Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3080) to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The committee supports the National Dam Safety Program. In fact, I commend the gentleman from New York in his freshman term to be working on the Dam Act because, as a freshman several years ago--12 years ago-- my first piece of legislation that I authored was the dam bill.

Again, this is a critical program. It saves lives, it protects communities, and that is why we included language in H.R. 3080--to improve the Dam Safety program. There are minor differences between the House and the Senate language. We look forward to working on reconciling those differences as the legislation moves forward; and while we expect we will continue to have some negotiations with the Senate on this issue, I am not opposed to the motion to instruct on this provision.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire, does the gentleman have other speakers?

Madam Speaker, again, we expect to continue to work with the Senate on this language. It is a critical program. It saves lives and protects communities. So again, we accept the motion to instruct.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3080.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will submit for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Budget, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud today that we are considering one of my highest priorities as the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, or WRRDA.

WRRDA is the most policy- and reform-focused legislation of its kind in the last two decades. The new name reflects the landmark reforms. We have added an ``R,'' for Water Resources Reform and Development Act, because of the number of reforms that we have in here. It is the most fiscally responsible WRRDA in history, and there are no earmarks. It does not cede our constitutional congressional authority to the executive branch. We made sure that we maintained that. We have worked together in a bipartisan way on this bill since day one, developing this bill with input from Members and stakeholders through listening sessions, roundtables and hearings.

I want to thank my partners and original cosponsors, Ranking Member Rahall, Water Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs, and also Water Subcommittee Ranking Member Tim Bishop, for their work on this piece of legislation.

I want to thank all of the members of the committee and all of the staff members for their hard work and desire to work together on this important infrastructure and reform legislation.

I am also proud that WRRDA has received more than 70 letters of support from stakeholders, a list of which I will submit for the Record.

This bill was passed out of committee on September 19 on a voice vote. It is about strengthening our infrastructure so that we can remain competitive.

It is about economic growth. It is about trade. It is about jobs, not just the jobs that will be created when we are dredging ports and rebuilding locks and dams, but the jobs that will help our manufacturers when they manufacture their products and send them into the world markets, making sure they get there in a competitive way. Also, making sure that those products coming into our ports and harbors are getting onto the shelves of our local stores, allowing the consumers to buy these products at a lower cost, allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned dollars.

Congress has not enacted a WRRDA since 2007 and we can't afford to delay. Without improvement, our water transportation system becomes obsolete every day and we become less competitive. If we cannot compete, we lose jobs to those who can.

Our bill cuts red tape, reforms the bureaucracy, accelerates project delivery. It sets hard deadlines on the time and cost of studies. It also consolidates or eliminates unnecessary studies and requires concurrent reviews. And our bill streamlines environmental reviews. I want to repeat, it streamlines them; doesn't eliminate them, but streamlines them.

Our bill is also fiscally responsible. This WRRDA bill deauthorizes $12 billion of old, inactive projects that were authorized prior to this current law and fully offsets new authorizations. In addition, it sunsets new authorizations to prevent future backlogs at the Corps of Engineers.

This WRRDA has no earmarks. Our bill establishes a new, transparent process for future bills to review and prioritize water resources development activities, with strong constitutional oversight and without handing over our constitutional authority to the executive branch. I want to repeat that. I think it is very important that this body, that Congress, holds on to its constitutional authority and not give it over to the executive branch, as we have done for decades.

We have been recognized by leading outside watchdog groups for having a bill with no earmarks and for keeping congressional oversight without ceding that authority to the Corps. I am extremely proud of the accomplishments, and we should all be.

WRRDA breaks down barriers that hold back the development of our water resources infrastructure. It maximizes the ability of non-Federal interests to contribute their own funds to move studies and projects forward. It also expands the ability of non-Federal interests to contribute funds to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits, and it establishes a public-private partnership program in water infrastructure. With the leadership of Rodney Davis, that is in this WRRDA legislation.

This bill improves our ability to compete by authorizing needed investments in America's ports. As I mentioned, this is a jobs bill, not just construction jobs to improve our ports, but to help our manufacturers and to help Americans be able to keep more of their hard- earned dollars.

