[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13656-13662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1508. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish a program of awarding grants to owners 
or operators of water systems to increase the resiliency or 
adaptability of the systems to any ongoing or forecasted changes to the 
hydrologic conditions of a region of the United States; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is 
crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The 
truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need 
to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water 
infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but 
today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve.
  Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders 
of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year, 
Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most 
essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000 
people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted, 
limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense 
heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits. 
At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced 
to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint 
Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of 
services, including appointments at its medical center.
  There are incidents like this happening all across America. The 
reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility 
professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water 
infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking 
water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver 
safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like 
many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the 
country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was 
built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid 
demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even

[[Page 13657]]

older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in 
the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs 
and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to 
elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now.
  The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to 
help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water 
infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing 
today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure 
Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to 
eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities 
across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds, 
which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome 
these threats.
  Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure 
systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water 
supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant 
more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation 
between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try 
to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible.
  It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining 
water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a 
$206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case 
scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the 
United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.
  A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's 
economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater 
investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference 
of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water 
infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than 
$6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields 
close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job 
created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs 
elsewhere in the national economy.
  We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in 
the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making 
strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the 
current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of 
the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1509. A bill to establish a Maritime Goods Movement User Fee and 
provide grants for international maritime cargo improvements and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss legislation that 
Senator Cantwell and I are introducing today to strengthen our maritime 
economy and protect American jobs.
  Over the past decade, we have seen increasing competition for the 
market share of U.S.-bound maritime goods from ports beyond our border 
to the north and to the south. In fact, among the 25 largest North 
American ports, the fastest growing in 2012 were the Port of Prince 
Rupert in Canada and the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Instead of 
U.S.-bound cargo creating economic growth here at home by entering at 
U.S. ports, we are witnessing it being diverted through Canadian and 
Mexican ports. This loss of cargo shipments leads to decreased activity 
and capacity at American ports. In our home State alone, more than 
200,000 jobs are tied to the activities at the Ports of Seattle and 
Tacoma. With nearly 27 percent of international container cargo 
potentially at risk of moving to Canada from four West Coast ports, 
this trend could result in significant job losses.
  One of the main reasons for cargo diversion is the Harbor Maintenance 
Tax, HMT. The HMT is a levy on imports designed to fund the operation 
and maintenance of America's large and small ports, which drives job 
creation and strengthens America's trade economy. Unfortunately, 
shippers have been able to avoid the Harbor Maintenance Tax by shipping 
goods through ports in Canada and Mexico and then transporting those 
goods into the United States via truck and rail. This growing cargo 
diversion reduces the funds available to keep our ports in operating 
condition.
  The loss of revenue from cargo diversion is only part of the problem. 
Equally concerning is the fact that only half of the tax revenue 
collected is being spent, even though ports across the country are in 
desperate need of additional maintenance funding. As of 2011, the 
balance of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, HMTF, which is funded by 
the HMT, had a surplus of more than $6.4 billion, and it continues to 
grow. Furthermore, of the funds allocated through the HMTF, the balance 
is rarely spent on operations and maintenance at West Coast ports, 
where a significant amount of the tax revenue is generated. Our two 
largest ports in Washington--Seattle and Tacoma--generate, on average, 
close to seven percent of the funding for the HMTF, but each received 
just over a penny for every dollar collected from shippers who pay the 
HMT in Seattle and Tacoma. We believe that we must work to address the 
issue of cargo diversion as well as ensure that the funds collected are 
allocated fully and more equitably to meet our nationwide harbor and 
waterway needs.
  To remain competitive in an international marketplace, we need a 
long-term plan to grow and support infrastructure development, and 
reforming the Harbor Maintenance Tax is a commonsense place to start. 
That is why we are proud to introduce the Maritime Goods Movement Act 
for the 21st Century. The legislation addresses threats to America's 
maritime economy by repealing the Harbor Maintenance Tax and replacing 
it with the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee. The proceeds of which 
would be fully available to Congress to provide for port operation and 
maintenance. This would nearly double the amount of funds available for 
American ports, which will help our economy thrive.
  The bill ensures that shippers cannot avoid the Maritime Goods 
Movement User Fee by using ports in Canada and Mexico.
  The legislation sets aside a portion of the user fee for critical 
low-use ports that are at a competitive disadvantage for Federal 
funding compared to large ports.
  Lastly, the bill creates a competitive grant program using a 
percentage of the proceeds of the user fee to help make improvements to 
the intermodal transportation system of the United States so that goods 
can more efficiently reach their intended destinations.
  The HMT simply is not being collected or spent in a way that ensures 
American ports can continue to compete on a level playing field. Our 
legislation works to address these inequalities and enhance our 
economic competitiveness abroad while supporting good jobs here in the 
United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Paul, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Heller, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1510. A bill to provide for auditable financial statements for the 
Department of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this bill, the Audit the Pentagon Act of 
2013, sharpens the teeth of the appropriations and accountability 
clause in the Constitution, article I, section 9, clause 7, which says:

