Made In America Manufacturing Act of 2013

Yes.

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.

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.

Madam President, I believe there is 2 minutes equally divided. Could I ask my friend if he wishes to make a statement.

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.

Before I turn to my colleague from Arkansas, I want to say that I support his amendment, and I believe he will be happy to have a voice vote. I hope that is OK with everyone. I think it is a very good amendment, and I ask him to explain it, if we could have order for him, please.

We yield back all of our time, and we ask for a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 866

Madam President, I support the Merkley amendment. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote on it, and I ask my colleague to take the remaining time.

I ask the Senator have 30 seconds more.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have a minute and a half.

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.

Amendment No. 909, as Modified

Madam President, the Senate is not in order. I believe this is our last amendment, and this is an important amendment to my friend. It is also important to many States. It would be nice if we could show the Senator some courtesy.

Madam President, if I could be heard on this amendment.

Madam President, I am supporting this amendment. It is important to the States that are affected, and there are several States that are affected. The fact is that we don't want to see the corps start a water war, and the Presiding Officer has discussed that with me. I am very grateful to her and Senator Hoeven for explaining this matter. The tribes were involved as well. We don't want to see them get in trouble. I think the corps has to respect the fact that there are these water rights in place.

I will be supporting this amendment.

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?

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.

That is my understanding. The additional uses authorized by WRDA 2013 are important for many parts of the country, including California, and are clearly an eligible use of the harbor maintenance trust fund.

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.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for raising this concern. He is correct that the language of section 3004 authorizes and directs the corps to conduct feasibility studies for the specific projects it identifies in the regional study.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for raising this concern. While section 3004 does state that the Secretary shall include project recommendations, it does not add funding, so such recommendations or feasibility studies would only be possible if monies are available after the regional study is complete.

The unique nature of the Great Lakes Navigation System is one of the reasons we do not include Great Lakes projects in the definition of high-use deep draft harbors and instead include the Great Lakes in a separate group for the prioritized funding.

Yes, that is correct. The funding could be used for any project in the Great Lakes Navigation System.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 15, 2013, be printed in the Record.

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.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) would vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mrs. Warren) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mrs. Warren) would vote ``yea.''

Madam President, today the Senate will pass a Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for the first time since 2007. I thank my colleagues, chairman Barbara Boxer and ranking member David Vitter of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for working together to move a bipartisan bill out of committee and to the floor.

I know it wasn't easy, and compromises were made. But water resources development bills are important to the commerce that moves by river and sea, to those communities and towns that rely on the Corps of Engineers to protect them from flooding and other storm damage, and to maintaining the precious natural resources that our rivers, streams, and wetlands represent.

We have an infrastructure problem in this country. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need $3.6 trillion investment in our failing infrastructure. I say failing not only because its literally crumbling but because the American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Infrastructure Report Card gave America's infrastructure a ``D-plus.'' But for our inland waterways, levees, and ports that grade is a ``D-minus.''

As an example, consider the locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. These two rivers are important economic arteries, transporting millions of tons of product each year. The locks and dams that allow barges to move these goods were built in the 1930s and 1940s.

They are aging, and the risk of failure grows by the day. Back in March, a

miter gate at the Marseilles Lock and Dam failed and was closed for 7 days. During that time, more than 50,000 tons of petroleum products came to a halt. That was a 7 day closure--can you imagine the economic impact of a catastrophic failure of one of these locks?

But we also must face reality that we passed this bill in a time of budget caps. This bill tries to update some of the funding mechanisms and processes we use to maintain and build locks dams, levees, and harbors.

With such great need and limited resources, my colleague Senator Mark Kirk and I introduced the Water Infrastructure Now Public Private Partnership Act, or WIN P3. I am pleased that the Senate-passed WRDA includes a major provision of our bill.

The provision adds a new element to a pilot program that allows for public private agreements between the Corps of Engineers and private entities. The pilot would allow the corps to expedite construction by bringing in private entities that have enough of a stake in completing infrastructure projects quickly that they could bring in private resources to help complete the work. The new language ensures that projects that have not received Federal funds would qualify for the program--projects like lock and dam modernization on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Currently those upgrades aren't projected to be complete until 2090. With this new program, I am hopeful new ways to fund and deliver big projects like these will be developed and help Illinois upgrade our water infrastructure more quickly.

This bill includes many provisions that could greatly benefit my home State of Illinois. It would keep up the fight against the spread of Asian carp. We must keep this invasive species from damaging the ecosystem of Lake Michigan.

