate everyone's
work and consensus on this important issue. I am prepared to accept the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend and partner on
this amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis). We worked
hard on this amendment. It is the result of hard work and agreements
between all interested parties, Governors across the Great Lakes, and
Members of Congress throughout the Great Lakes basin.
The Brandon Road Lock and Dam is a lock and dam complex on the Des
Plaines River in Joliet, Illinois. It is one of the last stops along
the waterway before Lake Michigan and the entire Great Lakes system.
Unfortunately, Asian carp exists in that waterway as well. This
invasive species getting into the Great Lakes

[[Page H4829]]

would do unfathomable damage to our economy and ecology not just in my
State, but to the entire Great Lakes basin. We must stop the spread of
Asian carp, and the Brandon Road Lock and Dam offers the best and last
chance to do so.
I appreciate the assistance of my good friend from Illinois and the
Governor of Illinois for recognizing the problem. Stakeholders and
members on this waterway leading to the Great Lakes use it for
commerce. Those on the Great Lakes basin prioritize its use to stop
Asian carp. It is vital to understand that, and all sides must know and
agree we have to achieve both objectives sooner than later.
This is a complex problem. That is why we have asked the Army Corps
of Engineers to release their study as soon as possible. This study
will advise Congress and the American people about what options we
have, what effects they could have, and how effective preventive
measures could be.
Like many things in government, this project has seen delays. The
report has seen delays. Time is our enemy here and we cannot have the
final report delayed any longer.
My section of the Davis-Mitchell amendment adds the Brandon Road
Study to the list of expedited studies. By ensuring timely completion,
we can move forward on whatever is recommended in order to achieve two
things: effective commerce on the river, while ensuring Asian carp do
not invade the Great Lakes.
I support the amendment, I ask my colleagues to do so, and I want to
express my appreciation to Mr. Davis for all the hard work he has put
into resolving what has been an issue for a long time here in Congress.
Together, we have come up with a good amendment.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank my good
friend, Mr. Mitchell. I would be remiss not to recognize my colleague
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who was very supportive. His efforts were
very meaningful to this agreement.
Mr. Chairman, again, I hope that we can get this amendment accepted,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. 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 52, after line 16, insert the following (and
redesignate accordingly):
(17) Project for navigation, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Lance

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. LANCE. 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 52, after line 24, insert the following:
(21) Project for ecosystem restoration, Warren Glen Dam
Removal, Musconetcong River, New Jersey.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of the Lance-Gottheimer amendment to the
Water Resources Development Act of 2018. I thank Chairman Shuster and
his committee for the tremendous work they have done on the underlying
bill.
This amendment would direct the Secretary of the Army to expedite the
completion of the Warren Glen Dam Removal Feasibility Study in the
Musconetcong River, an important waterway in the congressional district
I serve.
The 30-foot-high, 150-feet-wide Warren Glen Dam is currently one of
the largest and most detrimental dams on the Musconetcong River in the
State of New Jersey. The dam poses downstream safety risks, worsening
the quality of drinking water in the region. The dam also blocks
migratory fish from the Delaware River, including shad, alewife and
herring. In 1981, the Army Corps classified this dam as a hazard to
public safety. It must be removed.
The Musconetcong River is an important natural resource in our region
of the country, and is well recognized for its scenic beauty,
environmental significance, and diversity of wildlife. The restoration
of the Musconetcong watershed will improve the water quality by
creating a stronger freshwater flow to push down the salt line to
enhance the protection of drinking water.
Removing the Warren Glen Dam would also open an additional 5 miles

[[Page H4830]]

to the Musconetcong as a free-flowing river for migratory fish. The
Musconetcong watershed has the potential to become an even greater site
for outdoor recreation and wildlife.
Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Gottheimer for joining me yet again on a
bipartisan, problem-solving collaboration. I urge a ``yes'' vote on
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1715

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition but 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. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. This amendment directs the Secretary to expedite the
completion of a feasibility study, which the gentleman has so
eloquently explained to us. I am prepared to accept this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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:

Page 52, after line 24, insert the following:
(21) Project for flood control and water supply, Abiquiu
Dam, New Mexico.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I would like to recognize
the leadership of Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and my
friend and colleague, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have at the desk today will help start
a Federal process in providing additional flexibility for storage of
native and San Juan-Chama water to benefit the Middle Rio Grande
region.
The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority has been
working for more than 5 years to obtain congressional authorization to
increase storage in Abiquiu Reservoir by about 35,000 acre-feet. This
will provide greater and much-needed flexibility for water operations
to support municipal, agricultural, and environmental purposes.
This amendment starts that process by expediting the feasibility
study for Abiquiu Dam. According to the New Mexico Interstate Stream
Commission, the added storage will also provide opportunities to
benefit acequias in northern New Mexico, many of which have the oldest
water rights in the Rio Grande basin, but do not have any ability to
store water for use in drought years; management of operations in the
Middle Rio Grande for Endangered Species Act compliance; and for the
Rio Grande Compact compliance for the State of New Mexico.
This project is supported by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of
Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management. WildEarth Guardians, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon
New Mexico, the city and county of Santa Fe, the New Mexico Interstate
Stream Commission, the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, Rio
Arriba County, and the Rio Chama Acequia Association.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although
I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, this amendment directs the Secretary, as he
explained, to expedite the reports to the project for the Abiquiu
Reservoir.
I know this is an important project to New Mexico. I am prepared to
accept the amendment at this time, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this
amendment so that these communities can move forward with this critical
project, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. 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:
Page 55, line 1, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``$3,025,000,000''.
Page 57, line 24, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``$3,025,000,000''.
At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

Section 544(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-541; 114 Stat. 2675) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting
``$60,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$10,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my
amendment, No. 33, to H.R. 8 to improve available resources for the
Puget Sound Adjacent Waters Restoration program, also known as PSAW.
The Puget Sound and the waters and wildlife that call it home are
cornerstones of Washington State's cultural identity, maritime economy,
and environment. As the Nation's largest estuary, a healthy Puget Sound
is essential to supporting over 3,000 shellfish jobs and generating an
estimated $184 million in revenue annually.
Every EPA dollar spent on Puget Sound recovery efforts have leveraged
more than $24 in matching funds from State, local, and tribal partners.
The PSAW program supports critical ecosystem restoration projects
across 15,000 square miles of northwest Washington State, the Puget
Sound drainage basin, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
The program is part of the larger Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Project to restore and protect salmon habitat throughout
the Sound, especially for endangered chinook and steelhead.
My amendment doubles the per-project funding cap for PSAW projects to
$10 million and raises the overall authorization level for the program
by $20 million. As a result, critical Sound nearshore restoration
projects in Washington State would be eligible for PSAW funding.
Increasing available funds on a project-by-project basis will ensure
that the PSAW program is consistent with the Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program cap.
Recently, the CBO did an analysis of the amendment and found it will
have little to no direct impact on the budget.
Mr. Chair, a special thanks to Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member
DeFazio for their leadership on this measure as well. I am pleased that
we are moving forward on WRDA legislation that invests in the Nation's
ports, channels, waterways, and other critical infrastructure to keep
the U.S. maritime system competitive.
Maintaining the regular 2-year authorization of this legislation is
critical to the Nation's economy and will encourage new, good-paying
jobs in the Pacific Northwest. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment to continue the robust Federal investment and stewardship
needed to save the Sound.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I do not
oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H4831]]

There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment.
I was unclear about what this amendment did. Back home, I have a
constituent by the name of Carson Frank. I went back and I talked to
Carson about this bill, and he explained to me that this is consistent
with section 206 of the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project and
raises all the authorization levels. So I thank Carson from my home
State of Pennsylvania for explaining this to me.
I am happy to support the gentleman's amendment so that this project
will be completed in a timely fashion.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept the amendment at this time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Keating

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. KEATING. 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
Add at the end of title II the following:

SEC. ___. PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.