       No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular 
     Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all 
     public Money shall be published from time to time.

  The intent of this clause is simple: Congress cannot possibly know 
that the executive branch is obeying the first part of the 
appropriations clause--spending--of the Constitution without

[[Page 13658]]

confidence in the second--accountability. The decades-long failure by 
the Pentagon to comply with existing Federal financial management laws 
is against the very spirit of the Constitution--our Founding Fathers 
demanded that those spending taxpayer dollars are accountable to 
taxpayers.
  The Pentagon's financial management problems are intimately related 
to the problems of waste at the Pentagon and the budget crisis that has 
created sequestration. Currently, neither Pentagon leaders, nor 
Congressional members can consistently and reliably identify what our 
defense programs cost, will cost in the future, or even what they 
really cost in the past. When the Pentagon doesn't know itself and 
can't tell Congress how it is spending money, good programs face cuts 
along with wasteful programs, which is the situation in which we find 
ourselves today under sequestration. Unreliable financial management 
information makes it impossible to link the consequences of past 
decisions to the defense budget or to measure whether the activities of 
the Defense Department are meeting the military requirements set for 
it. Passing a financial audit is a critical step that will protect 
vital priorities and help the Pentagon comply with current law and our 
Constitution.
  The problem is clear: if the Pentagon doesn't know how it spends its 
money, Congress doesn't really know how DOD is spending its money. This 
incomprehensible condition has been documented in hundreds of reports 
over three decades from both the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 
and the Department's own inspector general (DOD IG).
  Our current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel knows that this is a 
problem. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee he said 
that the Pentagon needs ``auditable statements, both to improve the 
quality of our financial information and to reassure the public, and 
the Congress, that we are good stewards of public funds.'' Secretary 
Hagel agrees that the Pentagon must audit the Pentagon and says, ``Our 
next goal is audit-ready budget statements by the end of 2014 . . . I 
strongly support this initiative and will do everything I can to 
fulfill this commitment.''
  For far too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional role and 
its duty to the taxpayers by choosing not to hold DOD accountable for 
the deadlines it sets for itself, and the result has been continued 
missed deadlines and wasteful, non-value added spending. Past efforts 
to make the Pentagon comply with the law by passing additional laws 
with no teeth has not worked--the Pentagon simply ignores the laws 
because it suffers no consequences. The result is that unlike every 
other major Federal department, the Pentagon continues to fail at their 
requirement and responsibility to report to Congress and the American 
people that it can show where the hundreds of billions of dollars of 
taxpayer money goes. I hope my fellow Senators will join me in 
supporting this bill for auditable financial statements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
  S. 1511. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to remove barriers to the adoption of children in foster care 
through reauthorization and improvement of the adoption incentives 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I 
have been proud to fight tirelessly for policies that will help 
vulnerable children in our foster care system find the permanent homes 
they need and deserve. I have been very proud of the Finance 
Committee's bipartisan work over the years to encourage adoption and 
enhance child welfare services for our most vulnerable children. That 
work would not have been possible without the commitment of Chairman 
Baucus, as well as my other colleagues that I have been so proud to 
work with over the years. Our goal has always been to improve our 
Federal laws related to adoption and foster care, so that every child 
has an opportunity to have a loving, safe home and a successful future.
  To build on our history of encouraging safe and stable families, 
Senator Casey and I are introducing the Removing Barriers to Adoption 
and Supporting Families Act of 2013. This legislation outlines our 
vision for a path to increase the number of successful adoptions from 
foster care in our country. Doing so, we believe, can improve the lives 
of the hundreds of thousands of children in our foster care system.