Our bill supports our underserved and emerging ports to also help them become more competitive. It reforms and preserves the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund to better ensure those fees collected from users for these systems are utilized for their intended purposes.

These are all important and necessary reforms, but at its heart WRRDA ensures that we don't lose sight of the importance of strong infrastructure and keeping us competitive in the world. Our bill supports our water transportation network to make sure that it provides the foundation for job growth and fosters a more robust economy.

I ask all Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, to join me in supporting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 27, 2013.

Hon. Bill Shuster,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Shuster, I am writing concerning H.R. 3080,

the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013

(WRRDA), which was marked-up by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013.

In order to expedite House consideration of H.R. 3080, the

Committee on the Budget will forgo action on the bill. This

is being done with the understanding that it does not in any

way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment

of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 3080, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Paul Ryan,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, someone who has great responsibility in crafting this legislation.

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), vice chairman of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and also the chair of the 21st Century Freight Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina, Governor Sanford.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 30 seconds to the majority leader of the House, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the whip for his kind words.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I would like to engage in a colloquy, but first, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I reserve my answer until I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) for a colloquy.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman, and all of my colleagues. At this point I would like to respond to them, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the key principles in developing WRRDA was increasing transparency, accountability and congressional oversight without ceding constitutional congressional responsibility to the executive branch.

WRRDA authorizes 23 vital water resources projects that have completed the technical review by the Corps of Engineers and have been recommended by the Corps of Engineers.

The committee held a full committee hearing to review all the pending Chief's Reports on June 5, 2013. My position has been clear. In order to maintain our constitutional congressional authority, Congress must review the Chief's Reports and specifically authorize them. We cannot hand over our authority to the administration and the Corps of Engineers to self-authorize.

Chief's Reports have been finalized on the three reports that the gentleman has questioned and will be reviewed and considered by the committee as we continue to work through WRRDA.

To provide strong congressional oversight, I commit to holding a hearing at the appropriate time in the process so that the very important issues are fully considered and have the opportunity to be addressed.

With that, I thank the gentlemen for engaging in colloquy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the distinguished Policy Committee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on it. I agree with him. We need to move forward to get these properties off the Corps' books, so we will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure we expedite this and make sure the Corps is eliminating things that are not important to their mission.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico and am committed to work with him.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I thank the Chair, and I yield myself the remaining time.

I also thank members from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Bishop of New York, and their staff for all their hard work and for working together to produce a bipartisan bill, a bill that is full of policy, full of reform, a bill that is fiscally responsible and, I must say, is the most fiscally responsible WRRDA in the history of WRRDA. There are no earmarks, but we made sure that we did not cede any of our constitutional congressional authority to the executive branch, which I believe is very important for this body and for the Congress.

As I have said, we have worked together in a bipartisan fashion in talking to the stakeholders at roundtables and in hearings and coming up with a piece of legislation, and I am very proud we have it on the floor today.

Again, our thanks to Ranking Member Rahall, Ranking Member Bishop, and the entire staff on the minority for working with us so closely.

Also, I would like to thank our staff for the long hours that they have put in, and my counterpart, Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs, for his efforts and his staff member Joe Price who worked so hard and also John Anderson, Geoff Bowman, Jonathan Pawlow, and Tracy Zea from the Water Resources Subcommittee.

And in the front office, starting with the leadership of Chris Bertram, the staff director, and a special thanks to the deputy staff director and my long-time staff member Steve Martinko for ramrodding this through the committee--I appreciate his support--Beth Spivey, Matt Sturges, Jim Tymon, Jennifer Hall, Clare Doherty, Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode, Michael Marinaccio, Caryn Moore, Denny Wirtz, and Keith Hall. All of these folks put in so many hours to make sure that we have on the floor here today a very good product, one that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of H.R. 3080.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3080 was drafted in a bipartisan fashion. Our environmental streamlining provision in section 103 is a result of compromise.

We have heard from many Members who are supportive of our provisions to implement what is commonly called the ``three by three by three process.'' However, in order for the Corps to have the flexibility to fit within the timeframes laid in section 101 of H.R. 3080, accelerating the environmental review process in section 103 of the bill is critical.

