[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6823-6825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            WRDA AMENDMENTS

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are still in morning business, and I 
will speak in morning business about two amendments I will call up when 
we leave morning business. One is amendment No. 815 on this bill, which 
is aimed at lessening State dependence on the Federal Government.
  We have now, over the period of 50 years, helped with beach 
nourishment. In this bill is a section that extends from 50 to 65 years 
of government subsidization of beach nourishment. Really, if we look at 
the section, we see it is targeted toward a few States because they are 
running into the 50-year deadline. So all the amendment does is block 
it from going from 50 to 65 years.
  The Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama 
administration, the Obama fiscal commission, all recommended 
eliminating the Federal subsidization of beach nourishment projects. So 
we have great bipartisan leadership on both sides of the aisle to bring 
this back, put back to the States what is truly a State responsibility.
  What we are doing in this bill is furthering the dependence of States 
for beach nourishment projects on the Federal Government. So I will 
call up that amendment.
  The next amendment is amendment No. 816. This committee has done a 
great job in setting up a review board that can eliminate authorized 
projects that no longer make sense, but they have limited what they can 
look at. They are not letting them look at the whole of water resources 
projects; therefore, they limit those projects. All we are saying with 
this amendment is we ought to reopen it.
  One of the criticisms of this amendment is that a project may be in 
the midst of completion and the review board might say we should 
eliminate it. It doesn't mean we will eliminate it because in the 
wisdom of the committee, they gave the opportunity for Congress to 
disallow any of this.
  So I think what the committee has done is a great step forward in 
getting rid of projects that are no longer apropos to whatever the 
needs are: But my question is, Why did they limit it to such a narrow 
package when, in fact, they want this outside input to help guide us on 
what we should do?
  So at the appropriate time, when we are out of morning business, I 
will call up those amendments. I will not speak further on them; I will 
just call them up so we can move ahead with the bill.
  I see the chairman of the committee is here. Good morning to her, and 
I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, we are 
moving forward today. I thank all colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. Senator Vitter and I have tried to allow all kinds of 
amendments.
  Unfortunately, yesterday there was an objection to one contentious 
amendment, and Senator Landrieu was--she took one for the team and 
withdrew her amendment because she wanted to make sure this WRDA bill 
moves forward. I appreciate that. It is a very important issue about 
flood issues and it is complicated and I know how strongly she feels 
about it. I know she will be back. So we have a number of amendments, 
and we will be debating them for 1 minute on each side.
  I wish to address my friend from Oklahoma. Let me tell my colleagues, 
we have been on opposite sides on his amendments. I don't like that 
very much. When we do work together we win big; when we don't, then it 
doesn't work out well for either of us. So I am sorry to say I will 
have to oppose the two amendments of my friend from Oklahoma, and I 
want to lay out for

[[Page 6824]]

the Record in a little more than a minute why.
  We do something important in this bill. We create a new 
infrastructure deauthorization commission to review the backlog of 
corps projects and develop a list of projects that will be deauthorized 
unless Congress passes a joint resolution opposing the commission's 
recommendation. It is kind of like the Base Closure Commission, where 
the Base Closure Commission comes forward and says these are the bases 
that will be closed.
  It is a very cumbersome process to overturn the commission. We did 
that on purpose because we know politics plays a part in a lot of these 
things, and we want the commission to have power. I am sure my friend, 
the Senator from Oklahoma, is grateful we have set up this commission 
because what he is trying to do is cut out even more projects.
  I just want to make the case that when we did this in the committee, 
we developed a careful balance and we give the infrastructure 
deauthorization committee a lot of authority. But this amendment 
removes the bill's limitations on what projects can be deauthorized. So 
this is in our bill. This is what we say to the commission. We give 
guidance to the commission. We say: These are the projects that can be 
deauthorized; in other words, stopped, because I share the view of my 
friend from Oklahoma. We don't want to keep projects going that are 
doomed and not going anywhere. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and, 
frankly, it makes it very confusing for people back home because they 
don't understand why a project started in 1996 is still alive.
  What we do is projects authorized or reauthorized after the enactment 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, projects currently 
undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received 
appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50 
percent complete, and projects that have a viable, non-Federal sponsor 
would not be deauthorized. They would not be deauthorized.
  So let me say it again. Projects that would not be deauthorized are 
projects authorized after 1996, projects currently undergoing review by 
the corps, projects that received appropriations in the last 10 years, 
projects that are more than 50 percent complete, projects that have a 
viable and non-Federal sponsor. So we do give guidance to the 
commission. We say other than that, go for it and deauthorize.
  The provision Senator Coburn wants to strike was included to focus 
the attention of the commission on the older, truly inactive projects. 
That is what we are about. The Coburn amendment would give unlimited 
discretion to the commission to deauthorize a project even if it is in 
the middle of construction or it has an active non-Federal sponsor. 
Imagine we have a city or a county or even a private sector participant 
who is involved, and all of a sudden everything they have done is for 
naught.
  I think what the amendment does is create havoc. I know my friend has 
the best of intentions. His point that we can overturn the commission 
is a valid point, but let's be clear. How many bills actually become a 
law around here these days? It is hard to even pass a resolution saying 
Happy Mother's Day. So we have a hard time. So to say the Congress 
could actually overturn the commission--we have never done it in the 
Base Closure Commission, and we wouldn't do it here.
  States and local communities have invested millions of dollars in 
local cost-shares from project feasibility studies. It isn't fair to 
these communities that have committed significant resources to 
deauthorize a project that remained active and is moving forward.
  So, in essence, this amendment would disrupt the new deauthorization 
process created in WRDA 2013, and I urge my colleagues to oppose that 
amendment.
  Now I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
from the National Construction Alliance. It reads: ``The National 
Construction Alliance strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.''
  It says: ``Communities . . . cannot afford to have the rug pulled out 
from beneath them.''
  I think it is important to note that they don't in any way chastise 
the committee for our work.
  We also have opposition from the Road Builders.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            National Construction Alliance II,

