WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2018; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 93
(House of Representatives - June 06, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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.

  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.

                              {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.

  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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
among the reports that the Corps of Engineers should expedite 
completion of. It is for the navigation project for San Juan Harbor.
  This is another amendment for the release of a study that has been 
waiting for more than 12 years. These reports follow from a study 
authorized by a resolution of the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure on September 20, 2006. This is a project that has been 
approved and, according to the Corps, could enter the engineering and 
design phase within 1 or 2 years, once the reports and reviews are 
finally in.
  It will increase the main channel depth to 44 feet and make it 100 
feet wider, along with other modifications, to allow a safer and more 
efficient movement of traffic in the Harbor of San Juan and increasing 
economic activity at a time when the Puerto Rico economy needs every 
boost it can get. As everybody knows, during the last hurricane, the 
movement of ships was one of the biggest problems.
  This would specifically be of importance in the case of a future 
emergency contingency. As we saw during the last year, one of the 
problems that arose was the congestion when needing to move those 
shipments. In the aftermath of hurricanes and flooding events, it 
becomes even more necessary, due to the incursion of debris and erosion 
from the surrounding bodies of water, which accelerate the natural 
deterioration of the harbor.
  This is a project that has been approved and programmed. The 
amendment, again, is so that the reports on the studies performed over 
the many years will finally be completed so that the next stage of 
engineer and design can proceed. This is an infrastructure that needs 
to be up and running for the creation of American jobs and to prevent 
future damage.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Remember, one of the 
main problems on the island is the energy situation. We are an island. 
So we are importing all of the coal and all of the oil. If we want to 
move to an LNG facility, we need to have a wider and a deeper port. 
This is one of those biggest efforts. If we got this kind of study, we 
can have those ports and have those ships coming from the States and 
have a better opportunity to improve our economy and have more goods 
and materials arriving to the island.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise 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 my colleague's work on this 
important issue, and I believe all of us understand the importance of 
restoring Puerto Rico. So I am prepared to accept this 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 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 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.

  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. Chairman, this amendment would grant the Army Corps 
of Engineers the authority to repair or replace any Army Corps bridge 
that is necessary for evacuation during extreme weather or natural 
disaster in New England.
  In my district, Mr. Chairman, the Bourne and Sagamore bridges 
represent the only roads for crossing the Cape Cod Canal by car. These 
bridges, owned by the Army Corps, have long reached the end of their 
working lives. In fact, the Army Corps is already spending a 
significant amount of funds just to keep the traffic on the bridges 
moving. Anyone who has gone there in the summer and experienced that 
can well attest to that.
  We cannot risk the safety of those vital roadways at any time, let 
alone at a time of an emergency. As the Corps already knows, it is 
important that we recognize that the canal bridges and other critical 
evacuation infrastructure across the Nation play a fundamental role in 
providing for the public safety of countless Americans. Much of this 
State and local work required to ensure the long-term safety of the 
canal bridges is already under way.
  I have also been working closely with the Army Corps leadership in 
New England and in Washington to ensure that the funding necessary for 
the safest, most resilient evacuation routes remains a priority.
  This amendment would authorize the Army Corps to continue down the 
path towards long-term safety for the people in my region, the people 
in New England, and, importantly, the over half a million people that 
the population swells to just in that small area over the summer 
months. For that reason, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.

[[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).

  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 simply directs the Army 
Corps of Engineers to expedite its existing Portsmouth Harbor 
Navigation Improvement Project.
  Portsmouth Harbor is vital to both New Hampshire's economy and our 
national security. It is the only deep draft harbor located in the 
State of New Hampshire and is the port of entry for fuels that generate 
20 percent of New Hampshire's energy.

                              {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.

                          ____________________