The bill would also implement a National Levee Safety Program to establish safety standards and provide assistance to locals whose levees require rehabilitation. Many communities in Illinois find themselves in the difficult situation of having their levees decertified but without the funds to make the necessary repairs. I am hopeful that this bill could help at least some of them.

I am pleased that the bill addresses extreme weather. No matter why you think it is happening, it is clear that extreme weather events are becoming more severe and more frequent.

Consider the last year: The two costliest natural disasters in the world occurred in the United States--the Midwest drought and Hurricane Sandy, costing $100 billion. We can't ignore the reality that weather events like these are the new normal.

This bill would initiate studies by the National Academy of Sciences and GAO to evaluate how we respond to and mitigate extreme weather events. It would also give the corps greater authority to learn from and prepare for extreme weather events.

We have certainly seen our fair share of extreme weather in the Midwest and along the Mississippi River lately. Right now in Illinois and the Midwest, we are recovering from major floods. But it was only 5 months ago that the drought that sapped the Midwest caused record low water levels on the Mississippi--levels not seen since World War II.

I traveled to see it. The corps and Coast Guard took me out on an observation boat. When we got to the center of the channel, the corps commander said, ``Imagine water ten feet over your head right now, that's where the water levels should be.''

The water was so low it threatened to stop navigation on America's great commercial artery. Every few days barge operators and shippers were faced with the difficult question of whether there would be enough water for them to safely transit the Mississippi River. We are talking billions of dollars in goods from nearly every sector imaginable-- agriculture, energy, dry goods, bulk goods.

During the crisis, some recommended it could all be solved if we simply allowed more water to flow from the Missouri River into the Mississippi. Some even called on the President to declare a disaster and mandate the water be taken from the Missouri River.

I said, ``Let's hold on a minute, we are all in this together.'' What happens on the Missouri affects the Mississippi, and the commerce on the Mississippi clearly benefits the Missouri River States.

Instead of draining the Missouri River for the benefit of the Mississippi, we pushed the corps to expedite removal of rock pinnacles that obstructed navigation. With that, along with some needed rain and creative management by the corps, we were able to maintain navigation without doing any harm to the Missouri River.

In my view, that was a fair and responsible outcome. Equally fair and responsible, now that we are through the crisis, is doing everything we can to learn from what happened and work to ensure we are better prepared if it happens again.

I introduced legislation to do that--the Mississippi River Navigation Sustainment Act. I am pleased that legislation is part of the Senate- passed bill.

It will improve forecasting capabilities and technology on the Mississippi River, give the corps greater flexibility to operate outside of the navigation channel, and create an environmental management pilot program for the Middle Mississippi.

Also included from my bill is a provision that would create a greater Mississippi River Basin severe flooding and drought management study. It will for the first time look at the entire Mississippi River Basin, which covers 40 percent of the United States and is the third largest river basin in the world. The study will help us better understand how the basin functions as a system and how we can best manage it to maintain safe and reliable navigation and protect lives and property-- especially during times of extreme flooding and drought.

This provision was added to the bill as an amendment that I introduced with Senator Roy Blunt and others. That amendment was a compromise between Missouri River Senators and Mississippi River Senators.

I thank my colleagues, including Senator Baucus, for working with me to come up with acceptable language. With this agreement, hopefully we can start to get beyond the parochial wars of the past. It is clear those of us on the Missouri River and the Mississippi River have a new common enemy that isn't going anywhere soon extreme weather.

I am encouraged that the Senate has come together in a bipartisan way on this bill. I now hope the House will pass legislation that makes needed investments in the waterways that are so important to the flow of commerce and upholds the environmental protections that keep America's waterways healthy.

I thank Senator Klobuchar for adding that important point regarding the interconnected nature of the Great Lakes Navigation System. And thank you, Chairman Boxer, for working us to begin to improve the maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation System, which is critical to our economy and jobs and to our global competitiveness.

Madam President, Michigan is a water State. The State is surrounded by water on three of its sides. We depend on our vital water resources for drinking water and commerce. Water provides opportunities for recreation, rest, and reflection. Our waters define us. It has been 6 years since the last Water Resources Development Act was passed. This bill includes several provisions that will improve the management of Michigan's water resources, such as critical harbor maintenance, upgrades to drinking and wastewater systems, flood control projects, and restoration of aquatic resources, and I will support its passage.

This bill makes some progress toward improving the Great Lakes Navigation System, and I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee worked with us to address concerns with the reported bill. The bill would increase authorized appropriations for harbor maintenance, beginning with $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and increasing every year thereafter by $100 million through fiscal year 2019. In fiscal year 2020 and beyond, the bill would require that total budget resources for harbor maintenance equal the full amount of funds collected for that purpose. Currently, only about half of the funds collected from shippers for harbor maintenance are used for harbor maintenance. The harbor maintenance trust fund, into which the fees from shippers are collected, has a balance of over $7 billion.