                                                     May 15, 2013.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Majority Leader Reid: The National Construction 
     Alliance II (NCA II) strongly opposes the Coburn Amendment 
     #816 to the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, S. 601.
       The NCA II--a partnership between two of the nation's 
     leading construction unions, the International Union of 
     Operating Engineers and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters 
     and Joiners of America--appreciates the hard work of the 
     Environment and Public Works Committee to establish the 
     Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission contained in S. 
     601. Senator Coburn's amendment threatens the bipartisan, 
     thoughtful process and criteria for reviewing the backlog of 
     projects in the underlying bill.
       Communities (non-federal entities) simply cannot afford to 
     have the rug pulled out from underneath them when partnering 
     with the Army Corps of Engineers on critical port, harbor or 
     waterway projects. If the commission has broad authority to 
     shut down projects, as envisioned by the Coburn Amendment, 
     that is precisely what could occur.
       The bipartisan EPW Committee-reported WRDA bill established 
     criteria to guide the Commission's work and ensure that it 
     focused on inactive and obsolete projects. The Coburn 
     amendment would undermine this careful balance, eliminating 
     important criteria for decommissioning projects and giving 
     the unelected Infrastructure Deauthorization Commission 
     simply too much power over the process of shutting down 
     projects, with too little Congressional guidance.
       Please oppose the Coburn Amendment #816 to the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2013. The amendment needlessly 
     threatens the bipartisan agreement forged in the Environment 
     and Public Works Committee on the issue of decommissioning of 
     projects.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. Poupore,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

  Mrs. BOXER. In my concluding moments, we also will have a Coburn 
amendment on striking section 2030 on the beach nourishment extension. 
I think it is very important that this be defeated because many of 
these existing projects provide critical storm damage protection for 
coastal communities which require periodic nourishment to maintain this 
protection. There are dozens of important shoreline protection projects 
around the country that it benefits that exceed the costs.
  Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that Federal shoreline protection 
projects fared better against the storm surge than other areas impacted 
by the storm. We have seen this. Where there was beach nourishment, 
they had a lot less damage and people were spared.
  So in our work on WRDA, the EPW Committee held hearings on the corps' 
flood and storm damage reduction projects. We received testimony from 
local communities such as Ocean City, MD, which highlighted the 
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages avoided by these projects.
  Section 2030 in WRDA 2013 does not provide a blanket extension of all 
beach nourishment and shore protections. The section simply allows the 
corps to study projects and to make a recommendation to Congress. I 
don't know why we would want to stop this since we know, after 
Hurricane Sandy, some of these projects have cost-benefit for the 
people--for the taxpayers.
  Before receiving an extension, a project has to go through a 
feasibility analysis to demonstrate that the project is in the national 
interest, it has to have a positive cost-benefit ratio, is technically 
feasible, and is environmentally acceptable.
  The provision Senator Coburn is attempting to strike doesn't 
guarantee an extension, it just tells the corps to study the issue and 
come back with a recommendation.
  I honestly believe blocking Federal investment in these projects will 
harm coastal communities, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this Coburn 
amendment. I know I speak for many, including Senator Lautenberg, who 
actually

[[Page 6825]]

brought this issue to my attention years ago.
  I yield the floor and note that the time has come to debate the 
Coburn amendment, 1 minute each side.

                          ____________________