  This legislation encourages safe and stable families, and takes a 
number of important steps forward to ensure that permanency is 
paramount for children in our foster care system.
  First, the legislation puts incentives in place to help encourage 
interstate adoptions, creating a shared incentive for states that work 
together to connect children in foster care with families who are ready 
and willing to provide loving homes, but who happen to live across 
state lines. It also helps facilitate interstate adoptions further 
through better data tracking and development of national standards for 
home studies, a requirement before a child can be adopted.
  Second, the bill aims to establish permanency for youth by 
eliminating long-term foster care as a goal for children under 17. We 
also request a study to learn more about why long-term foster care has 
been set as a goal for some youth. We believe the study will further 
inform our overall goal of connecting these children to permanent 
families and caring adults. But, simply put, we believe permanent 
foster care should not be a goal for children who are younger than 17.
  Third, this legislation dedicates funding to post-adoption and post-
permanency support services for children who are adopted, or are 
permanently in the care of a relative or guardian. This is an important 
step to make sure that families receive support after a child becomes a 
family member and, more broadly, can help make sure more adoptions and 
permanent placements are successful. Additionally, the legislation 
requires states to engage in public-private partnerships and enhanced 
strategies to find more permanent placements for older youth who are 
most at risk of aging out of foster care. Among our foster care 
population, these are some of our most vulnerable and valuable young 
people who are most in need of guidance and a loving, nurturing home.
  Finally, this legislation would do more to keep siblings together 
after they are removed from an unsafe home. The bond between siblings 
is unique and often an important source of stability for children. 
Unfortunately, once a child joins a permanent home through adoption, 
there are sometimes barriers to maintaining sibling relationships under 
current Federal law. Our legislation helps to remove these barriers by 
strengthening the opportunities for sibling relationships and joint 
placement, and making sure that the parents of siblings are given 
notice if their brother or sister enters foster care.
  Our legislation lays out an important vision for how we can improve 
adoption and foster care in our country. Adoptions from foster care 
have increased in recent years, which means that more families are 
stepping up to adopt children who are in vulnerable situations through 
no fault of their own. But, we have far more to do to ensure that every 
child in foster care has this opportunity. I am extremely grateful to 
many of the adoption advocates, including the Congressional Coalition 
on Adoption Institute, Voice for Adoption, and Listening to Parents, 
among others, who have been so instrumental in developing 
recommendations and moving this and other related proposals forward.
  Together, we can make great strides toward improving opportunities 
for the nearly 400,000 children in foster care, of which 102,000 are 
waiting to find forever families through adoption. New data from the 
Department of Health and Human Services on adoption and foster care 
suggests that while the number of children in foster care remains 
steady, the adoption rate continues to climb. Last year alone, 52,000

[[Page 13659]]

children were adopted from foster care and for each of those children, 
being adopted is a positive, affirming, and life-changing event. 
Through our work, we can provide more of these opportunities for 
children in foster care, and set them up to have successful lives with 
forever families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 1514. A bill to save coal jobs, and for other purposes; read the 
first time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1514

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Saving 
     Coal Jobs Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                   TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX

Sec. 101. Prohibition on energy tax.

                           TITLE II--PERMITS

Sec. 201. National pollutant discharge elimination system.
Sec. 202. Permits for dredged or fill material.
Sec. 203. Impacts of Environmental Protection Agency regulatory 
              activity on employment and economic activity.
Sec. 204. Identification of waters protected by the Clean Water Act.
Sec. 205. Limitations on authority to modify State water quality 
              standards.
Sec. 206. State authority to identify waters within boundaries of the 
              State.

