Water Resources Development Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. I would answer my friend in this way. This is a new commission. We set it up in the bill. It has never worked before. We do not know how it will work. So we thought, for starters, let's go after the older projects, see how it works, and any day we could come back and add more authority. But we think, if there are active projects, it sends a very confusing signal to the folks back home.

We think this is the way to start it. It is smart. We have never had this commission before. I am very proud that we have it in here. I know my colleague supports the commission. He is already wanting to expand it. But I think we start this way, and then if it looks like we can give them more authority, we can. By the way, any day of the week Congress could deauthorize as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I very much respect my friend. I know his intention is the best. But I do have to say there is not one earmark in this bill. He should be so proud of both sides of the aisle in this committee--not one earmark--and we do not tell the commission what they can and cannot do. But we do set some parameters because we do believe, as we start this deauthorization commission, it ought to go after the older projects. But projects that are active, let them get a chance to move forward. There are no earmarks in this bill. I kind of resent it, in a nice way. I am not angry about it. But, believe me, there is no intention to protect earmarks here at all.

So I hope we will vote no. I think we are starting something new, something good. It is a huge reform. We have a deauthorization commission, but let's start them with the older projects. Let's track it. If we feel we should move forward with more reform, I am certainly open to it.

I yield the floor and hope for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote. Colleagues, please hear me out. This amendment would expand the authority of a newly created infrastructure deauthorization commission and allow projects in your State to be stopped midstream--active projects, projects that have local funds flowing into them and private funds flowing into them. This is a bridge too far.

I am very proud of the work Senator Vitter and I have done in setting up this commission. We have very clear rules about what the commission could look at, and we protect projects that are active. We say to them: Go after the inactive projects, stop them, and save taxpayer dollars.

Please, let's have a good ``no'' vote on this one.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my colleague for not offering his amendment. He and I see this very differently. But first I wish to say I have committed to a hearing. I told my colleague he can get as much time as he wants, but I have to correct the record.

My colleague said this project delivery reform was a last minute addition. Project delivery reform was in the bill as it was voted out of committee, without a dissenting vote.

Let me reiterate: This is not a last minute issue. Project delivery reform was in the bill when it got voted out. Here is why--two reasons. One is projects are being delayed--environmental projects, flood control projects; they are being delayed. Some delay is necessary--when there is new information--and they could still have a delay.

What we do in this bill--and it has been changed for the better, I think my colleague is right on that--is we sunset the provision in 10 years.

For the first time in history, the resource agencies my friend and I care so much about, such as Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and all the rest, will be in the room with the corps setting the deadlines. It is very important that we get our job done. Bureaucratic agencies have to get the work done as well.

I think this reform is one we will be proud of, and I look forward to those hearings.

I thank my colleague. We will get on with this and make sure this reform works the way we anticipate it will.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to address one of the provisions of this bill relating to water supply. Section 2015, which originally had a much broader impact, now expresses the sense of the committee related to a particular dispute between States, and expresses a concern on the part of members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding the ongoing interstate water disputes among the States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. I would like to yield to the Committee's Ranking Republican, Senator Vitter, for his remarks about this provision, but I would note that it is the strong desire of the Committee that this dispute be resolved amicably through water compacts that ensure the availability of water to meet all necessary human and environmental needs. Senator Vitter, can you elaborate on the intent of Section 2015?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs BOXER. I thank the Senator. That's correct. And as this new language clearly states, ``this subsection does not alter existing rights or obligations under law.'' So to reiterate, it is not the intention of Section 2015 to alter the Corps' existing legal authority to reallocate storage, to express any view on whether current or projected future levels of storage for water supply exceed the Corps' existing legal authority, or to prohibit or interfere with the Corps' ongoing efforts to update its water control plans and manuals for the ACF and ACT Basins. Further, it is not the intention to preclude the Corps from taking action consistent with its existing legal authority to study and implement reallocations of reservoir storage to meet municipal and industrial water supply needs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the Senator from New York raising this issue. I also know that my good friend from New York and I agree on the need to enhance the resiliency of the east coast in the wake of the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy. Section 3004 states that, with respect to the corps study for flood and storm damage reduction which was authorized by the Sandy relief bill, the Secretary shall include specific project recommendations. The bill also includes a new provision to prioritize hurricane protection studies, section 2044, that would give the Secretary the authority to quickly move feasibility studies developed through the comprehensive hurricane study.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if I could be heard for less than a minute, I would like to thank every single Senator here. I think we have literally worked with every one of the Senators on this bill.

Senator Vitter and I have our differences in a number of areas, but when it comes to the infrastructure of our country, we worked very well together, as I did with Senator Inhofe.

The committee voted this bill out unanimously, and we made it better on this floor. Senators came to us with amendments that made this a better bill.

Also, I have to praise our staffs. They are unbelievable. I am not going to name names now, but later I will put them in the Record. Senator Vitter's and my chief of staff, as well as their teams, worked seamlessly in the most wonderful and cooperative fashion.

I want everyone to know that this bill is about 500,000 jobs, thousands of businesses, critical flood control, environmental restoration projects, harbor maintenance, inland waterways, and we have adopted dozens and dozens of amendments.

We are very excited about this vote. We hope everyone will vote yea. It would be a wonderful signal to the House so they can get on with this work as well.

I yield to my friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source