private sectors to move projects forward with their own funds, providing incentive for accelerating these project delivery processes regardless of the availability of federal funding. so i urge all members to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from oregon. the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. defazio: ok. i'm going to yield to the gentleman from oregon a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a alf. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman and what he said is correct in terms of a situation here, streamlining provisions in this bill provide nothing but an empty promise. that projects will be done faster. the empty promise comes with real cost. it will lead to more damaging and costly projects and prevent states, local governments and other stakeholders from making

realistic plans for the future. the corps currently has an estimated backlog of over 1,000 altogether ridsed -- authorized activities that will take about $60 billion. the bill before us adds to the backlog. both the corps themselves and the administration have pointed out that these proposed streamlining guidelines will actually -- may actually slow project development and do not adequately protect communities, taxpayers and the environment. the real cause of delay is limited funding, competition for funding amongst the extensive study and project construction backlog, poor project planning that does not focus on national priorities or identifying the least possible damaging solution to water resource problems. project studies take the longest when the corps and congress insist on pushing outdated, damaging and extremely costly projects that

inconvenience or even harm communities. instead of adapting low-impact, modern solutions that could more easily gain broad-based support. i'm all for getting projects done faster. but our infrastructure deficit slows the economy and puts people at physical danger at worst. we need to address that problem. undercutting the environmental protections does not address it, it merely complicates it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: is the gentleman from oregon prepared to close? mr. defazio: i have one more speaker. shufleshufle -- mr. shuster: then i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas. there she is. ms. sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from oregon. i thank the sponsors of this legislation, both mr. blumenauer and i'm delighted to

be a co-sponsor. i want to emphasize the core values of what mr. defazio and what this amendment represents. the fact is there's a lack of funding for those of us who are around ports, who are experiencing the extreme flooding, there is a lack of funding that the environmental review process has nothing to do with. and it has not led to the back loffing authorized projects that are not being constructed. so i support the timely delivery of water resources projects. i have concerns as to whether the changes made in this bill, in the name of streamlining, will actually achieve that goal. and so i ask and urge my members, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to support this amendment, which will make the construction of already authorized projects that clearly had no problems with the environmental review process a priority. and i would argue the fact that we should be encouraged to make this truly a jobs bill and support the defazio amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's

time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania has four minutes remaining. mr. shuster: i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: his time has expired. mr. shuster: i yield him two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: how much? mr. defazio: two minutes. or a minute and a half. and i'll close. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and want to thank you and all of the co-sponsors of this amendment for putting this forward. it would actually delay the so-called environmental streamlining provisions in this bill, which would fast track the critical review process and significantly limit public input. this amendment would also preserve the current review process that helps the army corps of engineers foresee harmful environmental impacts before undertaking any project. mr. speaker, this safe,

sustainable infrastructure -- it's not really produced by cutting corners. wrrda projects, and i have several in my district, and i know how complex they can be, they have wide-ranging consequences. it's important to fully understand the effects that these projects will have on public health, public safety and the environment. history, quite frankly, has shown us that robust environmental reviews are good for the environment, the economy, public safety and taxpayers. this bipartisan amendment would protect the environment and really save taxpayer dollars. so i urge a yea vote and i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: the gentleman still has an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. defazio: i thank the chairman for his generosity. i think there's substantial agreement here. we need to put more investment into critical water

infrastructure projects. this bill begins to do that. we want to do it in the most thoughtful way possible. some of these projects will alter local or regional environmental resources forever. sometimes to mitigate, sometimes perhaps not so much, if they're not well thought out. many of these projects are designed to last for 100 years or more. it certainly would behoove us to spend a little bit of a time fully vetting these projects before we authorize them and move forward. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. shuster: i yield back the balance of my time. and urge a no vote on the defazio amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. defazio: mr. chairman, on that i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. flores: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment that addresses a burdensome executive order that will have vast impacts on both our ocean and inland economies. executive order 13547 was signed in 2010 and requires various bureaucracies to essentially zone the ocean and the sources thereof. this means that a drop of rain that falls on your house could be subject to this overreaching policy because that operation

will ultimately wind up in the ocean. the new policy guidelines under this executive order that were finalized in april of this year have the potential to change permitting criteria and regulatory requirements for a large number of economic sectors, including maritime shipping and inland river transportation. the army corps of engineers is participating in at least one ocean and marine spatial planning regional time, -- team, requiring resources and staff time out of their current -- outside of their current statutory obligations and outside of their current budgetary authority. since the corps has not specifically asked for funds for the purpose of implementing executive order 13547, then they are raiding existing accounts to fund these activities. thus adding to the current project's backlog and misusing scarce taxpayer resources. furthermore, the senate wrrda bill includes a funding stream for regional planning bodies pursuant to the administration's national ocean policy, thereby creating a permanent slush fund to bank roll implementation of their initiative that hasn't even

received congressional authorization. my amendment would prohibit the programs or actions authorized under wrrda from being used to further implement ocean zoning under the executive order and further requires that the secretary of the army conduct and submit a study to congress detailing all of the activities engaged in and resources expended relating to the executive order and to the national ocean policy as well as relevant f.y. 2014 budget requests. i want to thank the t&i committee for their hard work on the water bill. i plan on voting for the water bill and i urge approval of my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i yield myself as much time as i'll consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, this amendment is very destruct to have a very