                   TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON ENERGY TAX.

       (a) Findings; Purposes.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) on June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential 
     memorandum directing the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to issue regulations relating to power 
     sector carbon pollution standards for existing coal fired 
     power plants;
       (B) the issuance of that memorandum circumvents Congress 
     and the will of the people of the United States;
       (C) any action to control emissions of greenhouse gases 
     from existing coal fired power plants in the United States by 
     mandating a national energy tax would devastate major sectors 
     of the economy, cost thousands of jobs, and increase energy 
     costs for low-income households, small businesses, and 
     seniors on fixed income;
       (D) joblessness increases the likelihood of hospital 
     visits, illnesses, and premature deaths;
       (E) according to testimony on June 15, 2011, before the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate by 
     Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University, ``The 
     unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for 
     elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological 
     studies performed since the early 1980s. In addition to 
     influences on mental disorder, suicide and alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, unemployment is also an important risk factor in 
     cardiovascular disease and overall decreases in life 
     expectancy.'';
       (F) according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 
     ``children in poor families were four times as likely to be 
     in fair or poor health as children that were not poor'';
       (G) any major decision that would cost the economy of the 
     United States millions of dollars and lead to serious 
     negative health effects for the people of the United States 
     should be debated and explicitly authorized by Congress, not 
     approved by a Presidential memorandum or regulations; and
       (H) any policy adopted by Congress should make United 
     States energy as clean as practicable, as quickly as 
     practicable, without increasing the cost of energy for 
     struggling families, seniors, low-income households, and 
     small businesses.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (A) to ensure that--
       (i) a national energy tax is not imposed on the economy of 
     the United States; and
       (ii) struggling families, seniors, low-income households, 
     and small businesses do not experience skyrocketing 
     electricity bills and joblessness;
       (B) to protect the people of the United States, 
     particularly families, seniors, and children, from the 
     serious negative health effects of joblessness;
       (C) to allow sufficient time for Congress to develop and 
     authorize an appropriate mechanism to address the energy 
     needs of the United States and the potential challenges posed 
     by severe weather; and
       (D) to restore the legislative process and congressional 
     authority over the energy policy of the United States.
       (b) Presidential Memorandum.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the head of a Federal agency shall not 
     promulgate any regulation relating to power sector carbon 
     pollution standards or any substantially similar regulation 
     on or after June 25, 2013, unless that regulation is 
     explicitly authorized by an Act of Congress.

                           TITLE II--PERMITS

     SEC. 201. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Applicability of Guidance.--Section 402 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Applicability of Guidance.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Guidance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `guidance' means draft, 
     interim, or final guidance issued by the Administrator.
       ``(ii) Inclusions.--The term `guidance' includes--

       ``(I) the comprehensive guidance issued by the 
     Administrator and dated April 1, 2010;
       ``(II) the proposed guidance entitled `Draft Guidance on 
     Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act' and 
     dated April 28, 2011;
       ``(III) the final guidance proposed by the Administrator 
     and dated July 21, 2011; and
       ``(IV) any other document or paper issued by the 
     Administrator through any process other than the notice and 
     comment rulemaking process.

       ``(B) New permit.--The term `new permit' means a permit 
     covering discharges from a structure--
       ``(i) that is issued under this section by a permitting 
     authority; and
       ``(ii) for which an application is--

       ``(I) pending as of the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; or
       ``(II) filed on or after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.