Not later than December 31, 2019, the Secretary shall
expedite and complete the dredging of Plymouth Harbor,
Massachusetts, as authorized by the Act of March 4, 1913 (37
Stat. 802, chapter 144) and the Act of September 22, 1922 (42
Stat. 1038, chapter 427).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chair, this amendment would direct the Army Corps to
expedite and complete dredging in Plymouth Harbor in time for the 400th
anniversary celebration of the Mayflower landing in Plymouth and
Provincetown, Massachusetts.
This is a huge international event that will attract people from all
over the world, particularly from Britain--including Plymouth,
England--and it is going to be a significant revenue producer for our
Commonwealth but also for our country.
The 2020 anniversary is a proud milestone for our country as we
commemorate the 400th anniversary of the successful settlement of
Plymouth by the Pilgrims; the essential contributions of the Aquinnah
and Mashpee Wampanoag tribes; and the number of key events that
followed, including the signing of the Mayflower Compact, the 50-year
Plymouth Pilgrim-Wampanoag peace treaty, and of course, the first
Thanksgiving.
For my entire time in Congress, I have worked closely with my
constituents to prepare for this Plymouth 400 event.
The Plymouth Harbor dredging project has always been a cornerstone to
these preparations. A centerpiece of the anniversary will be the return
of the fully restored Mayflower Two, a full-scale replica of the
original ship that brought the Pilgrims to Cape Cod in 1620. However,
the Mayflower Two cannot return to her home in Plymouth Harbor unless
much-needed dredging is completed by that time.
Further, we anticipate a maritime salute to mark the return of the
Mayflower Two as part of the commemoration. We also expect significant
uptick in corresponding maritime traffic.
The amendment is part of a final piece to ensure that 2020 will be a
memorable year for our community and our country, and I look forward to
the completion of this project and all the good that will follow.
This is something that is critical not only in terms of the event but
making sure there is safe navigation, which we will have to be able to,
in some way, counter the influx of marine traffic as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I do not
oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman offering this
amendment that does direct the Army Corps to expedite the complete
dredging in Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts.
I know this project is important to the gentleman and to the State,
so I am prepared to accept the amendment at this time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the chairman for his
help working with this, and I want to say, you are welcome. In 2020,
come be part of the celebration. It is so integral to our country, and
it is something that will, I think, be a great revenue producer as
well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Joyce of Ohio

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. 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:

Add at the end of title II the following:

SEC. __. BRANDON ROAD STUDY.

The Secretary shall complete a final feasibility report for
the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study Brandon
Road Study, authorized under section 3061(d) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) and
section 1538(b)(1) of MAP-21 (Public Law 112-141; 126 Stat.
586) by the original deadline of February 2019.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster for his
tireless work on this bill and for the fantastic job he has done
throughout his career as the chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Our Nation owes him a lot for his fine work.
My amendment requires the Army Corps to complete its final report for
the Brandon Road Study by February 2019, which is the originally
established deadline. The purpose of the Brandon Road Study is to
evaluate options and technologies near the Brandon Road Lock and Dam
site to prevent aquatic invasive species from reaching the Great Lakes;
in particular, the Asian carp.
The study began in 2015. We were supposed to see the draft report by
January of last year. It was delayed 6 months. We cannot afford any
more delays. The sooner the final report is released, the sooner we can
begin to implement methods and technologies that will keep the invasive
Asian carp out of the lakes, which account for more than 20 percent of
the world's fresh surface water supply.
Asian carp would devastate the ecosystem and the economy of the Great
Lakes region. Studies show the impacts would include declines in native
fish species and a one-third reduction of the total fish weight in Lake
Erie.
We need to ensure that the Brandon Road Study is released by the
February of 2019 deadline so we can move forward with the
recommendations from the study and stop the invasive Asian carp from
infiltrating one of the Nation's most critical water resources.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition, although I do not
oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. The amendment, as he explained, directs the Secretary to
complete the final feasibility report for the Great Lakes Mississippi
River study on the Brandon Roads by next February.
Keeping this study on track is important. I understand my colleague's
concern about not having it drag on without conclusion. I really
appreciate the gentleman for offering this.

[[Page H4832]]

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of my amendment,
and 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 amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1730

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. 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. __. LAND CONVEYANCE.

(a) In General.--On the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Army shall convey to the City of Bainbridge,
Georgia, without monetary consideration and subject to
subsection (b), all right, title, and interest in and to real
property described in subsection (c).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under
this subsection shall be subject to--
(A) the condition that the City of Bainbridge agree to
operate, maintain, and manage the property for fish and
wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost
or expense to the United States; and
(B) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be in the interest of the United States.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or the city ceases to operate, maintain, and
manage the real property in accordance with this subsection,
all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall
revert to the United States, at the option of the Secretary.
(c) Property.--The property to be conveyed is composed of
the following 3 parcels of land:
(1) Parcel 1.--All that tract or parcel of land lying and
being in Land Lots 226. and 228, Fifteenth Land District, and
Land Lots 319, 320, 321, 322, 323 and 358, Twentieth Land
District, Decatur County, Georgia, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete monument stamped ``358'' which is
950 feet, more or less, North of the South line and 600 feet,
more or less, West of the East line of said Land Lot 358, at
a corner of a tract of land owned by the United States of
America at Lake Seminole and at plane coordinate position
North 318,698.72 feet and East 360,033.38 feet based on
Transverse Mercator Projection, Georgia West Zone;
Thence Due West 75 feet, more or less, to the contour at
elevation 77.0 feet above Mean Sea Level;
Thence Northeasterly along the meanders of said 77.0 foot
contour a distance of 20,600 feet, more or less, to the mouth
of the entrance channel to the arena and boat basin;
Thence N 75 E 150 feet, more or less, to another point on
said 77.0 foot contour;
Thence Northeasterly along the meanders of said 77.0 foot
contour a distance of 3,300 feet, more or less, to a point
which is on the boundary of said United States tract and on
the boundary of a tract of land now or formerly owned by the
City of Bainbridge, Georgia;
Thence along the boundary of said United States tract the
following courses:
S 10 52' E along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 830 feet, more or less, to a corner of said tract;
S 89 45' E along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 700 feet, more or less, to a concrete monument stamped
``J1A'', coordinates of said monument being North 328,902.34
feet and East 369,302.33 feet;
S 22 25' W 62 feet, more or less, to a corner of another
tract of land owned by the City of Bainbridge, Georgia;
S 88 07' W along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 350 feet, more or less to a corner of said tract;
N 84 00' W along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 100.5 feet to a corner said tract;
S 88 07' W along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 300.0 feet to a corner of said tract;
S 14 16' W along boundary of said City of Bainbridge tract
89.3 feet to a corner of said tract;
Southwesterly along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract which is along a curve to the right with a radius of
684.69 feet an arc distance of 361.8 feet to a corner of said
tract;
S 30 00' W along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 294.0 feet to a corner of said tract;
S 10 27.' W along the boundary of said City of Bainbridge
tract 385.0 feet to a corner of said tract;
N 73 31' W 38 feet, more or less, to a concrete monument;
S 16 25' W 563.7 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J7A'';
S 68 28' W 719.5 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J9A'';
S 68 28' W 831.3 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J12A'';
S 89 39'.E 746.7 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J11A'';
S 01 22' w 80.0 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J11B'';
N 89 39' W 980.9 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J13A'';
S 01 21' W 560.0 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``J15A'';
S 37 14' W 1,213.0 feet;
N 52 46' W 600.0 feet;
S 37 14' W 1,000.0 feet;
S 52 46' E 600.0 feet;
S 37 14' W 117.0 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``320/319'';
S 37 13' W 1,403.8 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``322/319'';
S 37 13' W 2,771.4 feet to a concrete monument stamped
``322/323'';
S 37 13' W 1,459.2 feet;
N 89 04' W 578.9 feet;
S 53 42' W 367.7 feet;
S 43 42' W 315.3 feet;
S 26 13' W 654.9 feet, more or less, to the point of
beginning.
Containing 550.00 acres, more or less, and being a part of
Tracts L-1105 and L-1106 of Lake Seminole.
(2) Parcel 2.--All that tract or parcel of land lying and
lying and being in Land Lot 226, Fifteenth Land District,
Decatur County, Georgia, more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at a point which is on the East right-of-way line
of the Seaboard Airline Railroad, 215 feet North of the South
end of the trestle over the Flint River, and at a corner of a
tract of land owned by the United States of America at Lake
Seminole;
Thence Southeasterly along the boundary of said United
States tract which is along a curve to the right a distance
of 485 feet, more or less, to a point which is 340 feet, more
or less, S 67 00' E from the South end of said trestle, and
at a corner of said United States tract;
Thence N 70 00' E along the boundary of said United States
tract 60.0 feet to a corner of said tract;
Thence Northerly along the boundary of said United States
tract which is along a curve to the right a distance of 525
feet, more or less, to a corner of said tract;
Thence S 05 00' W along the boundary of said United States
tract 500.0 feet to a corner of said tract;
Thence Due West along the boundary of said United States
tract 370 feet, more or less, to a point which is on the East
right-of-way line of said railroad and at a corner of said
United States tract;
Thence N 13 30' W along the boundary of said United States
tract which is along the East right-of-way line of said
railroad a distance of 310 feet, more or less, to the point
of beginning.
Containing 3.67 acres, more or less, and being all of Tract
L-1124 of Lake Seminole.
Parcels 1 and 2 contain in the aggregate 553.67 acres, more
or less.
(3) Parcel 3.--All that tract or panel of land lying and
being in Land Lot 225, Fifteenth Land District, Decatur
County, Georgia, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an iron marker designated ``225/226/'', which
is on the South line and 500 feet, more or less, West of the
Southeast corner of said Land Lot 225 at a corner of a tract
of land owned by the United States of America at Lake
Seminole and at plane coordinate position North 330,475.82
feet and East 370,429.36 feet, based on Transverse Mercator
Projection, Georgia West Zone;
Thence Due West along the boundary of said United States
tract a distance of 53.0 feet to a monument stamped ``225/
226-A'';
Thence continue Due West along the boundary of said United
States tract a distance of 56 feet, more or less, to a point
on the East bank of the Flint River;
Thence Northerly, upstream, along the meanders of the East
bank of said river a distance of 1,200 feet, more or less, to
a point which is on the Southern right-of-way line of U.S.
Highway No. 84 and at a corner of said United States tract;
Thence Easterly and Southeasterly along the Southern right-
of-way line of said highway, which is along the boundary of
said United States tract a distance of 285 feet, more or
less, to a monument stamped ``L-23-1'', the coordinates of
said monument being North 331,410.90 and East 370,574.96;
Thence S 02 25' E along the boundary of said United States
tract a distance of 650.2 feet to a monument stamped ``225-
A'';
Thence S 42 13' E along the boundary of said United States
tract a distance of 99.8 feet to a monument stamped ``225'';
Thence S 48 37' W along the boundary of said United States
tract a distance of 319.9 feet, more or less, to the point of
beginning.
Containing 4.14 acres, more or less, and being all of Tract
L-1123 of the Lake Seminole Project.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding.

