Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are 1,100 harbors that this would apply to across the United States. We have already discussed at great length the fact that the Corps has a $2.4 billion backlog of O&M under existing authority and, after today, a $74 billion backlog of authorized but unconstructed projects. I understand the gentleman's concerns, and he is being a great advocate for his home port; but I would direct a question to the gentleman if, perhaps, he can answer it: With 1,100 ports in America, how many other ports are in a similar situation? And what would the cost be to the Corps, which already has a $2.5 billion backlog in O&M? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advocacy of the gentlewoman. She has been incredibly persistent since she earmarked this project back in 2004 before the Republicans banned earmarks. Of course, then it was a $220 million project. Now it is an $810 million project. The Federal share has gone from $110 million to over $500 million, and included in the total cost are the basketball courts, the splash pool, and all that, but it is coming out of the local share. No, that is not the way this is supposed to work. If this is a Corps project, the only things which the Corps is authorized to do would be in the calculated total cost, and then a percentage of that goes to the local jurisdiction. In this case, they are counting the contributions of the local developers as part of the local cost share. So, essentially, it is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. I include in the Record a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers Union. September 27, 2016. Dear Representative: While less expensive and problematic than the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (S. 2848), we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Instead of much needed reform, this legislation piles billions of dollars in additional water projects on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plate. The legislation also makes policy changes that will be costly to taxpayers. The largest challenge facing the Corps of Engineers water resources program is the lack of a prioritization system for allocating the limited available tax dollars. The legislation directs the executive branch to better explain its budgeting decisions, but this should not serve as an abdication of congressional authority. Congress should develop the criteria and metrics to prioritize Corps projects in the three primary mission areas (navigation, flood/storm damage reduction, and environmental restoration). The executive branch should be required to allocate funds in the budget request in a transparent manner through merit, competitive, or formula systems developed by Congress. Lawmakers could then conduct oversight, hold the administration accountable, and adjust the systems, criteria, and metrics as needed. H.R. 5303 fails to include such a prioritization system. It does many other things, however. Between committee consideration and the floor, the bill grew by over $6 billion. A provision from the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 dedicating maintenance dredging funds to emerging ports is made permanent. It doesn't make sense to invest in a port that is continually ``emerging.'' It also extends set-asides for ``donor'' and ``energy'' ports without reforming the massive cross-subsidies in the existing maintenance dredging program. The legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project. Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303 the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Sincerely, Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense. Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concern. If I could, I would direct another question to the gentleman. Earlier the gentleman might have heard discussion about our collecting an ad valorem tax on the value of imported goods, which is about $1.6 billion a year; yet we are only spending somewhere between $1 billion and $1.1 billion a year. There is a theoretical balance in the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund of $9.8 billion, which would go a long way to resolving lots of these problems across the country. Does the gentleman support the idea of creating a real trust fund and actually spending the taxes that are collected for harbor maintenance on harbor maintenance and not having them be frittered away somewhere else in the government? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will just read briefly: ``The legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least, we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project.'' That is from Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers Union. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The last few speakers have made a great point--how critical this bill is--and they have listed projects that are important to their districts and the Nation. The gentleman from Alaska said we shouldn't quibble over details. Well, the bottom line is we have assessed a tax on all imported goods. That tax is collected every day. It is essentially a sales tax. It is added into the price of the goods that Americans buy. That tax comes in at about $1.6 billion a year; and yet Congress sees fit to spend somewhere around $1.1 billion a year, even though the Corps of Engineers has a $64 billion backlog. So I guess, at some point, 100 years from now--well, no, because things will keep deteriorating. I guess we will never catch up. So taking out the creation of the harbor maintenance trust fund, something I have been working on for 20 years--started with the previous chairman, Bud Shuster, and now Bill Shuster supports the concept--we keep hearing tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Tomorrow came. It came out of committee. But because some appropriators and the chair of the Budget Committee object to using the taxes collected from the American people for the only lawfully intended purpose and, instead, disappearing it into the maw of the Federal Government, it got stripped out of the bill--very, very unfortunate. That means these critical projects you are talking about are going to the back of a very, very, very long line. $64 billion today, pass the bill, another $10 billion, $74 billion tomorrow; and we will chip away at it, and very, very slowly if we continue to divert the trust funds. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Tennessee, and he does great work. In fact, he did great work in chairing a special committee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on improving the Nation's freight transportation system. One of the key recommendations in that report was: draw down the $7 billion balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund without adversely affecting appropriations for other programs, projects, and activities carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other authorized purposes. Well, it is a little dated because this is 2 years ago. So now there is $9.8 billion in the so-called harbor maintenance trust fund, which doesn't exist. There is no line item, no account at the Treasury. The money is poof, gone, unless we authorize the establishment of a trust fund and begin to better invest in our harbors. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this forward. We are one of the last refuges in the United States free of the zebra mussel, which is incredibly destructive and expensive. This will help us protect the integrity of our vital riverine resources. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this forward, and I fully support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier, and it will be mentioned again later, that there is no funding for Flint in this bill. Now, the simple answer would be, well, that is not jurisdictional, it is Energy and Commerce Committee. The Senate, by a near unanimous vote, put funding to help Flint and other cities which have serious health problems with their water systems with a partnership with the Federal Government like we used to do. Historically, in these bills, the committee has included water infrastructure projects. But during the committee consideration, Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas attempted to put in language that would help with Flint, and it was ruled to not be germane to the bill, although historically this is under section 219, Corps has authorization for projects such as this. Donna Edwards from Maryland brought forward an amendment again on clean water. The crisis in Flint is beyond belief. But there are many, many other systems around the country that are far from meeting Federal water quality standards, and many of these are communities that lack the resources themselves to deal with it. The Federal Government used to partner significantly on water and wastewater projects. The Federal Government has pretty much walked away from that responsibility. There is an amendment right now, right up there, over there in the powerful Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is meeting. It is a committee that enforces the rules or waives the rules, whatever they are in the mood to do. They could allow an amendment to this bill. They could be debating it right now that would provide some assistance to Flint and other communities. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has offered an amendment that is fully offset so it doesn't increase the budget deficit, and we will see how that comes out. But many on this side are reluctant to move forward. Last week, I was pleased to hear Speaker Ryan say that Flint should be taken care of in the Water Resources Development bill. The majority leader has said the same thing. The question is: Will they do that in the bill coming out of the House so that we don't have to be wondering whether or not it is going to come out of a conference committee? So that is yet to be seen. But I think a lot of votes on this side, in addition to the concerns I have raised earlier, are pending upon the resolution of whether or not funding for Flint is included in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I have got to say, we are not quite certain what it does. It seems to require the Corps of Engineers to take action for anything that relates to a Federal project which is a locally owned flood control. I have no idea what the implications of this are. So my staff called the Corps and said: How many projects do you think this would affect, and what do you think the impacts would be? The Corps of Engineers said they had no idea. I would like to address a question to the chairman. Mr. Chairman, since the Corps has no idea what this amendment does, what the financial implications are, since it would seem to give the Federal Government liability for all these local projects that are anywhere downstream or related to a Federal project, could the chairman explain to me what this amendment will do, since the Corps can't? I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, it is not a sense of Congress, as offered. It is actually--it is quite definitive language. ``Where Federally owned and operated levees increase flood risk and compromise the accreditation of community-owned. . . . it shall be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to act expeditiously with actions required to authorize, fund, identify, and implement improvements to reduce and negate negative impacts to community-owned flood protection system accreditation.'' It seems to me that it is pretty definitive with the ``shall'' part there. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, section 408 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to grant permission for the alteration of the Corps project if the Secretary determines that the proposed alteration would not harm the public interest or impair the usefulness of the project. I think it is good that we know that proposed modifications do not impair the usefulness of the project or harm the public interest. Now, I share some of the concerns the gentleman has raised. The Corps is woefully slow in going through these approvals. I have one pending in my own district; and, basically, they say there is not enough money in our budget, which was discussed rather exhaustively at the beginning here. We could help the Corps out if we had a real harbor maintenance trust fund and if we were using the taxpayers' dollars for the purposes for which they were intended, which would take the pressure off of all parts of the Corps' budget. The Corps does have authority to accept-- and I would hope the Corps would be listening to this--local contributions to speed up, with contractors or others or over time with their own employees, 408 projects. They have been loath to use that authority. They should use it. I am not certain of the implications of this amendment as to whether it truly does protect the integrity of some of these critical projects, so that causes me concern. I think that this is worthy of attention, but in its current form, I am not quite certain of the impact. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, well then, you know, given that, I mean, we have had myriad debates on the floor of the House and in the committee over the years from those who come in and say: gee, we can do it a lot cheaper if we pay minimum wage; we can do it a lot cheaper if we bring in illegal immigrants; you know, on and on and on. Sure, you can do things more cheaply, but the idea and the bedrock of Davis-Bacon is we pay skilled workers a living wage that is the prevailing wage in the local area. The committee has never passed an amendment gutting Davis-Bacon, despite many attempts on the committee. I feel that this would, unfortunately--the way the gentleman has just phrased it, says it is silent on the issue--undermine Davis-Bacon, and, therefore, I would oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. To just get back to the core of this, other than that, it is a pretty good bill. It is critical that we maintain our ports and our infrastructure, and it is critical for our competition--the world economy; but we need to stop hoodwinking the American people. If you are not going to spend the tax for the purpose for which it was collected--harbor maintenance and construction--then lower the tax, because every American is paying a little bit more for every imported good. Besides that, they are paying a lot more because the ships are way out to sea, in line, because they can't access our ports, again, because of deferred maintenance at portside facilities. We have got that money. We are collecting the tax. Let's spend the tax in the way in which it is authorized under the law of the United States of America, and let's stop playing games.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks one of the greatest disappointments. This bill did come out of committee unanimously--bipartisan--in a very fiscally responsible manner, which is that we levy a tax on all goods that are imported into this country. Every American pays a little bit more for any imported good he buys under the premise that that money will be used to maintain and construct our harbors and critical port facilities. Unfortunately, every year, the Republicans have seen fit to divert $400 million to $500 million of that tax into something else. They spend it somewhere else. They pretend they are reducing the deficit-- whatever. We do not know. Meanwhile, our harbors are silting in; our jetties are failing; and many major projects are delayed. In fact, we are going to authorize a bunch of new projects here--billions of dollars worth of projects. Unfortunately, the Corps already has authorized--but yet has unconstructed and unfunded--$68 billion worth. They are saying we can't use the tax dollars--that we can't use the dollars which Americans are paying a little bit more of for all of their imported goods--for the purpose for which the law was intended: dredging our harbors. Here are just two examples. We have Savannah--a major project. We have to deal with the post- Panamax ship. Unfortunately, we are going to have a $15 million-a-year deficit in terms of maintaining that project once it is constructed. We also have the Port of Charleston--$5 million a year short. Now, if that $400 million were not being diverted by the Republican majority to other purposes, those projects and others around the country could be fully funded. I have been working on this provision for 20 years, starting with Bud Shuster, the dad of the current chair of the committee. It came out of committee unanimously with support on the Republican and Democratic sides; yet the Rules Committee stripped it out. They stripped it out because they want to keep playing with that money and diverting it away from critical needs. Then one other thing. We are talking about critical infrastructure and the huge backlog. There is an earmark in this. Earmarks are banned. Technically, they kind of get around that. There is a $520 million earmark for a project that has had no cost-benefit analysis, that has not been approved by the Corps of Engineers but that, in fact, will include such critical infrastructure as a splash park, a swimming pool, ball fields, et cetera. Harbor maintenance tax dollars will be spent on these projects in a $520 million boondoggle that has never had a cost- benefit analysis because one member of the Appropriations Committee managed to slip it into an appropriations bill years ago. Then, with a little sleight of hand, he said: ``Oh, well. Yeah. It was never authorized, never evaluated; but if we tweak it a little bit and say, `Well, we are modifying it,' then we can say, `Oh, it is okay.''' This is not exactly on the up-and-up here today, folks. We are diverting precious tax dollars away from critical infrastructure to whatever kind of special things the Republicans have somewhere else that they want to fund, and we are funding boondoggles and earmarks to the tune of a half a billion dollars.