Great Lakes harbors and channels are in great need of dredging. A backlog of dredging projects forces vessels to carry less than their capacity, threatens to close harbors and increases the risk of vessel groundings. These funds need to be used for harbor maintenance instead of for other purposes. I have been fighting to free these funds and worked with the EPW Committee to incorporate the text of the Harbor Maintenance Act of 2013, which I introduced earlier this year in February, into the committee-reported

bill. While the point of order enforcement language of my bill that would have required full funding immediately for harbor maintenance was not included in the final version, the compromise language that would phase in the increased funding still represents progress. The next step in the dredging battle will be to work with appropriators so that funding is provided at the authorized levels.

I am also pleased that the EPW Committee responded to my concerns regarding how harbor maintenance funding was prioritized. I had written a letter to EPW that was signed by 10 other Great Lakes Senators expressing our concerns, and EPW responded by including a provision in the bill that would prioritize 20 percent of harbor maintenance funds in excess of fiscal year 2012 levels for the Great Lakes. This setaside represents real progress, and I hope appropriators will provide funding in accordance with this directive in the bill.

I am also pleased that my amendment concerning other uses of the harbor maintenance trust fund was agreed to by the full Senate. That amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Stabenow, makes clear that the primary use of the harbor maintenance trust fund is for maintaining the constructed widths and depths of ports and harbors and that those functions should be given first consideration in the budgeting of harbor maintenance trust fund allocations. I fought for this language because the bill includes a new authorization for other uses of the trust fund, and I wanted to make sure that harbor maintenance, including that of the Great Lakes, has a higher claim for these funds than the other new uses.

In addition to the beneficial harbor maintenance provisions, the bill also includes a number of other provisions that could benefit Michigan. A new pilot program, called the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, is included in the bill, and it would increase options for financing our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure by providing loan guarantees and low interest loans with flexible repayment terms. WIFIA is a positive provision for Michigan and the Nation that will help to address the ongoing problems we face with aging and outdated infrastructure.

As Michigan and much of the Midwest recover from damaging flooding, I am pleased to see an authorization for the National Levee Safety Program and the establishment of a National Levee Safety Advisory Board. The board will provide technical assistance to States and tribes on levee safety and facilitate the development of levee safety programs through a Federal grant program. Levees are an essential part of our flood protection infrastructure. This provision will hopefully ensure our levees are constructed and maintained using sound science and the best available information.

The bill also includes a provision on dam safety that is critical to Michigan communities. The Dam Safety Program provides grant assistance to States for the training of dam safety staff and for the development of safety monitoring programs. This bill also helps us in the Asian carp fight. I worked with Senator Gillibrand to include a provision that would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes. That language is based on a provision I was able to get included in an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012, and including it in the WRDA bill would make the authority permanent.

I also want to mention the shadow that hangs over this legislation and all the other legislation before us. That shadow is sequestration, and until we lift that shadow, it will erode the good we seek to accomplish with this legislation and everything else we do.

The projects authorized in this bill will touch every State in our Nation, put Americans to work, help American companies sell their goods here and around the world, improve our navigation systems, and provide clean drinking water for our homes and businesses. But authorizing these projects is not enough. We also need to appropriate the money to execute these projects. And so long as sequestration remains in effect, so long as we continue to view our fiscal challenges as exclusively a matter of cutting budgets, so long as we ignore the desires of the American public and the realities of budget math and refuse to adopt a balanced approach to deficit reduction--so long as all that continues, those appropriations will be reduced. As a result, water projects will suffer, health and education programs will suffer, law enforcement, border security, food inspections and more will suffer. The Speaker of the House said not long ago, ``We can't cut our way to prosperity.'' He's right. We can't cut our way to clean water or operable harbors either. We need to keep that in mind as we consider budget solutions going forward.

Despite the challenge of sequestration and continued fiscal pressures, the bill before us represents progress for America's waterways and the people who depend on them and in particular for the precious waters of my State of Michigan. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Madam President, I would like to thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Murray for their support and resolve to work to address the issue of cargo diversion posed by the harbor maintenance tax.