[[Page H4833]]

I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and the committee staff for
all of their assistance in helping to get this matter to the floor for
consideration.
This amendment would convey three parcels of land known as the Earle
May Recreational Area from the Army Corps of Engineers to the city of
Bainbridge, Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, the Earle May Recreational Area is vitally important to
the city of Bainbridge, Georgia. The city has had a long-term lease
from the Army Corps of Engineers, and it has invested nearly $150
million in improvements to this area for public use. These investments
include a $25 million water control plant, several sporting complexes,
and many other facilities that attract visitors.
It is a destination for people from across the Southeast for its
unique beauty and the recreational opportunities that are offered by
the Flint River.
Continued improvements, however, could be done much more efficiently
if the land were conveyed from the Army Corps to the city of
Bainbridge. Since the original lease was initiated in 1980, any
improvements that the city attempted to make had to undergo the very
long and arduous process that the Army Corps of Engineers utilizes,
and, therefore, it increased substantially the cost to the city, as
well as the bureaucratic delays that occurred.
By transferring this land to the people of the city of Bainbridge, I
am confident that a proper balance can be struck between the city and
the Army Corps, and it will facilitate the recreational activities on
the Flint River as well as navigation and flood control.
I would like to thank the chairman for his assistance and for
agreeing to accept this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. I appreciate his work on the issue, and I urge all my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I ask
my colleagues in the House and I urge their support of the 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 Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Blum

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. __. CEDAR RIVER, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA.

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the project for
flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
authorized by section 7002(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1366).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Blum) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment that
prioritizes the completion of the flood mitigation project on the Cedar
River in the First District of Iowa.
Ten years ago this week, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, experienced a
devastating flood that resulted in billions of dollars' worth of
damage. In 2014, Congress authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to
complete a flood risk mitigation project on the Cedar River to prevent
future floods. Two years ago, in the midst of another historic flood in
Cedar Rapids, the 2016 WRDA included my amendment that prioritized the
completion of the Cedar Rapids project. However, we are having the same
discussion 2 years later for the 2018 WRDA.
The Federal Government has let down my constituents in Cedar Rapids
and has not fulfilled its duty to provide the necessary resources to
complete the flood mitigation project to protect this city. Working
with my Iowa colleagues in the House and the Senate, I have attended
countless meetings and sent numerous letters to the Army Corps and the
Office of Management and Budget urging movement on this most important
project, but it has yet to start.
It is past time the government fulfills its promise to my
constituents in Iowa. This project is shovel ready, and Cedar Rapidians
deserve completion to protect this vibrant city from future natural
disasters.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. This is an important project for Cedar Rapids, Iowa. We have
had many discussions about it. I am prepared to accept the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Keating

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. KEATING. 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. ___. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BRIDGE REPAIR AND DIVESTITURE
PROGRAM FOR NEW ENGLAND EVACUATION ROUTES.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary may repair or replace, as necessary, any bridge
owned and operated by the Secretary that is--
(1) located in any of the States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; and
(2) necessary for evacuation during an extreme weather
event.

[[Page H4834]]

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment that clarifies the Army Corps' authority to repair the
Sagamore and Bourne bridges. This will help ensure the people can
safely evacuate during an emergency situation. It is important to
Massachusetts.
I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. I am prepared to
accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman again for his
cooperation. This is a vital matter of public safety going forward, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. 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. ___. PORT OF WHITMAN COUNTY.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
approximately 288 acres of land situated in Whitman County,
Washington, contained within Tract D of Little Goose Lock and
Dam.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
a tract or tracts of land owned by the Port of Whitman
County, Washington, that the Secretary determines, with
approval of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, equals or
exceeds the value of the Federal land both as habitat for
fish and wildlife and for recreational opportunities related
to fish and wildlife.
(b) Land Exchange.--On conveyance by the Port of Whitman
County to the United States of all right, title, and interest
in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary of the Army
shall convey to the Port of Whitman County all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
(c) Deeds.--
(1) Deed to non-federal land.--The Secretary may only
accept conveyance of the non-Federal land by warranty deed,
as determined acceptable by the Secretary.
(2) Deed to federal land.--The Secretary shall convey the
Federal land to the Port of Whitman County by quitclaim deed
and subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions the
Secretary determines necessary to allow the United States to
operate and maintain the Lower Snake River Project and to
protect the interests of the United States.
(d) Cash Payment.--If the appraised fair market value of
the Federal land, as determined by the Secretary, exceeds the
appraised fair market value of the non-Federal land, as
determined by the Secretary, the Port of Whitman County shall
make a cash payment to the United States reflecting the
difference in the appraised fair market values.
(e) Administrative Expenses.--The Port of Whitman County
shall be responsible for the administrative costs of the
transaction in accordance with section 2695 of title 10,
United States Code.
(f) Liability.--The Port of Whitman County shall hold the
United States harmless from any liability with respect to
activities carried out on the Federal land on or after the
date of the conveyance.
(g) Applicability of Real Property Screening Provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to the conveyance of the Federal land under this section.
(h) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and legal description of the Federal land and non-Federal
land shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to
the Secretary.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Chairman Shuster for
getting WRDA back on a 2-year cycle and for his leadership on this
important legislation.
In eastern Washington, we rely on rivers, locks, and dams to move
goods through ports and to markets abroad. I represent the Columbia
Snake River system, and this system is crucial to moving Washington
wheat and potatoes. Today, I offer an amendment that authorizes a land
transfer between the Army Corps of Engineers and Port of Whitman.
As introduced, the Port of Whitman Economic Expansion Act seeks to
simply allow the port to accomplish their goals of providing additional
jobs and opportunities in rural eastern Washington. To do this, they
need this land transfer. This amendment simply authorizes this process.
We have worked with the State and local community to ensure this
process will meet fish and wildlife mitigation requirements as well as
keep recreation opportunities available in the community.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio and their
staff for their assistance, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this
amendment. I know how important it is to the State of Washington and
her district and her constituents. I am prepared to accept the
amendment at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 40 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. 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, insert the following:

SEC. ___. HAMPTON HARBOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NAVIGATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

In carrying out the project for navigation, Hampton Harbor,
New Hampshire, under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the Secretary shall use all existing
authorities of the Secretary to mitigate severe shoaling.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It
directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use its existing authority
to dredge Hampton Harbor in southern New Hampshire.
Hampton Harbor is New Hampshire's largest commercial fishing port,
and it is a lifeline to the ocean for New Hampshire fishermen. Severe
shoaling has made the water so shallow that it will soon become
unnavigable. Some vessels must wait for the tides to be at their
highest simply to enter the harbor. Over 1,500 recreational vessels,
emergency response and patrol boats, and numerous commercial lobster
and fishing boats could be cut off from the ocean.
The narrowing and shallowing of the harbor not only places
unnecessary costs on local businesses, it is also a safety hazard. As
access points to the harbor become tighter and the window for entering
the harbor safely narrows, more boats must enter and exit the harbor at
the same time. This greatly increases the risk of a collision.
A Hampton fisherman has warned in a letter to his local paper that:
``Only a matter of time before there is a boat-to-boat or boat-to-wall
collision, which will result in major property damage and possible
human injury or death.''
This project must move forward as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the

[[Page H4835]]

amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this
amendment. I know the importance of it to Hampton Harbor and New
Hampshire. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. 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 III, add the following:

SEC. ___. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER.