       ``(C) Permitting authority.--The term `permitting 
     authority' means--
       ``(i) the Administrator; or
       ``(ii) a State, acting pursuant to a State program that is 
     equivalent to the program under this section and approved by 
     the Administrator.
       ``(2) Permits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in making a determination whether to approve a new 
     permit or a renewed permit, the permitting authority--
       ``(i) shall base the determination only on compliance with 
     regulations issued by the Administrator or the permitting 
     authority; and
       ``(ii) shall not base the determination on the extent of 
     adherence of the applicant for the new permit or renewed 
     permit to guidance.
       ``(B) New permits.--If the permitting authority does not 
     approve or deny an application for a new permit by the date 
     that is 270 days after the date of receipt of the application 
     for the new permit, the applicant may operate as if the 
     application were approved in accordance with Federal law for 
     the period of time for which a permit from the same industry 
     would be approved.
       ``(C) Substantial completeness.--In determining whether an 
     application for a new permit or a renewed permit received 
     under this paragraph is substantially complete, the 
     permitting authority shall use standards for determining 
     substantial completeness of similar permits for similar 
     facilities submitted in fiscal year 2007.''.
       (b) State Permit Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by striking 
     subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) State Permit Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--At any time after the promulgation of 
     the guidelines required by section 304(a)(2), the Governor of 
     each State desiring to administer a permit program for 
     discharges into navigable waters within the jurisdiction of 
     the State may submit to the Administrator--
       ``(A) a full and complete description of the program the 
     State proposes to establish and administer under State law or 
     under an interstate compact; and
       ``(B) a statement from the attorney general (or the 
     attorney for those State water pollution control agencies 
     that have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal 
     officer in the case of an interstate agency, that the laws of 
     the State, or the interstate compact, as applicable, provide 
     adequate authority to carry out the described program.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve each 
     program for which a description is submitted under paragraph 
     (1) unless the Administrator determines that adequate 
     authority does not exist--
       ``(A) to issue permits that--
       ``(i) apply, and ensure compliance with, any applicable 
     requirements of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
       ``(ii) are for fixed terms not exceeding 5 years;
       ``(iii) can be terminated or modified for cause, 
     including--

       ``(I) a violation of any condition of the permit;
       ``(II) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure 
     to disclose fully all relevant facts; and

[[Page 13660]]

       ``(III) a change in any condition that requires either a 
     temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the 
     permitted discharge; and

       ``(iv) control the disposal of pollutants into wells;
       ``(B)(i) to issue permits that apply, and ensure compliance 
     with, all applicable requirements of section 308; or
       ``(ii) to inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to 
     at least the same extent as required in section 308;
       ``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State the 
     waters of which may be affected, receives notice of each 
     application for a permit and an opportunity for a public 
     hearing before a ruling on each application;
       ``(D) to ensure that the Administrator receives notice and 
     a copy of each application for a permit;
       ``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the permitting 
     State), whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a 
     permit may submit written recommendations to the permitting 
     State and the Administrator with respect to any permit 
     application and, if any part of the written recommendations 
     are not accepted by the permitting State, that the permitting 
     State will notify the affected State and the Administrator in 
     writing of the failure of the State to accept the 
     recommendations, including the reasons for not accepting the 
     recommendations;
       ``(F) to ensure that no permit will be issued if, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary of the Army (acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers), after consultation with the Secretary of 
     the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 
     anchorage and navigation of any of the navigable waters would 
     be substantially impaired by the issuance of the permit;
       ``(G) to abate violations of the permit or the permit 
     program, including civil and criminal penalties and other 
     means of enforcement;
       ``(H) to ensure that any permit for a discharge from a 
     publicly owned treatment works includes conditions to require 
     the identification in terms of character and volume of 
     pollutants of any significant source introducing pollutants 
     subject to pretreatment standards under section 307(b) into 
     the treatment works and a program to ensure compliance with 
     those pretreatment standards by each source, in addition to 
     adequate notice, which shall include information on the 
     quality and quantity of effluent to be introduced into the 
     treatment works and any anticipated impact of the change in 
     the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the 
     publicly owned treatment works, to the permitting agency of--
       ``(i) new introductions into the treatment works of 
     pollutants from any source that would be a new source (as 
     defined in section 306(a)) if the source were discharging 
     pollutants;
       ``(ii) new introductions of pollutants into the treatment 
     works from a source that would be subject to section 301 if 
     the source were discharging those pollutants; or
       ``(iii) a substantial change in volume or character of 
     pollutants being introduced into the treatment works by a 
     source introducing pollutants into the treatment works at the 
     time of issuance of the permit; and
       ``(I) to ensure that any industrial user of any publicly 
     owned treatment works will comply with sections 204(b), 307, 
     and 308.
       ``(3) Administration.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator may not disapprove or withdraw approval of a 
     program under this subsection on the basis of the following:
       ``(A) The failure of the program to incorporate or comply 
     with guidance (as defined in subsection (s)(1)).
       ``(B) The implementation of a water quality standard that 
     has been adopted by the State and approved by the 
     Administrator under section 303(c).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 309 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (c)--