The Water Resources Development Act that we are discussing here today is an important bill that works to ensure the economic success of our Nation's waterways. The language we were able to include in this bill is just the start of our effort to address the serious issue of cargo diversion and international competition. It gives deep-water ports the ability to more cost-effectively utilize the funds raised by the harbor maintenance tax to keep competitive with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

Over the past decade, we have seen increasing competition for the market share of U.S.-bound goods from ports beyond our border to the north and to the south. These diversions can be partially attributed to the added cost of paying the harbor maintenance tax at U.S. ports. In fact, among the top 25 North American ports, the fastest growing in 2012 were the Port of Prince Rupert in Canada and the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Instead of U.S.-bound cargo creating growth of U.S. ports, we are witnessing this cargo, previously shipped through our west coast ports, contributing to the growth of Canadian and Mexican ports. The loss of cargo shipments through American ports leads to decreased port activity and export capacity, and it

erodes the harbor maintenance trust fund, which means fewer direct and indirect American jobs supporting U.S. international commerce. More than 200,000 jobs are tied to the activities at the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and with nearly 27 percent of international container cargo potentially at risk of moving to Canada from west voast ports, this could result in significant job losses.

Cargo diversion is not my only concern with the harbor maintenance tax. I also am concerned by the poor utilization of the funds collected and the disparate distribution of the funds that are allocated. As of 2011, the balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund has built up to more than $6.4 billion. We should be investing this balance for its designed purpose of improving the ability of our ports to move goods. Furthermore, the harbor maintenance trust fund balance is rarely spent on operations and maintenance at west coast ports, where a significant amount of the tax revenue is generated. Our two largest ports in Washington Seattle and Tacoma generate, on average, close to 7 percent of the funding for the HMTF, but each received just over a penny for every dollar collected from shippers who pay the HMT in Seattle and Tacoma.

To remain competitive in an international marketplace, we need a long-term plan for how to grow and support infrastructure development and that must include reform of the harbor maintenance tax. Essential to remaining competitive is the ability of our ports to shorten the time it takes to get goods to consumers. This means we must invest in the infrastructure of our ports and freight corridors something that I have worked with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on to more quickly deliver the goods from our ports to the rest of the Nation. If we don't make these infrastructure investments, America will face major opportunity costs. We are seeing this already with the cargo diversion to Canada from the Pacific Northwest. But I must warn my colleagues that the competition is only increasing and will spread throughout the country with major ports planned or coming online in Canada and Mexico on both coasts, as well as the forthcoming expansion of the Panama Canal. Now is the time to address the harbor maintenance tax and reverse cargo diversion by reforming this tax and better utilizing the money it generates.

Today Chairman Baucus is proposing that we work together to address the competitive imbalances created by the harbor maintenance tax. While we acknowledge the work done to improve the spending out of the harbor maintenance trust fund collections in the Water Resources Development Act, we believe the efforts are just a starting point. Many of the underlying tax and trade issues cannot be addressed in this legislation. We believe it is important to clarify our intent to move on comprehensive reforms the harbor maintenance tax on the next available and appropriate legislative vehicle.

Madam President, as we consider S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, specifically amendment No. 903, I want to highlight critical emerging needs in our Nation's arctic.

The arctic is opening at an alarming rate, which creates a number of economic opportunities for the Nation. This accessibility also creates new requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy. Multiple bipartisan Presidential directives call for increased arctic presence to meet national security and homeland security needs; to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation; to protect maritime commerce; and to protect the environment as resource development increases.

With new shipping lanes and opportunities to obtain and transport natural resources, the arctic has become a new frontier. We need to have arctic infrastructure ready to accommodate this increase in commerce.

That is why I have worked closely with Senator Begich to fight for heavy-duty icebreakers and other arctic infrastructure. We need to make sure the Coast Guard acquires the tools they need to fulfill their missions in the arctic.

In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers is in the final phase of a study which assesses feasibility of deep draft ports in the arctic. The corps assessed over 3,000 miles of Alaskan coastline and identified a shortlist of two possible deep draft ports in Nome and Port Clarence.

The U.S. Department of the Interior released a report on emerging Federal management needs in the arctic in March 2013. The report, titled ``Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Environment,'' found that the U.S. arctic habitat encompasses St. Lawrence Island Northward, based on physical oceanography, seasonal sea ice, and other ecosystem characteristics. These northern seas are vastly different and require unique infrastructure compared to the majority of the Bering Sea, Alaska.

It is the intent of this bill that these arctic deep draft ports are present in the arctic. And while there has been some dispute on how the U.S. arctic is defined, both the Army Corps study and the Department of the Interior report indicate the importance of deep draft ports in close proximity to the Arctic Circle, 66 degrees North. This is where ports of refuge, natural resource shipping, oilspill response, commercial shipping, and other commercial opportunities require a deep draft port.