The Secretary shall expedite the project for navigation for
Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River authorized by
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
1173).

{time} 1745

The harbor is also home to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, where
Granite Staters work on our Nation's advanced nuclear submarines. It is
a challenging harbor to navigate--home to some of the fastest tidal
currents on Earth. That is why it is so important that the Portsmouth
Harbor project moves forward quickly. The harbor must remain safe and
navigable.
The skilled sailors of the United States Navy can navigate this
difficult waterway. It is vital that commercial traffic can also use
the harbor safely and that commercial vessels do not delay the
submarines' entry to the shipyard. In addition, a maritime incident
triggered by this difficult waterway could cause a devastating oil
spill that would negatively impact the shipyard.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this
amendment. This amendment that she explained so well expedites the
navigation project for Portsmouth Harbor and the Piscataqua River,
which I know many families live along that--the Jones, the Smiths, the
Gosselins--and they are all very concerned about this, so I appreciate
the gentlewoman bringing this amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Minnesota

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. ___. SENSE OF CONGRESS ENCOURAGING NON-FEDERAL DREDGED
MATERIAL PLACEMENT SPONSORS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) when a State or subdivision of a State, individually or
in partnership with a private partner, develops a reasonable
alternative to the Federal standard for dredged material
disposal facilities that meets relevant Federal environmental
and dredged material placement and disposal requirements in
coordination with a Corps of Engineers' District Office, it
should receive preferred consideration by the Secretary; and
(2) the Secretary is encouraged to consider entering into
agreements with non-Federal sponsors for the acquisition,
design, construction, management, or operation and
maintenance of dredged material disposal facilities,
including port facilities, through section 217 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking my
colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of our committee, for his
leadership in getting this bill to the floor.
The U.S. Army Corps plays a pivotal role in the transportation of all
of our goods and services in the United States. They are tasked with
maintaining navigation channels in our most active and commercial
waterways. Unfortunately, carrying out this important work brings about
challenges my constituents know all too well.
Last spring, the Corps released a 40-year dredged material management
plan in an effort to identify placement sites for almost 11 million
cubic yards of dredged material. Regrettably, the proposal was drafted
by bureaucrats in Washington with very little community input.
Without knowledge of the local impact, the Federal plan would take
300 acres of pristine land from a third generation family farm, 30
acres in a residential neighborhood in my district, as well as 73 acres
from a farm in Congressman Kind's district.
My own family lost their business through condemnation, so I am
acutely aware of the damage the eminent domain process can sometimes
have on families and communities. After several discussions with the
Corps and letters from myself, they agreed that more public comment was
needed and that a better solution may possibly exist.
I was pleased that the Corps scheduled several public meetings on the
topic, and that the Corps worked with us to extend the open comment
period several times. This process proved successful, and a number of
innovative and thoughtful alternatives were submitted for
consideration.
Yesterday, the St. Paul District Office of the Army Corps and the
city of Wabasha, Minnesota, signed a memorandum of understanding for
this 40-year plan. The memorandum of understanding describes a process
by which the Corps can use existing authorities to collaborate with a
non-Federal entity in order to allow for greater flexibility of
material placement.
This proposal has the support of the district office, our local
community, and the State of Minnesota. It is also environmentally
friendly, as it could allow the dredged material to be used in a manner
that benefits society, rather than taking up space on a pristine
farmland. It also spreads the burden of a public benefit to everyone
who benefits.
My amendment encourages the Army Corps' headquarters to fully
consider this alternative plan, and alternatives like this, in the
future. In its history, the Corps has rarely approved innovative plans
such as this. Federal, local, and private partnerships are something
that we should encourage, instead of putting roadblocks in the way.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I ask that the Army Corps fully consider inventive, but effective
projects across the country it would affect.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4836]]

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering a
commonsense amendment that encourages the Corps to consider reasonable
alternative agreements between State and local entities and private
partners. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Olson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. OLSON. 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. __. PROJECT COMPLETION FOR DISASTER AREAS.

The Secretary shall carry out expeditiously projects
already authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce
the risk of future floods and hurricanes in Texas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the
United States Virgin Islands.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Olson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the greater Houston area, my
home, was devastated by Hurricane Harvey. That was 10 months ago. We
are still working to recover, and Texas is not alone. Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
were impacted by a shattering hurricane season.
And we can't just focus on the last storm season. The 2018 hurricane
season started on June 1. Tropical Storm Alberto hit the Florida
Panhandle on May 25, 6 days before hurricane season. NOAA says that
there is a 75 percent chance this Atlantic hurricane season will be
near or above normal.
That is why we must act now to prevent damage from huge floods like
Harvey. Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the Bipartisan
Budget Act to provide critical Army Corps funds to rebuild our
communities and prepare for the next storm. Even though that money has
been allocated, the work has not begun. While that is partly due to red
tape at the Corps, once work begins, we need to move that process
quickly.
My amendment is simple. It says that the Army Corps needs to expedite
previously authorized projects in the declared disaster areas of Texas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. These projects will provide critical help for
communities that are still recovering and mitigate future flooding and
damage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by Mr. Olson. It is
a bipartisan effort. But it is also an effort to save lives, because in
2015 with the Memorial Day flood we had 7 people lose their lives; and,
in 2016, with the tax day flood, we had 8 people lose their lives; and,
of course, Hurricane Harvey claimed 68 lives across the State of Texas.
This is not only about dollars and cents, it is about saving lives,
and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this
amendment to the floor and given that he said the historic hurricanes
of 2017 this amendment is critical to that recovery, so I am prepared
to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member
DeFazio for clearing the way for this amendment to be voted on on the
House floor.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues who cosponsored this amendment,
and I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this flood protection
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Culberson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. McCaul), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Add at the end of title II the following:

SEC. ___. HOUSTON AND COASTAL TEXAS.

The Secretary shall expeditiously carry out flood and
storm damage reduction studies to reduce the risk of damage
from future floods and hurricanes in the Houston and Coastal
Texas areas. In carrying out the studies, the Secretary shall
leverage existing information and resources.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, when Hurricane Harvey hit Texas last
year it put over 50 inches of rain into an area the size of New Jersey.
It was the first category 4 hurricane to make landfall in the
continental United States since 2004. It was an extraordinary amount of
rain and a devastating event, leading to the largest housing disaster
in the history of the United States.
This led to 1.4 million Texans evacuating their homes, and 300,000
households were left without power. There was over $160 billion in
damage. This is the second most expensive storm, Mr. Chairman, in
American history, and the most expensive storm in Texas history.
Hurricane Harvey was the third major flood to impact the people of
Houston in my district since 2015.
Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank my good friend, Mr. Al
Green. We have worked together in the Houston area in a bipartisan
fashion. All of us in the Houston area--Al Green, Gene Green, Sheila
Jackson Lee, Ted Poe, and Michael McCaul, who is also working with us
on this amendment and helped put this forward--all of us in the Houston
area have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to help the people of
Houston recover.
We were proud to work together with the Florida delegation to help
the people of Florida recover from Irma and Maria--and Puerto Rico. As
the only appropriator from southeast Texas, I was proud to spearhead
that effort in putting together three emergency hurricane supplemental
bills, for a total of $141 billion, the largest amount of money the
Corps commander tells me that he has ever seen in his 40 years of
service at the Corps.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen for his support. I want to
thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Shuster--he and
I were elected together in 2000--for his support on this important
recovery effort. We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of Harvey,
and we have not forgotten the devastation that it brought to the people
we represent.
After we passed that emergency appropriations bill, after those
agencies had received that money, one of our most important and,
frankly, frustrating jobs is getting the agencies to release the money,
to get it into the hands of the homeowners who had suffered, the
business owners who had suffered, and to make sure that the Army

[[Page H4837]]

Corps of Engineers is speedily carrying out the studies and
recommendations that they have to do to build the flood control
structures we need in southeast Texas.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. McCaul and I are putting
forward today says, very clearly, that the Secretary of the Army shall
expeditiously carry out these flood control studies and make sure that
they are built as rapidly as possible. I can tell you from my position
on the Appropriations Committee, as a subcommittee chairman
representing southeast Texas, I will use all of the tools the
Appropriations Committee has available to us, working with Chairman
Simpson and Chairman Frelinghuysen, to ensure the Corps moves rapidly.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster for his support of this
amendment. And I also thank my colleague, Al Green, for his support on
this amendment today. We have worked together arm in arm in helping
people recover from these three disastrous floods over the last 3
years. This amendment will make sure the Army Corps of Engineers
completes these studies rapidly, that they execute quickly, and build
whatever is recommended to help protect the people of Houston and
southeast Texas from the next storm. We are going to make sure, as the
people's elected representatives, that our constituents' very scarce,
hard-earned, and precious tax dollars are wisely and carefully spent in
an expeditious way to rebuild and to protect us against the next giant
storm.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1800