       (I) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``402(b)(8)'' and 
     inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''; and
       (II) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``402(b)(8)'' and 
     inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''; and

       (ii) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``402(b)(8)'' and inserting ``402(b)(2)(H)''.
       (B) Section 402(m) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(m)) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``subsection (b)(8) of this section'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(2)(H)''.
       (c) Suspension of Federal Program.--Section 402(c) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Limitation on disapproval.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), the Administrator may not 
     disapprove or withdraw approval of a State program under 
     subsection (b) on the basis of the failure of the following:
       ``(A) The failure of the program to incorporate or comply 
     with guidance (as defined in subsection (s)(1)).
       ``(B) The implementation of a water quality standard that 
     has been adopted by the State and approved by the 
     Administrator under section 303(c).''.
       (d) Notification of Administrator.--Section 402(d)(2) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(d)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2)'' and all that follows through the 
     end of the first sentence and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Objection by administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), no permit 
     shall issue if--
       ``(i) not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     Administrator receives notification under subsection 
     (b)(2)(E), the Administrator objects in writing to the 
     issuance of the permit; or
       ``(ii) not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     proposed permit of the State is transmitted to the 
     Administrator, the Administrator objects in writing to the 
     issuance of the permit as being outside the guidelines and 
     requirements of this Act.'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Whenever the 
     Administrator'' and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Requirements.--If the Administrator''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exception.--The Administrator shall not object to or 
     deny the issuance of a permit by a State under subsection (b) 
     or (s) based on the following:
       ``(i) Guidance, as that term is defined in subsection 
     (s)(1).
       ``(ii) The interpretation of the Administrator of a water 
     quality standard that has been adopted by the State and 
     approved by the Administrator under section 303(c).''.

     SEC. 202. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``Sec. 404. (a) The Secretary may issue'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

       ``(a) Permits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue''; and
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Deadline for approval.--
       ``(A) Permit applications.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), if an 
     environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, 
     as appropriate, is required under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary 
     shall--

       ``(I) begin the process not later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a permit application; 
     and
       ``(II) approve or deny an application for a permit under 
     this subsection not later than the latter of--

       ``(aa) if an agency carries out an environmental assessment 
     that leads to a finding of no significant impact, the date on 
     which the finding of no significant impact is issued; or
       ``(bb) if an agency carries out an environmental assessment 
     that leads to a record of decision, 15 days after the date on 
     which the record of decision on an environmental impact 
     statement is issued.
       ``(ii) Processes.--Notwithstanding clause (i), regardless 
     of whether the Secretary has commenced an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement by the date 
     described in clause (i)(I), the following deadlines shall 
     apply:

       ``(I) An environmental assessment carried out under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) shall be completed not later than 1 year after the 
     deadline for commencing the permit process under clause 
     (i)(I).
       ``(II) An environmental impact statement carried out under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the 
     deadline for commencing the permit process under clause 
     (i)(I).