good policy that was created by this house, by the committee on natural resources, when back in the late 1990's all of the federal agencies in private sector came to congress and said, we have a lot of conflicts of the sea. we need to start doing some planning in the ocean like we have on land so that we just can get jobs done. mr. farr: we were losing all kinds of equipment to fisheries and mining operations. it was just a huge mass, no federal agency knew what the other federal agency was doing. it was all on public lands called the oceans and the exploration of the oceans was very underserved. so the underlying bill that this amendment attacks was created by the committee to create a commission made up in fact of people from texas for the oil industry and one of the things they said was stop that conflict. let's have a smart ocean planning. let's help use and conserve our finite resources and grow our ocean economy. this is the way to do it. this amendment wipes it all back, goes back to the dark ages, goes back to the flat

earth opinion about ocean planning, which is don't do it. well, the aqua culture industry, which is a $1.2 billion industry, has said that this would be very destructive. flores' amendment would be a major setback for our industry. aquaculture's growing and we rely on planning to identify possible -- so our industry can grow and prosper. if the army corps of engineers can't engage in the national ocean policy coordination and planning that's geared toward helping our industry, that's what septembers us up for failure. the north american submarine cable association is opposed to this amendment. they stated the first and foremost undersea cable operators engage in coastal marine spatial planning. did you know that undersea cable is not satellites, carry more than 95% of the international voice data in internet traffic in the united states? they are critical for national security and carry civilian and military and u.s. government traffic. the corps is working to improve

coastal and seafloor maps and nautical charts which are critical for navigation. signing offshore energy and recreational fishing. even in his home state of texas, there are 170,000 people that are employed in ocean economy. his amendment would destroy their ability to have good planning. so i urge all my friends to oppose this amendment, which is owe polesed by the private sector, it's opposed by the public sector and the jft not smart thinking. i take now -- i'd like to yield -- i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: i'll wait to close, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i'd like to recognize congressman langevin for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection.

mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the flores amendment is quite frankly an affront to states' rights. by preventing the army corps of engineers from coordinating ocean and coastal planning with federal and state partners, it will inhibit the ability of states like rhode island, my home state, from managing resources in a way that fits their needs and priorities. we have long recognized that our ocean resources do not adhere to state boundaries. accordingly their management must be regionally based. in the northeast, our regional ocean council has allowed our states to pool resources and our businesses to have a voice in decision making. now, the flores amendment may inhibit regional efforts, including ongoing hurricane sandy recovery and restoration planning to protect against future storm damage. put simply, it's an attempt to impose restrictions and requirements on coastal states and districts that will prevent our county county it's, our state it's, along with state

governers from working collaboratively with their federal partners on projects critical to coastal economies. in 2010 maritime economic activities supported $2.7 -- 2.7 million jobs and $258 billion in g.d.p. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. langevin: would the gentleman yield an additional 15 seconds? mr. farr: i yield another 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if these resources are too important to our economy not to be managed with the best science and practices available, i sfrongly urge my colleagues to protect the rights of states, to manage their own resources and to vote no on this misguided amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: mr. chairman, how much time does each side have? the chair: the gentleman from texas has three minutes and the gentleman from california has one minute and 40 seconds.

15 seconds. a minute and a 15 seconds. mr. flores: i'll reserve to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for two minutes. how much time? the chair: the gentleman has one minute and 15 seconds available. mr. farr: for one minute and 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for his generous time. i think there's a little misunderstanding here. this is not about a new agency or giving agencies new regulatory authority or direction and i'll use a simple example. we have a great prospect for wave energy off the northwest coast, we have a really great wave period, doing research at oregon state, have a couple of private companies interested but there are at least three federal agencies involved and

simply what this -- what this executive order does is require that those agencies coordinate and they don't stovepipe, they don't work in silos. so when the wave developer goes to ferk, you know, ferk will also -- ferc, you know, ferc will also have in the room, noaa, the fisheries management council will be involved, the other federal agencies that have jurisdiction will be involved and we won't end up going through one process with one agency, getting to the end of that, and then having another agency saying, wait a minute, you didn't talk to us, this just happened with a bridge over the columbia river to washington state where the coast guard came in very late and said, oh, wait a minute, we have height concerns about passage under this bridge. had it been coordinated inland in the same way that the president is proposing for agencies to work in the oceans, we will have a better, more comprehensive process that serves all interests. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. he gentleman from texas.

>> you've heard a -- mr. flores: you've heard a lot about my amendment. this amendment has passed in 111th th and 11th -- and congresses both yoiled the other side. neither in either of those congresses was this law ever approved by these congresses this bureaucracy has been create unconstitutionally by this executive order. congress doesn't intend to do that. it's studied this for four congresses and elected not to. you also hear there's stake holders that don't support what i'm trying to co-do in this amendment but that's not true. we've got farmers, recreational fishing interests and others who support this amendment and are fully on the side of it. they said that stake holders came to congress and said there were problems and they wanted this executive order.

that's not true because we had a hearing in the 112th congress and i specifically asked the stake holders, did any of you want the provisions included in this executive order and to an entity they said no, they didn't care for it. also, i would like to say this amendment has passed four other times. in the 112th congress i added this amendment to the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, it passed on a bipartisan basis, 246-174. i offered a similar amendment to the offshore energy and jobs act that passed by a vote of 243-190, i also added an amendment to the water appropriations bill that passed by voice vote that commonsense amendment. we're just saying if congress hasn't authorized this activity, a, and b, congress hasn't appropriated money for this activity, then this activity shouldn't take place.