These key findings identify ports that must be prioritized when considering deep water draft port development in the arctic, where the Federal Government has a role including technical assistance outlined in amendment 903.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the Water Resources Development Act, the main vehicle for authorizing vital water projects developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for setting Army Corps water resource policies. Water resource and flood control projects spur economic growth and create jobs. They fortify communities against storms and floods. They maintain our water and waste water systems. They help maintain our favorite outdoor recreational destinations. And they can protect America's cherished and economically important--fish and wildlife.

Unfortunately, in Rhode Island and across the country, aging water infrastructure is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life, and funding available for upgrades is far outpaced by the need. This bill will increase the Army Corps' capacity to address the dismal state of our water infrastructure while improving the agency's operations.

I want to express my gratitude to our chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, as well as our ranking member, Senator Vitter, for their hard work in drafting a bill that addresses a number of national and regional priorities in a bipartisan fashion.

I particularly appreciate the inclusion of several provisions designed to clean up the process at the Army Corps, to clear the backlog of construction and maintenance projects, to improve transparency in developing and carrying out civil works projects, and to give local communities a better chance to understand what to expect.

According the Office of Management and Budget, ``The Corps' enormous backlog of ongoing civil works construction represents a significant source of unrealized economic and environmental benefits. . . . This growth trend in the construction backlog unfairly penalizes both taxpayers and project sponsors.''

The bill before us establishes an independent commission to work through an estimated $62 billion backlog of projects and sets a timetable for downsizing the corps' burdensome to-do list. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should appreciate the responsible use of corps resources and of taxpayer dollars.

This bill also makes the corps more responsive to communities and businesses, requiring the corps to make more information available to the public about projects under its Continuing Authorities Program, including available funding, cost estimates, and the criteria used to prioritize projects. States like mine and our communities and companies can't plan around water resource projects because they are so often left in the dark.

For example, Hope Global has manufactured textiles in Rhode Island since 1883. Today it makes fabrics that are

used in everything from cars to parachutes to construction. During the historic 2010 floods in our State that clobbered Hope Global, I literally entered the building through the shipping bay in a boat. Hope Global survived, thanks to the dedication and quick thinking of its CEO and employees, but the risk of future flooding along the Blackstone River looms over this business and many others in the area.

The corps has partnered with the State of Rhode Island to conduct a feasibility study for flooding mitigation on the Blackstone River. The State used its limited resources to fund the study, hoping to solve the flooding problems once and for all. Three years later, due to lack of transparency in the corps budget, we still don't know where this project stands. This bill will change that, so communities like those in my State can make informed decisions about their future.

Episodes like the 2010 floods and, more recently, Superstorm Sandy underscore the need to keep communities safe in the face of a changing climate. The Army Corps of Engineers helps communities prepare for extreme weather events and addresses flood control hazards. In many places, these twin objectives can be pursued through the restoration of natural ecosystems. This reauthorization places greater emphasis on natural defenses like the wetlands and dunes that have protected our coastlines for millennia.

Coastal and freshwater wetlands act like sponges during floods, absorbing water and dissipating the impact of wave energy and storm surge. Shoreline vegetation, natural dune formations, and barrier islands do the same. This draft recognizes the benefits of natural resiliency.

This bill also reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program, which is vitally important to my small State. Rhode Island has about 700 dams, some dating back to the colonial era. One hundred seventy-nine are rated a ``high'' or ``significant risk.'' Nationally, America's dams received a grade of ``D'' on the American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Report Card. The Society cited more than 4,000 deficient dams, including more than 2,000 that would result in loss of life if they failed. The Dam Safety Program helps States monitor for deteriorating dam conditions that put communities in danger.

This legislation is not without its detractors, but I think it is important to recognize that both sides have had to make compromises to get this bill to where it is today. That is the hallmark of our legislative process.

For example, this reauthorization contains new measures to ensure the timely completion of environmental impact studies and reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. While this has raised concerns from some, ensuring prompt environmental review of projects does not mean we are disregarding these reviews entirely. Comprehensive environmental review of federal projects remains critical to protecting the environment and public health from harm, and this bill includes provisions that will prevent harmful projects from being expedited.

WRDA supports projects that protect communities and their water resources. I would have preferred to leave NEPA requirements unaltered; however, I believe the compromise the chair and ranking member negotiated on this issue was worth the price of being able to implement long-overdue improvements to our nation's water resources infrastructure.

As we grapple with the mounting effects of a changing climate, our towns, our rivers and ports, our beaches and bays rely on the safety and efficiency of modern and resilient water infrastructure. The Water Resources Development Act of 2013 gives the Army Corps of Engineers and its public and private sector partners the tools to provide and maintain that infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this important, bipartisan legislation.