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment,
even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for offering this
amendment.
As he clearly pointed out, this is important due to the historic
hurricane season from last year. So I want to thank my good friends,
Chairman Culberson and Chairman McCaul, for offering this. I am
prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al
Green), my colleague.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues who
have been associated with this amendment.
Mr. Chair, this has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Culberson and I
have worked together not only on this effort, but also to serve people.
We do have people who are still living in temporary shelter in
Houston and we have people who are still awaiting FEMA's assistance.
With some 4.7 million people in the area having been impacted, it is
exceedingly important that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. Chair, I am appreciative that the chairman has indicated his
support of it, and I thank Mr. Culberson, Mr. McCaul, and other
colleagues for bringing this amendment to the floor.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with Chairman
Shuster and with my colleagues in the House representing the great
State of Texas in ensuring that this money gets out the door to our
constituents as soon as possible to help them recover, and that the
Army Corps of Engineers is moving as rapidly as humanly possible to
complete these studies and build the flood control structures we have
to have to protect the people of southeast Texas from the next storm.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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:

Page 4, after line 10, insert the following (and renumber
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(1) by striking section 9003;
(2) by redesignating sections 9004 through 9008 as sections
9003 through 9007, respectively;
(3) in section 9003(c) (as redesignated by this section),
by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Levee safety action classification.--In carrying out
risk characterizations for levee systems, the Secretary shall
include, as a part of any Levee Safety Action Classification,
the following information--
``(A) a complete explanation of the way project condition,
design, hydrology, flood frequency, probabilities of failure
and overtopping and any other relevant factor were integrated
in arriving at the rating assigned;
``(B) all incremental corrective actions that can be taken
to progressively improve the relative levee safety action
classification assigned to a levee system; and
``(C) the incremental costs associated with each corrective
action in subsection (b).'';
(4) in section 9004 (as redesignated by this section), by
striking subsection (b) (and redesignating the subsequent
subsection accordingly);
Page 4, line 11, strike ``9005(g)(2)(E)(i)'' and insert
``9004(f)(2)(E)(i) (as redesignated by this section)''.
Page 4, line 14, strike ``9008'' and insert ``9007 (as
redesignated by this section)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Weber) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with flood
control levees and the way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
assessing and rating these vital community-based, flood-defense
systems.
The Corps has been developing levee risk ratings around the United
States without the close involvement of local project sponsors, and
this is unacceptable.
What is more, the agency is trying to characterize ``flood risk to
our communities'' without routinely offering viable solution
alternatives or well-informed site-specific cost estimates for these
solutions. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee
Portfolio Report from March of this year, the agency indicates the
following on page 28: `` . . . there may be reluctance to share risk
information with the public when an immediate and viable risk
management solution has not been identified.''
Reluctance? Reluctance indeed.
The Corps has been developing a risk-rating tool called the Levee
Safety Action Classification, or L-SAC. Local levee systems and
affected communities are labeled as either very high risk, high risk,
moderate risk, low risk, or very low risk for flood inundation.
Thus far, 13 percent of the Corps' program levees are in the very
high, the high, or the moderate risk categories.
Notably, these systems are estimated to have 8 million people that
live or work behind them. My own district includes such an area near
Freeport, Texas, where nationally-significant manufacturing and R&D
operations have occurred since 1940.
These Corps ratings, which are to be widely broadcast to affected
citizens, businesses, and community leaders, will have significant
consequences for life safety and important secondary concerns like
property values, economic development, zoning, and local governance.
These ratings have been formulated without the sort of close local
engagement that is required for successful flood hazard mitigation.
Moreover, according to the Corps itself, the ratings are not
accompanied by viable solution alternatives and cost estimates for
these solutions.
We can and must do better than this.
My amendment enhances the Corps' L-SAC risk tool. It should not only
assess levee system locations, conditions, and failure consequences
from a Federal perspective, but also include affected levee owners and
operators in communities in a completely integrated way to assess,
communicate, and mitigate the full range of flood risks.
Only then will we progressively improve the L-SAC scores and, more
importantly, improve local safety conditions with viable long-term
economic solutions.
This amendment does not remove Corps risk assessment and
communication duties that were assigned by the

[[Page H4838]]

Congress in the 2007 WRDA. To the contrary, it supplements these duties
by assuring, A, that individual levee system L-SAC ratings are
transparent; and, B, that they play a meaningful role in expanding
options and improving life safety outcomes.
This is a nonpartisan, meritorious proposal with national
application. It increases transparency and it improves both risk
communication and actual risk mitigation.
Finally, considering the scarcity of available taxpayer resources
necessary for actual infrastructure improvements, my amendment also
cuts some fat.
For example, number one, it foregoes reestablishment of the Committee
on Levee Safety. That committee produced a draft report in January
2009, and later updated, that formed the basis of the 2014 WRDA, which,
by and large, has not been executed.
Number two, the amendment eliminates the unfilled position of
``Administrator of the Levee Safety Program'' and accompanying
authorization for ``such staff as necessary.'' The Chief of Engineers,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, eight Corps
Division Commanders, 38 Corps District Commanders, multiple agency
programmatic chiefs, and existing staff would seem sufficient to me to
execute appropriate levee-related policy authorized by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poliquin). The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, this amendment, while potentially well
intended, could have the unintended consequences of weakening the
Nation's safety standards for levees.
I understand the gentleman plans to withdraw the amendment, and I
commit to continue working with the gentleman on the issue.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from California for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I do want to thank the gentleman from Texas for raising
this issue. I actually agree with him that there are fundamental
problems in the levee safety program right now: number one, the fact
that the Corps produces these worst-case scenario outcomes that they
apply to levees without publicly making the data available on how they
came to those conclusions; number two, the fact that they fail to
provide alternative improvements with associated cost estimates on how
these systems could be improved and ensure the resiliency and
performance of these systems.
There are many, many other concerns. I think the amendment does
attempt to address some of those, but I think the gentleman also
understands that there are some concerns that have been raised that I
think are legitimate.
Mr. Chair, I do want to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to
withdraw the amendment. I would certainly be willing to work with the
gentleman through that process to see if we can find something that
everyone can agree to that makes sense without threatening the safety
of our communities, which I know no one here wants to do.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, from the
gentleman from Louisiana, if we can work together on this in attempting
to address this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Meeks

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. MEEKS. 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:

Page 52, after line 24, insert the following:
(21) Project for reformulation, East Rockaway Inlet to
Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, Queens, New York.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Meeks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to expedite the
Army Corps of Engineers' study of Superstorm Sandy recovery efforts,
allowing a faster response to dangerous and economically damaging beach
erosion in my district and the Rockaway Peninsula.
To this day, my constituents suffer from the after-effects of
Hurricane Sandy. Though coastal recovery has contributed to positive
economic development, the very same jobs created are now threatened by
emergency beach closures.
Two weeks ago, only days ahead of beach season, of the beaches
opening, 11 of our beaches' central blocks were deemed unsafe due to
erosion, by the city of New York and all of the lifeguards therein. As
a result, it will be crippling to the vendors, whose entire livelihood
depends on their seasonal income.
Last year alone, there were four nor'easters that further devastated
our beachfront. We have already allocated funding for the Army Corps of
Engineers to begin constructing coastal protections and prevent further
erosion. However, construction is not due to begin until 2019.
In that time, beaches will be left vulnerable to coastal erosion,
threatening more closures, and impacting more jobs and economic
activity in my district. This should be of concern to all taxpayers.
After Sandy, the Army Corps of Engineers dumped two Empire State
Buildings' worth of sand on our beach for coastal recovery. Stalled
efforts to address resiliency issues, such as this study, are allowing
millions of Federal dollars to be literally washed away.
Mr. Chair, my constituents cannot wait until 2019 for construction of
reinforced dunes, groynes, and jetties. The studies must be allowed to
be improved and completed in a timely manner so as to not leave our
beachgoers unsafe or our economy vulnerable.
While I will continue to push for a remedy for this summer--I am
going to push to try to save some of it--it is my hope that by
expediting this process, the beaches will be made safe and operational
for my constituents as soon as possible, and certainly no later than
spring season of 2019.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. Of course, with the devastating effects of Sandy on Queens,
New York, I understand his concern.
Mr. Chair, given the impact of that storm and the importance of this
amendment, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and the ranking member
from California for their understanding.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Schrader

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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. ___. INCLUSION OF PROJECT OR FACILITY IN CORPS OF
ENGINEERS WORKPLAN.