that's what the constitution calls for. that's what this amendment does. with that, i'd urge approval of the amendment and iprufle of the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. farr: i ask far recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? > i ask unanimous consent to -- sorry, mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 385 i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendments en bloc consisting of amendments four, ine, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21, 22, and 23, printed in house report 113-221 offered by mr. shuster of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 385 the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, will each control five minutes. the chair reck nireses the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number four in house report 113-251 be modified by the form i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number four printed in house report 113-251, the amendment is modified to read as follows. at the end of title 1 insert the following, section, report on service elevations at affected lakes, a, assessment, one, in general, not later than 180 tais after the deist

enactment of this act, the secretary, in coordination with the ferc, shall initiate an assessment of the drought conditions on lakes managed by the secretary that are affected by ferc license reservoirs which shall include an assessment of a, lake levels and curves and areas of previous and current prolonged drought, and b, the long-term ferc licenses have on -- on the secretary's ability to manage lakes for hydropower generation, navigation, flood protection, fish and wildlife and recreation. two, report, the secretary in coordination with the ferc shall submit to congress a report on the assessment carried out under paragraph one. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment is mod fid. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i sport the amendment en bloc,

all of which have been approved by the majority and minority. these members put forth thoughtful amendments and i'm pleased to support moving them all en bloc. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves his time they have gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: this amendment reflects the good work of many members from both sides of the aisle and reflects a boinch process followed by chairman shuster in assembling this important legislation. t includes thoughtful language relating to control of aquatic species at the request of several from the great lakes area and the west coast, lang waverage promoting government efficiency and several important requests for additional information related to the harbor maintenance trust fund and how congress can continue to address the backlog of corps projects. i support the amendment. i yield back. -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to

reserve. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. mike thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i rise in strong support of our bipartisan agreement -- amendment to require g.a.o. to study the impacts of invasive aquatic species and thank the chairman for including it in the en bloc amendment. aquatic mussels such as zebra mussels have cost more than $5 billion since their introduction in the 1980's. unfortunately, too thauven important problem only receives attention after it's too late this amendment would be proactive. it would require a timely report to find gaps in current efforts and minimize duplication of activeties.

invasive species are a national problem with significant and expensive local implications. more than ever, we need knowledge and guidance on this issue. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pierluisi: i support the en bloc amendment which includes an amendment i filed. the territories have been given relief from the local cost sharing requirements for army corps projects. the bill increase this is amount to account for inflation. my amendment extends this waiver to the territory of puerto rico. there are about 20 authorized flood protection harbor and other army corps projects pending in puerto rico, some of which are stalled due to the

constrained ability of the local government to pr provide its share of costs. the two reasons of this waiver for other territories decades ago justify its extension to puerto rico today. puerto rico is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. in 2011 alone, there were several federally declared dasters in puerto rico with fema assistance totaling $ 95 million. in addition, puerto rico faces severe economic and fiscal challenges due in large part that puerto rico is shortchanged in key federal programs. i thank the chairman and ranking members for recognizing and adopting my amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the chairman and ranking member for including the jackson lee amendment in the en bloc amendments and indicate this is a bill long overdue. 209,000 jobs, 970 jobs in texas, $16.7 billion in direct business, $14.1 billion in personal income. my amendment adds to this legislation by providing for the army corps of engineers under section 118 to consult with key stake holders including state, county and city governments where applicable. state and local water districts and in the case of recommendations concerning projects that substantially reflect underrepresented community the secretary shall consult with historically black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. mr. speaker, we all are reminded of the tragedy of hurricane sandy thombing tragedy of storm alison, hurricane rita, hurricane ike and hurricane katrina. universities and communities

were impacted, the army corps of engineers will be much better for the idea of being able to engage in those who are directly impacted. again i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and support the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i have no further equests for time i yield back. -- mr. rahall: i have no further requests for time and i yield back. mr. shuster: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments as odified are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five pribted in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise today

and offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 358 -- 385, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed each will control tive minutes. mr. young: i would suggest respectfully this is a simple amendment. it is about the intrusion by this corps into the private sector of mapping. they have been very good in the past about contracting out and i found out by reports that certain areas of the corps kerp -- of the corps have bought equipment they bought a yacht, got into the mapping business. and in doing so, that's in direct competition to the with e sector and an area the scarce amount of money we have for infrastructure, we

should keep that infrastructure for building not for getting into the private sector business of mapping. they can still do it. there isn't a contractor close by or it's not practical can -- practical they can do their own work but i see the expansion occurring as an invasion into an area that has plenty of qualified people to do it. i think we ought to adopt this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for fife minutes. >> throughout the development of 308, the chairman has take an balanced approach to encourage involvement in the development and execution of corps projects with maintaining the internal technical cape thovelt corps to cafferry out vital civil works missions. for decades they've maintained that maintaining the critical

corps is necessary. mr. bishop: it allows the corps to serve as critical support for the nation's military. to maintain this capability, we have striveed maintain critical technical expertise within the corps while at the same time recognizing those areas where outside commercial interests provide a useful role. in my view, this seeks to push the lever too far toward outsourcing the internal capabilities of the corps my understanding is that currently the corps contracts extensively with the private sector for surveying and mapping services, however the decision as to when it is appropriate to use their own staff, a public agency or a private contractor for this work should remain within the corps' leadership who understands the needs of specific projects. i urge opposition to the amendment and seek unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the transportation trades and the ifpte in opposition to the underlook i -- the underlying

amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i'd like to yield to the gentleman, mr. petri, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. peterson: i thank my colleague from -- mr. petri: i thank my colleague from alaska for yielding and rise to support the young amendment. i'm pleased to be a co-sponsor of the amendment. it's important that the u.s. army corps of engineers be encouraged to use the private sector for surveying and mapping services whenever practical. congress should take steps to end the increasing duplication of and competition with the private sector by the corps of engineers. this amendment would allow the corps to continue to manage mapping and surveying for its projects but it should rely on the private sector to performing the mapping and surveying activities that are commercially available to the maximum extent practical. at a time when federal funds for infrastructure, including water resource projects, are limited, the corps should be increasing its use of the

private sector for surveying and mapping where it makes sense, not wasting tax dollars by competing and duplicating the private sector. so i edge courage -- encourage the house to adopt the young amendment, to increase the corps' reliance on the capability apt -- capable and qualified private sector wherever practical and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. beneficiary beneficiary -- >> mr. speaker, i yield -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i yield to mr. shuster. mr. shuster: i reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from alaska's amendment. the corps of engineers, like all federal agencies, follow acquisition and procurement laws, much of the work of the corps is in fact contracted to the private sector. entities including much of the hydrographic mapping which is integral to maintenance. while i understand and manufacture thies with the sponsor of the -- empathize with the sponsor of the amendment, it seems to be a procurement issue. what we do not want is to have

one acquisition and procurement law for federal government and a new and special act for the corps of engineers. i reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from alaska's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: i reluctantly respect the gentleman's opinion. but at this time i'd like to recognize mr. duncan for -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. young: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: i won't need that much time, mr. speaker, but i do appreciate the gentleman from alaska yielding me this time and i rise in support of this amendment. small businesss struggle to stay in business every day and they should not have to compete against their government on top of all the other challenges they face. in fact, sometimes i think we should pin a medal on anybody who is able to survive today in small businesses. yet every day in almost every congressional district, big government agencies are competing with small

businesses. in almost every white house conference on small business since the mid 1950's, they have listed unfair government competition with small businesses as one of the top issues. this is not a new problem. in fact, since the eisenhower administration in 1955, it became official u.s. policy that, quote, the federal government will not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide is service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business chapel, unquote. this is -- channels, unquote. this is a service that can easily be provided by private small businesses. and we should support that. this amendment would simply require the army corps to take advantage of the private mapping and surveying services that are available, instead of competing with them. i believe this is a very reasonable and responsible amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it and i

yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i join the chairman in opposing this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: again, the corps has been good but they're expanding. they just spent money instead of on solving a problem on a u.a.v., they spent $2.3 million on aat -- yacht. -- on a yacht. there's no reason for that, mr. chairman. there's no reason, doesn't keep them from surveying, doesn't keep them from account crthing but i don't expand this program. we have another government agency and we're trying to save money, we're allowing the ex -- i know how these things go. they'll start buying more and more and we'll spend and say, we don't have the contract anymore. mr. chairman, with all due respect, you know that's true. i've watched these agencies. as chairman of this committee

i've watched them and tried to stop them. this is not the time to spend money foolishly. we have the contractors out there. let's use them where they're available. let's not let them build a machine within the corps of engineers themselves. keep that in mind. you ought to take -- adopt this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6

printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: it is now in order to consider -- pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment would help to maintain beaches and the integrity of our shipping channels around the country. san transfer plant, vital for beach renourishment, as well as to fight erosion and shoaling in navigation channels. these inlets are often the life blood of the communities they serve. when shoaling of the channels makes navigation dangerous, it is the people and businesses that suffer. the army corps of engineers is already spending money to dredge these channels. by reducing the need to dredge so often, my amendment allows for more efficient allocation

of federal dollars. furthermore, additional corps resources are then freed up for other uses. this amendment does not authorize or appropriate any funds, it merely allows the sand transfer plant to participate in the process and give the corps flexibility and prioritizing its funding. it applies to all sand transfer plants, those that are in existence and those that are not yet in existence. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. typically the corps of engineers carries out studies and projects that are cost shared with nonfederal sponsors. sand transfer facilities are associated with beach nourishment projects are traditionally a nonfederal responsibility. this amendment will require the corps of engineers to assume the operation and maintenance cost of these facilities. this would put more funding

requirements on the federal taxpayer for this type of work. it is clear that the corps' budget will not be increased substantially to cover these additional requirements. one of the key goals of h.r. 3080 is to empower nonfederal interests to take a larger role in carrying out water resources projects. this amendment is not financially responsible since it would place an additional burden on the corps of engineers without recognizing the fiscal restrainlts the corps' already under. so i urge all members to poe owes -- to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. at this time i'm very pleased to yield to my colleague from florida, ms. brown, two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to commend chairman shuster for his -- for restoring the bipartisan nature to our committee and i want to thank congressman rahall, bishop and gibbs for their hard work on this bill. i also want to thank the corps of engineers for their hard work. they have been underfunded and overworked but they've always been there for the american

people. the work that they did during hurricane katrina and most recently hurricane sandy should be commended by congress. we already have failed to repair our ports and are falling behind in our international competition. ports like asia, europe, south america and the caribbean all have ports with depths of 50 feet. i agree that we need to fully re-authorize wrrda every two years. but i don't believe that many people are confident that that will happen and in fact it took seven years since re-authorization of the last wrrda bill. i want to review -- i went to a review of the chief report and the army corps made it clear they don't pick winners or losers but that's what we're doing here in congress. this is a fairness issue for the state of florida and i hope as we move toward conference that we must engage the house, the senate and the white house to ensure that the state of