       ``(B) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to act by the 
     deadline specified in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) the application, and the permit requested in the 
     application, shall be considered to be approved;
       ``(ii) the Secretary shall issue a permit to the applicant; 
     and
       ``(iii) the permit shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.''.
       (b) State Permitting Programs.--Section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by 
     striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authority of Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (4), 
     until the Secretary has issued a permit under this section, 
     the Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification 
     (including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined 
     area as a disposal site, and deny or restrict the use of any 
     defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of 
     specification) as a disposal site, if the Administrator 
     determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, 
     that the discharge of the materials into the area will

[[Page 13661]]

     have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 
     supplies, shellfish beds or fishery areas (including spawning 
     and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.
       ``(2) Consultation.--Before making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consult with the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Findings.--The Administrator shall set forth in 
     writing and make public the findings of the Administrator and 
     the reasons of the Administrator for making any determination 
     under this subsection.
       ``(4) Authority of state permitting programs.--This 
     subsection shall not apply to any permit if the State in 
     which the discharge originates or will originate does not 
     concur with the determination of the Administrator that the 
     discharge will result in an unacceptable adverse effect as 
     described in paragraph (1).''.
       (c) State Programs.--Section 404(g)(1) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1)) is amended in 
     the first sentence by striking ``for the discharge'' and 
     inserting ``for all or part of the discharges''.

     SEC. 203. IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
                   REGULATORY ACTIVITY ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC 
                   ACTIVITY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Covered action.--The term ``covered action'' means any 
     of the following actions taken by the Administrator under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.):
       (A) Issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, 
     response to a petition, or other requirement.
       (B) Implementing a new or substantially altered program.
       (3) More than a de minimis negative impact.--The term 
     ``more than a de minimis negative impact'' means the 
     following:
       (A) With respect to employment levels, a loss of more than 
     100 jobs, except that any offsetting job gains that result 
     from the hypothetical creation of new jobs through new 
     technologies or government employment may not be used in the 
     job loss calculation.
       (B) With respect to economic activity, a decrease in 
     economic activity of more than $1,000,000 over any calendar 
     year, except that any offsetting economic activity that 
     results from the hypothetical creation of new economic 
     activity through new technologies or government employment 
     may not be used in the economic activity calculation.
       (b) Analysis of Impacts of Actions on Employment and 
     Economic Activity.--
       (1) Analysis.--Before taking a covered action, the 
     Administrator shall analyze the impact, disaggregated by 
     State, of the covered action on employment levels and 
     economic activity, including estimated job losses and 
     decreased economic activity.
       (2) Economic models.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall use the best available economic models.
       (B) Annual gao report.--Not later than December 31st of 
     each year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the economic models used by 
     the Administrator to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Availability of information.--With respect to any 
     covered action, the Administrator shall--
       (A) post the analysis under paragraph (1) as a link on the 
     main page of the public Internet Web site of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (B) request that the Governor of any State experiencing 
     more than a de minimis negative impact post the analysis in 
     the Capitol of the State.
       (c) Public Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--If the Administrator concludes under 
     subsection (b)(1) that a covered action will have more than a 
     de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic 
     activity in a State, the Administrator shall hold a public 
     hearing in each such State at least 30 days prior to the 
     effective date of the covered action.
       (2) Time, location, and selection.--
       (A) In general.--A public hearing required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be held at a convenient time and location for 
     impacted residents.
       (B) Priority.--In selecting a location for such a public 
     hearing, the Administrator shall give priority to locations 
     in the State that will experience the greatest number of job 
     losses.
       (d) Notification.--If the Administrator concludes under 
     subsection (b)(1) that a covered action will have more than a 
     de minimis negative impact on employment levels or economic 
     activity in any State, the Administrator shall give notice of 
     such impact to the congressional delegation, Governor, and 
     legislature of the State at least 45 days before the 
     effective date of the covered action.

     SEC. 204. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN 
                   WATER ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may 
     not--
       (1) finalize, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed guidance described in the notice of availability and 
     request for comments entitled ``EPA and Army Corps of 
     Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters 
     Protected by the Clean Water Act'' (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0409) (76 
     Fed. Reg. 24479 (May 2, 2011)); and
       (2) use the guidance described in paragraph (1), any 
     successor document, or any substantially similar guidance 
     made publicly available on or after December 3, 2008, as the 
     basis for any decision regarding the scope of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or any 
     rulemaking.
       (b) Rules.--The use of the guidance described in subsection 
     (a)(1), or any successor document or substantially similar 
     guidance made publicly available on or after December 3, 
     2008, as the basis for any rule shall be grounds for vacating 
     the rule.