Any project or facility of the Corps of Engineers studied
for disposition for which a final report by the Director of
Civil Works has been completed shall, to the maximum

[[Page H4839]]

extent practicable, be included in the future workplan of the
Corps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Subcommittee Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
their staffs for working with us on drafting this amendment.
My amendment requires the Corps to include any project or facility
for which there is a final report for disposition from the Director of
Civil Works to be in their future work plans, to the maximum extent
possible.
Mr. Chair, it is a straightforward amendment. I am proud to offer it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment, which does require the Corps to include complete deposition
studies in future Corps plans where practicable.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1815

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. ___. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT.

(a) In General.--After any flood event requiring operation
or activation of any floodway or backwater feature within the
Mississippi River and Tributaries Project through natural
overtopping of a Federal levee or artificial crevassing of a
Federal levee to relieve pressure on the levees elsewhere in
the system, the Secretary shall expeditiously reset and
restore the damaged floodway's levees.
(b) Mississippi River and Tributaries Project.--The term
``Mississippi River and Tributaries Project'' means the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project authorized by the
Act of May 15, 1928 (Chap. 569; 45 Stat. 534).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of my
amendment which protects the Mississippi River and Tributaries System
and its floodways. The MR&T is our Nation's most successful flood
control and navigation system expanding from Cape Girardeau, Missouri,
down through Louisiana near the Gulf of Mexico.
Since 1928, the MR&T has prevented $1 trillion in flood damage and
protected the lives of millions who live in the Mississippi Valley.
The MR&T's floodways and backwaters throughout the system relieve
pressure on the Mississippi levees during flooding and are essential to
keeping the system functioning. One of those floodways is in southeast
Missouri, the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway.
In 2011, the Mississippi River experienced historic flooding, leading
to the Army Corps' decision to intentionally breach, with explosives,
the Birds Point Floodway. As a result, 130,000 acres of land were
flooded, destroying people's homes, towns, and crops.
The people of southeast Missouri are resilient and, in the aftermath
of this tragic action, tried to pick up the pieces and return to their
lives. Unfortunately, it was not until over a year and a half later
that the Army Corps returned the destroyed levees back to their
original design. There were even some who indicated that perhaps these
levees not be built back at all. That is truly unacceptable.
Floodway activation impacts not just residents in the floodways, but
all of 4\1/2\ million people protected by the MR&T system. Floodways
are a critical part of the MR&T, and their restoration after activation
should never be in question.
My amendment ensures that, in the event of activation of any floodway
or backwater feature within the MR&T, the Army Corps will prioritize
expedient restoration of the damaged floodway's levees back to the
original protection.
Activation of any floodway on the MR&T has serious consequences and
should only be done as a last resort. This amendment simply ensures
activated floodway is restored. My amendment is essential to the peace
of mind of all people living near floodways and to the proper function
of the MR&T.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for offering this amendment.
There was something that the gentleman noted in the end that I wanted
to make sure legislative intent is preserved here, Mr. Chairman. The
gentleman from Missouri stated that the amendment is intended to
restore floodways after they are opened up, such as Bird Point-New
Madrid, as opposed to perhaps in south Louisiana where a crevasse could
open up that would provide fresh water and sort of mimic that natural
process that created coastal Louisiana and would currently restore
coastal Louisiana wetlands.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure the intent of the amendment and that
we have in legislative history here memorialized that this is intended
to address the restoration of floodways as opposed to crevasses that
may open in the aftermath of a flood.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I would absolutely say that the
gentleman from Louisiana is correct. It is for floodways and for
restoration that have been activated.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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__. MAINTENANCE OF HIGH RISK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

(a) Assessment.--With respect to each project classified as
class III under the Dam Safety Action Classification of the
Corps of Engineers for which the Secretary has assumed
responsibility for maintenance, as of the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall assess--
(1) the anticipated effects of the Secretary continuing to
be responsible for the maintenance of the project during the
period that ends 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, including the benefits to the State and local community;
and
(2) the anticipated effects of the Secretary not continuing
to be responsible for the maintenance of the project during
such 15-year period, including the costs to the State and
local community.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after completion of the
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a
report summarizing the results of the assessment to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate.

[[Page H4840]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me to
discuss this revised Young amendment No. 49.
I appreciate Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio's help and
the help the majority and the minority staffs have given us with their
assistance to get this amendment to the floor.
This amendment requires the Secretary to conduct an assessment of
dams classified as Class III under the Dam Safety Action Classification
of the Corps of Engineers. Once the assessment is complete, this
amendment requires the Secretary to provide a report to Congress
describing two things: what will happen to local communities should the
Corps give up the control of dam versus what will happen if the Corps
continues to maintain the dam. This amendment will show the importance
of accurate design and construction.
Currently, there is a hole the size of a family sedan in a dam
mitigation outlet tunnel that serves the city of Seward, Alaska. The
Corps assumed responsibility for this dam, and the design and
construction flaw will only get worse until the Corps fixes it, which
they are committed to do. The current study for an alternative solution
will not be completed until 2019.
This amendment is critical to the Alaska community because it
prevents Seward from bearing undue hardship from frequent flooding and
continuous damage to the outfall due to the unforeseen design faults.
This amendment would continue to require the Corps to expedite the
study and place a critical importance on fixing the dam system for my
constituents in Seward.
I want to thank, again, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
their staffs for working with me and my staff on this amendment and for
supporting my efforts here today. We will continue to work further on
this issue in conference, and I urge all my colleagues to support my
amendment No. 49.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for
offering this amendment. As always, the gentleman is looking out for
the State of Alaska and also small and rural towns across America. So
this is an important issue, and I thank my colleague for working on
this amendment. I am prepared to accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Costa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. COSTA. 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. __. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR NON-FEDERAL RESERVOIR
OPERATIONS.

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair of the committee
and the ranking member and all of the staff for their support and work
on this important amendment. It is a simple amendment to the Water
Resources Development Act.
Today, as a result of action taken by the Congress in the previous
WRDA bills, the Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to accept
funds from non-Federal interests to update rules that govern the
operations of reservoirs owned and operated by the Corps.
Unfortunately, there are a number of facilities that are regulated but
not owned by the Corps of Engineers, and previous WRDA bills have
failed to provide similar authority to accept funds to update the
operations manuals. These manuals are very important as it relates to
flood control issues.
Although the Corps regulations specify that water operations manuals,
including flood-control curves, should be reviewed and updated
regularly, the reality is the Corps does not do this because they have
got budget constraints.
A Government Accountability Office report released in July 2016 found
that the Corps-owned projects for revisions to water control manuals
are often a lower priority than other operations and maintenance
activities, such as equipment repairs, sediment removal, or levee
repairs. As a result, the Corps oftentimes does not get to funding
these revised water control manuals. This is important. We have floods
all across the country, and it is important that these get updated.
Non-Corps section 7 projects have an even lower budget priority. The
Merced Irrigation District in central California, which I have the
honor to represent, is the owner of such a facility called New
Exchequer Dam, an important reservoir that has served for decades and
decades to provide water supply, flood control benefits for the people
of the San Joaquin Valley.
The Merced Irrigation District wants to improve the spillway and
water storage of Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, and it is going to fund
all of the improvements. But it has been prevented from doing so for
years because the Corps doesn't have the funding to review and to
revise the project's water control manual. As a matter of fact, the
last time it was updated was over 30 years ago, which is of concern.
So Merced offered--guess what--to pay for the process, but the Corps
said, well, they can't do that because they are not legally able to
accept the funds.
That doesn't make any sense. So this amendment would resolve this by
giving the Corps the authority to accept funds to update operation
manuals from the owners of all of section 7 private facilities that
are, in fact, regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
So, for the good folks of eastern Merced County, this amendment will
provide an opportunity for the Merced Irrigation District to explore
the raising of the spillway gates at New Exchequer Dam, therefore
increasing flood control protection and, at the same time, increasing
the storage capacity of this reservoir that I said has existed for
decades to, in some years, another 57,000 acre-feet of water.
57,000 acre-feet of water is an important addition. It is a
lifeline--can be--to our way of life in areas like the valley where
drought, as many as you have heard about, is an ever-present threat.
Every drop of water counts.
So I want to thank the cosponsors of my amendment--Representative
Denham, Representative Garamendi, and Representative McClintock--for
their working together on a bipartisan basis to provide not only tools
for the Merced Irrigation District, but all other facilities, entities,
local water agencies that have a similar type of project.
This is a good, commonsense amendment. I know of no opposition to it.
Not seeing anyone else who would like to speak on it, I yield back the
balance of my time.
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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

[[Page H4841]]

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from
California for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I actually want to discuss some of the provisions that
were included in the manager's amendment that I think are very, very
important.
Number one, there is a provision in the manager's amendment that
provides for the Corps of Engineers to take a fresh look at the old
river control structure, a structure that diverts 70 percent of the
water on the Mississippi River system down the Mississippi, and 30
percent down the Atchafalaya.