florida is not left behind. as this bill continues to move through the process, we need to work together to make sure that we treat every state fairly and don't arbitrarily leave any critical infrastructure projects behind. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i don't think i'll need that much. i yield myself the remaining time. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have great respect for this committee. i think they've done extraordinary work on behalf of all of us here in congress, operating with fiscal restraint and able to produce a bipartisan product. most of that end, all i respect chairman shuster. i firmly disagree with his

assessment of this particular measure. there is one transfer plant that's located in an area that i serve and that's in florida. it's the lake worth inlet. there's one in california, one in new jersey and one in bethany beach on the indian river inlet. additional this amendment -- additionally this amendment would just apply whenever the corps bills an additional sand transfer plant. there's no money that's involved. the money that the corps of engineers would save is immense. and i don't for the life of me understand why there would be opposition to that. i will have a lot more to say over the course of time, regarding how the corps conducts its operations, but i've lived for 21 years, with many of their successes and a hell the a -- and a hell of a lot of that and in this particular instance i'm trying

to help them to save something and to be able to do the things that are necessary to allow for navigation of these waters that are critical to the areas that they serve. and with that i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

mr. bentvolio: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. bentivolio of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentleman from michigan, mr. bentivolio, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. bentvolio: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i'd like to thank the committee on transportation and infrastructure, chairman bill shuster, and other members of the committee and their staff for working so hard on this bill. there are many good reforms in this legislation and i applaud their efforts. however, while this bill initially de-authorizes $12 billion in inactive projects, most of those savings are simply moved to other projects. offsetting costs is always good. can do better.

we should be looking for real savings and clearing out the backlog for the american people. while the bill sunsets some new altogether days ises to help curtail the backlog problem, much need to be done about the current backlog. i'm a former teacher. when educators teach the basics of our system of government, we say the legislature creates the law and controls the purse. the fact of the matterer is, congress has not been this control of its purse for quite a while and these outdated backlog project, some almost 50 years old, prove just that, simply put, there's just too much spending with little to no oversight or accountability. t needs to stop. many of these resources were earmarked in previous water resources bills. these were not sufficient to follow up to make sure they were being completed on time and under budget. for example the 2007 bill had approximately $8 billion in additional projects and earmarks thrown in in

conferences. if these projects and money are important and necessary what has congress been doing all these years to ensure these much-needed projects and funds were being completed? by this body's own action, or inaction, it has shown over and over that either these projects aren't as important as some claim or that congress is spending money on improvements without much thought. every dollar we waste is a dollar that could be spent to help the american people and a dollar we wouldn't need to borrow against our children and grandchildren's future. if these projects aren't enough, important enough for taos ensure the completion on time and within budget, then we probably shouldn't have authorized it in the first place. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to have my time to my colleague, mr. lumen that will of oregon. -- mr. blumen thall of oregon. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. bent voleyow: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from west

virginia seek recognition? mr. rahall: mr. chairman, i do rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rahall: i do seek the time in opposition. throughout the process of developing this water resources bill, chairman shuster has done a remarkable job of maintaining a balance between addressing future water resource needs of the nation and coming to terms with those legacy projects and studies of the corps of engineers that may have languished over the decades. unfortunately, the pending amendment would upset that balance and it seeks to deauthorize a massive amount of projects that i would suggest continue to have strong local, congressional, and potentially administration support. administrative support, that is. while addressing the unconstructed backlog is an important issue, i would urge opposition to this amendment that seeks to wipe away much of

the good work of this body over the decades simply to make a point of fiscal conservatism. we all want to address the debt. it's a worthy goal, i agree with the gentleman's comments about passing that debt on to our children and grandchildren, but iing suggest this is not the proper manner in which we are fair to our entire country and to the future infrastructure of this nation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. michigan, excuse me. mr. bent voleyow: i yield two nutes to my colleague, mr. blumenauer of oregon. mr. blumenauer: my friend from west virginia made an important point. thunder bill, if it's approved, we'll extend the backlog to something like $72 billion. there are many people who support these various projects.

but that's part of the problem. shrimp authorizing is not somehow free. it costs money to be able to move them into product stage, we have billions of dollars for projects that are languishing and because we're not adequately funding year in and year out, we have an amazing number of projects that have their shelf life has expired. i commend what the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from west virginia have done with the committee trying to do a deeper dive, trying to fine tune, trying to make some real progress here. the problem is, we have a legacy for decades where that same care and consideration was not exercised. where there are a lot of o-- a lot of projects that really -- really are not cost effective, that really are no longer state of the art and i think by moving forward to clear the decks of a little more of the backlog, not diverting, because

the corps and congress have to contend with people that think just because it's been thrs -- been authorized they're entitled to have the project go forward and i can understand that, if it stays on the books, but that's a distortion of where we are now. we're not adequately funding what this bill needs to do unless and until we do a little more aggressive prune, we're just going to continue to add to the backlog, we're going to continue to have some projects that will get move aid long sometimes for political reasons, even though they're not the best projects. and the more we can help the committee move forward, prune it down, tailor it, focus it, we're all going to be better off. i would urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: time check, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia has three and a half minutes. mr. rahall: i yield two minutes to chairman shuster.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: may i ask how much ime is left on the side -- the chair: 30 seconds. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman, i appreciate the gentleman want to be fiscally responsible, that's what we tried to do. all the new authorizations were more than fully offset by deauthorizations and it seeks to deauthorize old, inactive projects which have not begun construction or not received any funds, federal or nonfederal in the last five years. that cuts waste and removes backlog of things that are not likely to go forward. this would deauthorize viable projects, projects that are almost ready to go, projects that have nonfederal money committed to them.