     SEC. 205. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY TO MODIFY STATE WATER 
                   QUALITY STANDARDS.

       (a) State Water Quality Standards.--Section 303(c)(4) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1313(c)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``(4) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Promulgation of revised or new standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--The'';
       (3) by striking ``The Administrator shall promulgate'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Deadline.--The Administrator shall promulgate;'' and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) State water quality standards.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this paragraph, the Administrator may not 
     promulgate a revised or new standard for a pollutant in any 
     case in which the State has submitted to the Administrator 
     and the Administrator has approved a water quality standard 
     for that pollutant, unless the State concurs with the 
     determination of the Administrator that the revised or new 
     standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Federal Licenses and Permits.--Section 401(a) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) State or interstate agency determination.--With 
     respect to any discharge, if a State or interstate agency 
     having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point at 
     which the discharge originates or will originate determines 
     under paragraph (1) that the discharge will comply with the 
     applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 
     307, the Administrator may not take any action to supersede 
     the determination.''.

     SEC. 206. STATE AUTHORITY TO IDENTIFY WATERS WITHIN 
                   BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.

       Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) State authority to identify waters within boundaries 
     of the state.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State shall submit to the 
     Administrator from time to time, with the first such 
     submission not later than 180 days after the date of 
     publication of the first identification of pollutants under 
     section 304(a)(2)(D), the waters identified and the loads 
     established under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Approval or disapproval by administrator.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     submission, the Administrator shall approve the State 
     identification and load or announce the disagreement of the 
     Administrator with the State identification and load.
       ``(ii) Approval.--If the Administrator approves the 
     identification and load submitted by the State under this 
     subsection, the State shall incorporate the identification 
     and load into the current plan of the State under subsection 
     (e).
       ``(iii) Disapproval.--If the Administrator announces the 
     disagreement of the Administrator with the identification and 
     load submitted by the State under this subsection. the 
     Administrator shall submit, not later than 30 days after the 
     date that the Administrator announces the disagreement of the 
     Administrator with the submission of the State, to the State 
     the written recommendation of the Administrator of those 
     additional waters that the Administrator identifies and such 
     loads for such waters as the Administrator believes are 
     necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable 
     to the waters.
       ``(C) Action by state.--Not later than 30 days after 
     receipt of the recommendation of the Administrator, the State 
     shall--
       ``(i) disregard the recommendation of the Administrator in 
     full and incorporate its own identification and load into the 
     current plan of the State under subsection (e);
       ``(ii) accept the recommendation of the Administrator in 
     full and incorporate its identification and load as amended 
     by the recommendation of the Administrator into the current 
     plan of the State under subsection (e); or
       ``(iii) accept the recommendation of the Administrator in 
     part, identifying certain additional waters and certain 
     additional loads proposed by the Administrator to be

[[Page 13662]]

     added to the State's identification and load and incorporate 
     the State's identification and load as amended into the 
     current plan of the State under subsection (e).
       ``(D) Noncompliance by administrator.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Administrator fails to approve 
     the State identification and load or announce the 
     disagreement of the Administrator with the State 
     identification and load within the time specified in this 
     subsection--

       ``(I) the identification and load of the State shall be 
     considered approved; and
       ``(II) the State shall incorporate the identification and 
     load that the State submitted into the current plan of the 
     State under subsection (e).

       ``(ii) Recommendations not submitted.--If the Administrator 
     announces the disagreement of the Administrator with the 
     identification and load of the State but fails to submit the 
     written recommendation of the Administrator to the State 
     within 30 days as required by subparagraph (B)(iii)--

       ``(I) the identification and load of the State shall be 
     considered approved; and
       ``(II) the State shall incorporate the identification and 
     load that the State submitted into the current plan of the 
     State under subsection (e).

       ``(E) Application.--This section shall apply to any 
     decision made by the Administrator under this subsection 
     issued on or after March 1, 2013.''.

                          ____________________