That is a rigid structure that dates back decades and decades. It has
not been revisited. The science has not been updated. It does not
reflect the fact that we have additional monitoring stations; and so
the plan, a rigid 70/30 split, doesn't maximize benefits to the lower
system.
We could be maximizing crawfish production, coastal restoration,
navigation features, flood control, and others, and it is not
happening. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to address
that, to direct the Corps of Engineers to modernize this, to ensure
that current best science is being applied; to ensure that the
monitoring stations are being used and that we are having the best
outcomes for ecological productivity, for coastal restoration, for
navigation, and, importantly, for flood control, and then stop this
rigid, antiquated system of an artificial 70/30 split.
Secondly, the amendment also provides for a pilot program for 5 years
for an operations and maintenance contract, a 5-year operations and
maintenance contract; instead of coming in and offering dredging
contracts only when there is a shoal that has developed, instead,
coming in and offering a longer term contract, over a 5-year period,
and ensuring that navigation channels are certain that the navigability
of these channels at the port facilities are accessible.
In many cases, vessels may actually start weeks in advance trying to
get to the United States, and if these NAV channels aren't maintained,
these boats don't have options but to divert to other ports that are
lighter. It is expensive. We need to ensure the predictability and the
certainty of our navigation channels, and the manager's amendment
addresses that as well.
I want to thank the chairman again, Mr. Shuster, for including that.
I want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Ranking Member Napolitano for their
work with us on that manager's amendment and those important
provisions.

{time} 1830

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment for his hard work on
this piece of legislation. I appreciate all of his efforts and his
knowledge he put into making sure that bill is a good product.
Concerning Mr. Costa's amendment, again, I believe it is a good
amendment. It builds on WRDA 2016 on Corps-owned-and-operated dams, so
I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I accept the amendment at
this time, and I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Soto

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. SOTO. 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 42, line 24, insert ``In making such information
publicly available, the Secretary shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, endeavor to provide such information to
all adjoining residential stakeholders of real property to
which the Army Corps of Engineers holds an interest
therein.'' after ``holds an interest.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Soto) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would direct the Secretary of
the Army to endeavor to inform all residential property stakeholders of
adjoining Army Corps of Engineers' interest in their adjacent property.
Section 137 of this bill would expand public access to residential
real estate data by placing information related to all real property
data that the Army Corps holds an interest in online. Not all
constituents have easy access to the internet.
Elderly constituents may not be able to easily search information
about Army Corps projects online. Thus, my amendment would expand
access to the real estate information by directing the Secretary of the
Army, to the maximum extent practicable, to endeavor to provide such
information to all adjoining residential stakeholders of real estate
with which the Corps holds an interest.
By informing residential stakeholders, we will ensure they are aware
of how Army Corps property interests might influence their property
values, the enjoyment of their property, or their way of life.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. This amendment does clarify the responsibilities of the
Corps with respect to their rural neighbors, which for me, coming from
rural Pennsylvania, it is extremely important, and I appreciate the
gentleman offering this amendment. I am prepared to accept it at this
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. PAULSEN. 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:

Page 54, beginning on line 5, strike ``the Secretary may
not complete'' and all that follows through ``of the Senate
on--'' on line 9 and insert ``the Secretary shall expedite
completion of such study and shall produce a report on the
Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam that is separate from
any report on any other lock or dam included in such study
that includes plans for--''.
Page 54, line 10, strike ``the feasibility of''.
Page 54, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 54, line 16, strike ``the preservation of'' and insert
``a partial disposition of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock
and Dam facility and surrounding real property that
preserves''.
Page 54, line 18, strike the first period and insert ``;
and'' and strike the closing quotation marks and second
period and insert the following:
``(3) expediting the disposition described in this
subsection (d).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, in offering this amendment, let me just start
by letting folks know that I am offering this with my colleague,
Representative Ellison, who could not be with us today.
Back in 2015 there was a bipartisan coalition of Minnesota lawmakers
working with the folks on the committee, acting to protect Minnesota's
northern lakes and rivers from the spread of invasive species:
specifically, Asian carp.
Asian carp have spread up the Mississippi River System compromising
water quality and crowding out native fish and sensitive species. So
Congress stepped in and decided to instruct the Army Corps of Engineers
to close the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock to commercial navigation to
help mitigate the threat of the northern migration of this invasive
species.
With the upper lock closed, the Corps of Engineers undertook a
disposition

[[Page H4842]]

study of the lock and dam facility, and a vision for a visitor and
interpretive center at that site became a consensus goal of the
committee. The city of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board passed resolutions supporting repurposing the lock.
My amendment would expedite this study and expand upon this work by
authorizing a study looking into modifications to the Upper St. Anthony
Falls Lock and Dam to preserve and enhance recreation opportunities for
the space, as well as preserve the health of the ecosystem and maintain
portions of the lock and dam necessary to help maintain flood control.
Now, the upper lock, which is located in the heart of the Twin
Cities, is at the only major waterfall on the entire length of the
Mississippi River. It presents a very unique opportunity to transform
the waterfront of the Twin Cities. It is within the St. Anthony Falls
Historic District. It is culturally, historically, and recreationally
significant to the city and to our State.
The Central Riverfront is a jewel of the State, and the Stone Arch
Bridge and St. Anthony Falls are two iconic Minnesota features. The
public interest here cannot be overstated, Mr. Chairman. There are
several adopted plans for the area as a result, by the city, by the
park board, by the downtown council, local neighborhoods, and the St.
Anthony Falls Heritage Board. So, now, local governments have all come
together, reflecting a readiness and a commitment to engage in this
project. The upper lock disposition study should, therefore, move
forward expeditiously.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio,
Subcommittee Chairman Graves, for working with me on this amendment. I
also want to thank my colleague, Representative Ellison, who couldn't
be with us.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment,
although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from
Minnesota for his hard work and good work on this solid amendment.
These changes are bipartisan, and as I said, I really appreciate his
efforts on this. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman and my
colleagues again for supporting the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rutherford). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Moulton

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in part A of House Report 115-711.
Mr. MOULTON. 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:

Add at the end of title I the following:

SEC. __. CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM.

Section 3(c) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1056,
chapter 960; 33 U.S.C. 426g(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$30,000,000'' and
inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000,000''.
Page 55, line 1, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``$3,150,000,000''.
Page 57, line 24, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``$3,150,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 918, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
the Water Resources Development Act, which will increase funding for
the Army Corps of Engineers' storm and hurricane restoration and impact
minimization program.
As communities across the country come together to rebuild in the
wake of unprecedented storms, this program funds vital coastal
resiliency projects across the Nation. I emphasize ``resiliency''
because part of what this program does is save money by making cost-
effective investments now that will prevent that money from having to
be spent on costly recovery efforts in the future.
Over the past year, severe storms and hurricanes have devastated
communities throughout our country, costing us billions of dollars in
recovery efforts. We know that severe weather patterns are occurring at
a more frequent rate, and with the 2018 hurricane season fast
approaching, the cities and towns along our coasts need more resources
to minimize the impacts of flooding, storm surges, and coastal erosion.
What we don't need are more outdated government projects that are
wasting taxpayer dollars. And by cutting these, we fund the increases
to this program. That makes this amendment fully offset and budget
neutral.
Cities and towns in my district and throughout the country are
undergoing studies to assess the feasibility of implementing beach
erosion and control projects under the storm and hurricane restoration
and impact minimization program today. By raising the cap on this
program's authorization, we can ensure that the vital resources
provided by the Army Corps are available to more districts throughout
the country.
There are States across the Nation that have already benefited from
this program, from Alabama to Louisiana, from Alaska to Florida, Ohio,
Virginia, New Jersey, and Indiana. All of these States, in addition to
my home State of Massachusetts, have benefited from this innovative
program.
I am proud to have bipartisan support, and I think we need to come
together to support this commonsense solution that will empower us to
protect our coastal communities by leveraging private sector innovation
to enhance coastal ecosystems, promote recreation, and save taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
offering this amendment, the program that assists communities in their
efforts to recover and adapt to severe weather and natural disasters.
It is a solid amendment. I support the amendment and accept it at this
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chair, I would just like to thank the chairman for
his help in supporting this amendment, and ushering it through the
process. I think it is a good amendment, and I am proud to have
bipartisan support for it.
Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time, since
this is the last amendment, to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking
Member Graves for their support, but most of all, I want to thank our
staff: Ryan Seiger, Mike Brain, Joe Sheehy, my own personal staff; but
mostly, the legislative counsel, Kakuti Lin--it is a hard name--they
worked tirelessly; and, of course, your staff, the Republican staff
that worked with our staffs so well.
And I thank Mr. Shuster. This is an example of bipartisan work on
this WRDA bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Paulsen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rutherford, 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. 8) to
provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of

[[Page H4843]]

the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 918, he reported the bill, as amended by that
resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments 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 further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were 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.