and impact the ability to move these forward, these important water resource and infrastructure improvements that are ready to move, have nonfederal dollars in place. we also put in this bill a sunset law. any new authorizations if they don't move within seven years will be automatically deauthorized to continue to push down oen that backlog. i'm certain it will be open in the next bill to continue to reduce the backlog. i reluctantly urge members to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. bentivolio: america is facing a fiscal congress and americans are sick of how much money congress wastes. the fact that there's between $60 billion and $80 billion in old, inactive projects and backlog means there's something wrong. it took less than a decade for the united states to go to the moon. how can it take decades to

build a dam. if we're not going to do these projects right and on time, we shouldn't be doing them at all. we need to prioritize and follow through on projects that are important. it's not radical to clear out old and back dated projects. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield the balance of my time to mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me pick up on something chairman shuster just said he said if we were to take the approach advocated by this amendment from the gentleman from michigan, we would run the risk of deauthorizing prompts that are very vital and let me give you an example of one that would be in that category. the fire island montauk point reformulation study a study that comprising the 83 eastern most miles of coastline of long island, 70 miles of which is in my district. first authorized in the 1960's and it has crept along,

primarily because it has not had adequate funding either for studies -- studies and certainly not for construction. but hurricane sandy proved how valuable and just how important the work that has been contemplated by the fire island to montauk point reformulation study has been and would have been and were it not for the sandy supplemental fund, we still wouldn't be in a position to fund the vitally important construction projects associated with that. but it's the kind of project that would fall victim to the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, were it to be aproved. i join the ranking member and the chairman in urging opposition to the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time to mr. rahall. mr. rahall: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expire the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. o -- is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in house report 113-251, for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. jones: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 113-251, offered by mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385rk the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: mr. chairman, uncle sam has largely stopped funding maintenance of federally authorized shallow draft inlet projects. there are over a dozen of these projects in the district i represent in north carolina. these are critical to the local economy. to fill the gap, the state of north carolina is stepping up to pay for dredging these

waterways. my concern is that section 108 of the bill may be interpreted to allow states to only pay for maintenance of projects damaged by disasters. does the chairman share my belief that states should be allowed to contribute funds to any of the federal projects, not just those damaged by disasters? and will he agree to work in conference to perfect the bill's language to meet our shared intent? i yield to the chairman for his comments. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman from north carolina, i thank you for raising this issue. i would be happy to work with you as we go through conference to look into what you're talk about and make sure we do what's right for the country moving forward. mr. jones: mr. chairman, thank you for that i thank you and the ranking member for the outstanding jobs you and the staff have done on this bill. with that, mr. speaker, i withdraw my amendment.

the chair: without objection he amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york sec recognition? ms. sleve laz kezz feather i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13, offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, america's inland waterways more -- 250 tons of cargo billion tons of cargo every

year. commercial activity on our inland waterways supports more than 13 million jobs in the united states and it is crucial to our economic prosperity. america depends on the strength of its inland waterways to support businesses and consumers across the country. my amendment will establish a national water based freight policy. it requires the secretary of the army to designate a primary water-based freight network and develop a strategic plan to assess and improve performance. it also improves data collection methods so the army corps of engineers and policymakers have better information about how to improve the system going forward. though the recent survey transportation re-authorization established a national freight policy that legislation did not incorporate ports, harbors, and

inland water ways into the national freight network. as ranking member of the small siness committee, i have heard agriculture groups speak time and again about the importance of establishing a strategy for our inland waterways. this bill recognizes the critical important of ports, harbors, and inland waterways to our economic competitiveness and develops a comprehensive approach to identify and address their problems. unfortunately, our inland waterways are buckling you should the pressure of our growing -- buckling under the pressure of our growing needs. in many cases the inland water ways haven't been updated since the 1960's. 90 noveget welcomes and dams on the u.s. inland waterway system experience some type of unscheduled delay in 2009.

there is an average of 52 service interruptions a day throughout the system this delay prevents goods from getting to market, driving up costs and hurting the businesses that depend on our waterways. addressing this issue will take time and careful planning. projects to repair and replace aging locks and dredge channels can take decades to approve and complete. by identifying key waterways, critical bottlenecks, and measured trade gateways, they can guide the improvement of our inland waterways in the most effective way possible. thinking strategically about our inland waterway system can lead to outsized returns in the future. the american society of civil engineers estimates that modest investment will protect $700 billion in gross domestic

product and 738,000 jobs in 2010. they must be properly targeted. my amendment will help funnel resources to the most beneficial projects available so we can achieve a good return on investment on american taxpayers' money. america's inland waterways, ports, harbors will ensure all markets, foreign and domestic, are open to american goods. establishing a national network on policy for waterways will help us grow our economy, spur job creation and ensure that the taxpayers' money is put to good use. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i thank the chairman. i rise in great respect of the gentlewoman from new york and agree with her that our ports, our inland waterway system are in bad change. we are in times of fiscally restrained and we need to do best to move these forward under fiscal restraints and that's what we're doing in this wrrda bill, moving forward in a way that we can be positive but not break the bank. the freight network is critical to the nation's economic security and to our nation's national security. i have several concerns with this amendment. first, the amendment gives very broad authority to the administration. when creating this freight network. h.r. 3080, we continued the role of congress in authorizing corps of engineer activities. unfortunately, this amendment would undermine one of the key principles of this bill, giving away more of our authority to the administration. second, i believe the amendment would significantly increase bureaucracy. and finally, this amendment requires -- when i'm finished.

finally, this amendment requires the designation of primary freight network that prioritizes projects near population centers and major trade gateways which, of course, are extremely important to the health of this nation's economy. but if someone from los angeles and new york city, it seems like a good idea, those of us from the interior of the country and rural parts of the country have concerns this would leave a gaping hole in the freight transportation system. if you're from oregon or duluth, minnesota, or altoona, pennsylvania, under this amendment you may not be considered part of that primary freight network. but i assure you those two ports and hundreds of others are integral to the regional economies and the nation's economic well-being. so i urge a no vote on this but certainly respect what the gentlelady is trying to do from new york and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, he chairman of the committee stated that this amendment

gives broad authority to the administration, but it's the same authority we gave to the administration in the creation -- on the provision created for highways in the surface transportation bill, map-21. this amendment is modeled exactly on that provision, so what is good for the -- what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? so i do not understand your logic. i do not understand your argument. but let me just say, mr. chairman, and to say this is oing to benefit metropolitan areas, we held hearing after hearing in the small business committee regarding this issue and this was brought up to me, the attention to this issue, by small agriculture interests from rural areas who were concerned that waterways, particularly those in rural areas, were being ignored. the truth of the matter is --

the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. velazquez: this eafment will ensure that rural areas are given a greater voice. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. velazquez: i yield back. mr. shuster: i that are the gentlelady for pointing that out. the chairman of the senate committee, that, i believe, was her provision in there. she was the goose and i was the gander. i may not have agreed, but we were in a conference committee on that. again, i'm very, very concerned about giving away more and more authority to the executive branch. again, that's one of the key principles of this bill that i think all 435 members of this body and all 100 members of the senate ought to be in lockstep making sure we don't continue to give away our constitutional authority to the executive branch. we've done far too much of that already. again, i respect the gentlelady from new york and what she's intending to do. at this point i urge a no vote on this and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york.

those in favor say aye. -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. richmond of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richmond: thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with congratulating both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for including commonsense reforms in this wrrda bill this

congress. and with those commonsense reforms, i have just one to add. right now when the corps of engineers, when they do their cost-benefit analysis, they only look at the brick and mortar of the property that they're looking to protect. well, that just doesn't make sense when we're talking about things that affect our economy. for example, you can't just look at the bricks and mortars of the port of new york. the port of new york pays about $3.7 billion in taxes to the federal government every year. so if you only looked at the cost of the port to rebuild the port of new york, you would certainly miss the billions and billions of dollars worth of impact. there's an example in louisiana where the port is thinking about building a levee. it includes not only the port -- the corps -- it includes not only the port but it also includes our refineries where we know that if those residents are forced to evacuate, like in isaac, the cost of gas went up seven cents around the country for five days.

so you can't just look at the cost of those homes when we know that that keeps the price of gas down and would affect the national economy. so this is just one more of those commonsense reforms, mr. chairman. and i'd hope that we look at this and make sure everyone who has a port understands that the value of the port is not in the bricks and mortar but in the goods and services that come through in the commodities. so with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania, for what purpose -- mr. shuster: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i appreciate what both gentlemen from louisiana is trying to do with this but the corps of engineers' projects undergo rigorous, economic and environmental reviews. in carrying out the economic analysis for flood damage reduction projects, the corps engineers reviewed many things. if they have a flood reduction project, the economic benefits have to outweigh the cost of constructing the project.

unfortunately, this amendment would change that. the corps currently is required to look at the national impact to the economy. so, for instance, the port of new orleans, extremely important to the nation. the port of new york, new jersey, extremely important to the nation. this amendment, what it will do is reduce it down to the regional impact to the economy. again, that's what's important that the corps continues to look at a national per expective on how those projects impact nationally, not just regionally. so i reluctantly at this point urge all members to oppose this amendment and will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richmond: i'd yield two minutes to my colleague from louisiana, steve scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank my colleague from new orleans, mr. richmond, for bringing this amendment forward and, of course, what we're trying to do is put an additional reform in place to make sure when a cost-benefit

analysis is done, it truly reflects the value of those projects. especially as we're talking about flood protection and hurricane reduction projects, in many cases where local governments are doing a lot of the work themselves to protect not only people in communities but also vital energy infrastructure. of course, having the value of that infrastructure, as my colleague from new orleans pointed out, even when we see a storm enter the gulf of mexico, rigs in the gulf are evacuated, we see immediate increases in the price of gasoline all across the country. so we ought to be encouraging those local communities to be building up and strengthening their flood protection, whether it's coastal restoration, something that our state of louisiana is actually dedicated the lion's share of all of the offshore revenues our state will ultimately start getting in 2017 to make sure that money's dedicated to restoring our coast. where you literally have the states putting hundreds of millions of dollars of its own

money where its mouth is to protect resources. just as locals are doing that work, the corps is doing larger projects, federal projects that would protect that vital infrastructure, it's important that calculation be made because ultimately if there is a storm or damage and that work's not done, then the economy will suffer. we've seen it suffer across the nation. i do want to mention, mr. chairman, that the american petroleum institute has come out in support of this amendment. it's a strong bipartisan amendment, and we appreciate the support of a.p.i. obviously they understand the national importance of having this kind of reform in the bill. with that i'd yield back to the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i yield one minute to the ranking member of the committee, mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. rahall: mr. chairman, really, really -- i mean, i really reluctantly oppose this