{time} 1845

Motion to Recommit

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Velazquez moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8 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 I, add the following:

SEC. 1__. POST-HURRICANE RECOVERY AND RESILIENCY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On August 26, 2017, Hurricane Harvey, a Category 4
storm, made landfall in Texas, resulting in 103 deaths in
Texas alone.
(2) Approximately 336,000 Texas residents were left without
electricity, and more than 17,000 homes sustained major
damage.
(3) All in all, Hurricane Harvey tied with Hurricane
Katrina as the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the
United States, causing $125 billion in damage.
(4) On September 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma, a devastating
Category 5 storm, raked across the United States Virgin
Islands with reported wind gusts of 225 miles per hour,
killing four people.
(5) Soon after, on September 10, Hurricane Irma ripped
across Florida with sustained wind speeds of 112 miles per
hour.
(6) Hurricane Irma resulted in 84 deaths and caused $50
billion in damage in Florida, making it the costliest
hurricane in Florida history.
(7) Two weeks after Hurricane Irma struck the United States
Virgin Islands, Hurricane Maria, also a devastating Category
5 storm, struck the United States Virgin Islands, killing
three people and leaving more than 13,000 structures roofless
and 100,000 people without power or other essential public
facilities such as running water.
(8) On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria, by then a
Category 4 storm, reached the shores of Puerto Rico with
sustained winds of 155 miles per hour.
(9) The impacts of Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Irma were
catastrophic, with widespread devastation, uprooted trees,
downing of weather stations and cell towers, and destruction
and damage to homes throughout the islands.
(10) Hurricane Maria caused all 3.3 million people in
Puerto Rico to lose electricity, and access to clean water
and food became limited to most.
(11) According to recent press reports, full electrical
power to Puerto Rico may not be restored until July or August
of 2018, almost one full year after Hurricane Maria made
landfall; this blackout is estimated to be the longest
blackout in the history of the United States.
(12) Thousands of people, many more than the Commonwealth's
estimate of 64, died in Puerto Rico as a result of the 2017
hurricanes, according to at least one recent study; health
publications, such as the New England Journal of Medicine,
have attributed this increase to the health care disruption
for the elderly and the loss of basic utility services for
the chronically ill.
(13) Despite the devastating impacts of the 2017 hurricane
season, and the fact that, close to one year after landfall
of Hurricane Maria, a significant percentage of Puerto Rico's
population remains without basic public utility services,
President Trump believes his administration's response to the
natural disaster deserves a grade of 10 out of 10.
(14) Despite the dedicated humanitarian efforts of
thousands of Corps of Engineers personnel in Puerto Rico
since the 2017 hurricanes, the Secretary has not yet fully
restored and increased the resiliency of the island's public
infrastructure.
(b) Restoration and Resiliency of Public Infrastructure.--
The Secretary shall take all necessary and proper actions to
restore, and increase the resiliency of, public
infrastructure in the continental United States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin
Islands for which the Secretary is responsible and that was
damaged as a result of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, or
Hurricane Maria.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate today, Puerto Rico continues to reel from
the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, a once-in-a-generation disaster that
fueled a humanitarian crisis. Nearly all 3.3 million residents of
Puerto Rico lost power following the hurricane. Drinkable water and
adequate food supplies became scarce throughout the island. Many have
since endured the longest blackout in U.S. history.
We all remember when President Trump went to Puerto Rico last
September. While he was there, he said that--based on the then-reported
16 deaths--Maria was not ``a real catastrophe. . . .''
Every day it becomes increasingly clear how out of touch that
statement was, and every day the magnitude of this disaster becomes
clearer, as does the incompetence of this administration's response.
Just last week, the Harvard School of Public Health released a new
estimate suggesting the death toll is staggeringly higher than
previously thought. The Harvard study is just an estimate. However, if
the number most often cited from that report--4,645--proves accurate,
then Maria would rank as the second worst natural disaster in U.S.
history. No matter what the President said, that is a real catastrophe.
Now, as Puerto Rico continues struggling as thousands still do not
have electricity and as we still do not know the total number of lives
lost, we are entering another hurricane season. Yet Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands remain vulnerable should another storm come barreling
out of the Atlantic into the Caribbean and make landfall.
We should remember the 2017 hurricane season was not just devastating
for the Caribbean. We cannot forget how the Houston area suffered under
Hurricane Harvey. Houston's layout and the city's infrastructure also
proved vulnerable to the flooding, causing $125 billion in damage. Yet
despite 2017 being one of the worst in history for natural disasters
and even though we are entering another hurricane season, our public
infrastructure systems remain vulnerable.
The motion to recommit is very straightforward. It would ask the
Secretary of the Army Corps to work to restore and strengthen the
resiliency of public infrastructure in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and in the mainland for areas damaged by Maria, Irma, and Harvey. This
is common sense. It will mean we are better prepared for the next major
hurricane. It could potentially save lives.
In Puerto Rico, for instance, this would allow needed upgrades to the
Guajataca Dam. The 90-year-old dam, located on the northeastern shore
of the island and owned by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, was
severely damaged after Maria. While the Corps did good work preventing
the collapse of the dam, this was a temporary band-aid. American
families living in Puerto Rico still face imminent danger. The Corps
should invest in this critical infrastructure project seeking to
prevent future damage from another storm.
In other areas throughout Puerto Rico, rivers, lakes, and wetlands
serve literally as sinks for water to drain into. To control massive
flooding in the next hurricane season, the Corps needs to make the
necessary investments for flood control, something else this motion
will help advance.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the administration largely abandoned Puerto Rico
after Maria. Now we are learning the death toll from this tragedy will
be heartbreakingly high. This Congress has a moral obligation to do
everything possible to prevent future deaths and to protect our fellow
citizens. That

[[Page H4844]]

is what this motion to recommit will do.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to
recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. This bill,
H.R. 8, has many benefits to all 50 States and the territories,
including Puerto Rico. It was put together in a bipartisan manner. We
just here today adopted over 50 amendments in a bipartisan manner.
This bill asserts congressional authority and continues regular order
of the Corps of Engineers in authorizing these programs. It is fiscally
responsible. We fully offset new projects. Finally, it keeps American
jobs by strengthening our competitiveness ensuring that our
transportation system remains attractive to private-sector jobs, so I
oppose the motion to recommit.
This being my last WRDA bill that I will ever be able to shepherd
through the House, I am proud to be here. Hopefully we are going to
have a conference report in the near future to be able to pass that on
the House floor, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud
of my term as chairman. One of the accomplishments I am most proud of
is getting WRDA back on regular order, every Congress authorizing these
important programs so that the Corps can move forward and the American
people can benefit by these programs.
Again, I want to, first off, thank my Democratic colleagues and the
Democratic staff on the other side of the aisle for their work, working
together closely on this bill. Of course, I couldn't get this done
without my dedicated staff who have worked so tirelessly, not only on
this bill but over the past 5 years, and I thank them from the bottom
of my heart.
Mr. Speaker, a personal point of order that I would like to take is
that in 2016 when we passed the WRDA bill, September 28, 2016, I woke
up that morning and found out that my mother had passed away. But I
could hear her voice in my head saying: Go to work. Do your job.
We came to work that day, and we were able to pass the WRDA bill in
2016. I was so proud that, as always, she was on my shoulder. This
morning I woke up and didn't think about the date until I realized
today, June 6, is my mother's birthday. It would have been her
birthday. So, again, my mother who was always my greatest supporter and
my greatest cheerleader was here again with me today. I can hear her
voice telling me: Make sure you do your work.
Our family chain is broken, and nothing seems to be the same. But as
God calls one by one, that chain will link again. And today, as strong
as ever, that link with my mother is with me. I want to thank my
mother. I know she is watching down. Patricia Shuster, as always, is
sitting on my shoulder, rooting me on to victory. So, again, today I am
very, very proud of the WRDA bill. I am proud we are doing it on June
6, my mother's birthday.
Again, I thank everybody on both sides of the aisle for their
efforts. Again, I oppose the motion to recommit and urge all my
colleagues to support H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act of
2018.
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.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________