amendment. some concerns have been raised about how the changes proposed in this amendment would affect the current process by which the corps calculates future costs and benefits of potential projects. the committee may need some additional time to better understand how these changes would be implemented and what the impact to project development would be. so therefore, i really, really reluctantly oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. rahall: i yield back to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richmond: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute and 30 seconds. mr. richmond: mr. chairman, also, what we included in here, which i think is very important in all -- and all of my colleagues should understand, when the corps right now would evaluate a farm, they would just look at rebuilding the farm house. as opposed to the fact that you have millions and millions or hundreds of acres that produce goods every day for the national -- for the nation. so we don't want the corps to just look at bricks and mortars

when, for example, you may have an interstate smack dab in the area that they're thinking about protecting and that interstate may be an evacuate route. it may be interstate 10, which goods and services come down. all we're saying is that the corps should use common sense when they do their cost-benefit analysis and not just look at bricks and mortgage arse because to do a true -- mortars because to do a true economic benefit or cost-benefit analysis, you need to get into the complexity of what the building would have to offer. we would say that our refineries, our port of south louisiana, port of new orleans are those types of things that you absolutely must protect and you have to factor in the fact they send billions and billions of dollars to the federal government every year in taxes. so we would not just lose bricks and mortars but the federal government would lose billions and billions of dollars, and we're saying to the corps of engineers they should take that into account when they do their cost-benefit

analysis. with that, mr. chairman, i'd urge my colleagues to vote yes for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i share the ranking member's reluctance to oppose this because of my two friends from louisiana have been formidable opponents on many occasions that i've come up on the short end. but in this case, i disagree respectfully with my colleagues that the corps does look at the national implications and there is no doubt that the gulf coast is the major producing region of energy in this country, so it should be -- it is in the corps' calculation when they're looking at hurricane damage to the gulf coast that what the impact it is to the nation. again, i reluctantly oppose this amendment at this time because i just don't believe this is something that -- to regionalize it is going to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. so with that i urge a no vote, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. richmond: mr. chairman, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. . the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-251. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: in support of the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in house report number 113-251 offered by mr. gardner of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 385, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i rise today in support of this amendment to the water resources reform and development act and i express my intention to withdraw this amendment at the end of my statement. this amendment authorizes the secretary acting through the chief of engineers to designate a team to serve as the office of water storage. the office is tasked with coordinating every agency involved in water storage permits, the e.p.a., the bureau of reclamation and the department of interior. once initial applications are submitted, the office must upon notification of the governor, approve or deny a permit within 365 days. the amendment does not circumvent environmental laws but merely sets a time frame for a decision to move forward and the congressional budget office stated that this amendment contains no direct spending. the amendment would seek to streamline infrastructure,

particularly in the western united states. economic development to agriculture, job creation is directly correlated to each individual's state's ability to store water. we cannot rest to meet the demands of both of our agricultural and municipal needs. in colorado alone by the queer 2050, we will need one million acre-feet of water to meet agriculture, industry and our growing cities. without that water, we will see a dry up of agricultural land and the destruction of our economy. to approve of these projects that have been tied up for decades, we need to rethink the government's role and redefine the various missions that the agencies are charged with in these permitting decisions. they have created bureaucratic red tape that prohibits building new reservoir and water storage systems and it will be a dry up

of agricultural land if we fail to move forward. the amendments puts control back in the hands of local water users, back in the hands of local governments, back in the hands of the governor of the state and away from the bureaucracy of washington d.c. and i would like to work with chairman shuster and appreciate his leadership and i would like to continue working on this with the chairman. mr. shuster: would the gentleman yield? i thank my good friend from colorado and i understand you have great passion for solving the water problems and saw what happened after the massive fires in colorado and the inability to stop the flooding from occurring because of the groundcover was swept away by those terrible fires and i understand the need for colorado in the future for having that water storage for economic development and making sure that agriculture remains an important part of the economy in

colorado. so, thanks for raising the issue and i'm committed to continue to work with you as we have in the past to try to address these water issues as we move forward. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman for his leadership. and with that, i withdraw my amendment and yield back. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings now will resume on those amendments privented in house report 113-251, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment number 2 by mr. defazio of oregon, amendment number 3 by mr. flores of texas, amendment number 6 by mr. hastings of florida and amendment number 16 by mr. richmond of louisiana.

the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the vote in the first series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-251 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report number 113-251 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 183, the nays are 236, he amendment is not agreed to. an we have order in the house? have order in the committee. all members asked to take their seats.

ll members take their seats. members are asked to clear the well. he committee will be in order. members will take their seats. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. >> i rise today in honor of 241 service members who were killed 30 years ago in the attacks by

hezbollah against the u.s. marine compound in beirut. mr. cook: i was not stationed in beirut during the attack. first batallion, eighth marines. until 9/11, this was the deadliest attack against americans in u.s. history and in many ways was the beginning of the war on terror that we are still fighting today. mr. speaker, i now ask my colleagues to rise and observe a moment of silence in honor of ,he sacrifice of 241 americans, 220 marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers who were lost 30 years ago today. the chair: will all members present please rise for a moment

of silence. mr. cook: thank you. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is request tore a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-251 by the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-251 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]