The amendment seeks to undermine all environmental streamlining provisions in WRRDA. Regardless of the existence of backlog, streamlining environmental reviews is an essential reform, and I believe will help to reduce backlogs.

Additionally, reforms in WRRDA provide opportunities for non-Federal interests and other 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 I reserve the balance of my time.

Is the gentleman from Oregon prepared to close?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to control.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeFazio amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 385, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4 in House Report 113-251 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendments en bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and the minority. These Members put forth thoughtful amendments, and I am pleased to be able to support moving them all en bloc.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask my colleagues to support the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from Alaska's amendment.

The Corps of Engineers, like all Federal agencies, is required to follow acquisition and procurement laws. Much of the work of the Corps is in fact contracted out to private sector entities, including much of the hydrographic mapping, which is integral to construction and operation and maintenance.

While I understand and empathize with the sponsor of the amendment, it appears to me to be more of an acquisition and procurement issue. What we do not want is to have one acquisition and procurement law for the Federal Government, and a new or special or additional acquisition or procurement law for the Corps of Engineers.

So again, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from Alaska's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, typically the Corps of Engineers carries out studies and projects that are cost-shared with non-Federal sponsors.

Sand transfer facilities that are associated with beach nourishment projects are traditionally a non-Federal responsibility. This amendment would require the Corps of Engineers to assume the operation and maintenance costs 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 non-Federal 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 restraints the Corps is already under, so I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan wanting to be fiscally responsible. That is what we tried to do in this bill.

All of the new authorizations in WRRDA were more than fully offset by deauthorizations, and WRRDA seeks to deauthorize its old, inactive projects which have not begun construction or have not received any funds, Federal or non-Federal, in the last 5 years. This approach cuts waste and reduces the backlog of projects that are unlikely to move forward.

Such a significant increase in the deauthorization target could have unforeseen consequences, and I believe it would effectively deauthorize viable projects--projects that are almost ready to go, projects that have non-Federal money committed to them--and impact the ability to move these forward, these important water resources and infrastructure improvements that are ready to move that have non-Federal dollars in place.

We also put in this bill a sunset law, that if any new authorizations do not move in 7 years, they will automatically be deauthorized. It will continue to push down on that backlog. I certainly would be open in the next WRRDA bill for additional deauthorizations to make sure we continue to reduce that backlog.

I reluctantly urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I thank you for raising this issue.

We will be happy to try to work with you as we go through conference to look into what you are talking about and making sure we do what is right for the country in moving forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for the gentlelady from New York and agree with her that our ports, our inland waterway system are in bad shape. But we are in times that are fiscally restrained, and we have got to try to do our best to move these forward under these fiscal restraints, and that is what we think we are 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. In H.R. 3080, we intended to continue 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.

Finally, this amendment requires the designation of a 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. To someone from Los Angeles and New York City, that seems like a good idea.

Those of us from the interior of the country and rural parts of the country have concerns that this would leave a gaping hole in the freight transportation system. If you are from Coos Bay, 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 from New York is trying to do.

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

I thank the gentlelady for pointing that out; but I would also point out that it was the chairman of the Senate Committee who I believe put that provision in there. So in that case, once again, she was the goose and I was the gander. I may have not agreed, but we were in a conference committee on that.

But again, I am very, very concerned about giving away more and more authority to the executive branch; and again, that is 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 have done far too much of that already.

But, again, I respect the gentlelady from New York and what she is attempting to do. But at this point I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what both gentlemen from Louisiana are 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 of Engineers review many factors to determine whether a project is economically justified. In other words, in order for the Corps of Engineers to carry a flood damage reduction project, the economic benefits have to outweigh the cost of constructing a 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, it is extremely important to the Nation; the Port of Newark, New Jersey, extremely important to the Nation.

But in this amendment, what it will take is it will reduce it down to the regional impact to the economy and, again, that is what is important, that the Corps continues to look at a national perspective on how those projects impact nationally, not just regionally.

So I reluctantly, at this point, urge all Members to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I share the ranking member's reluctance to oppose this because my two friends from Louisiana have been formidable opponents on many occasions that I have 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; and it is in the Corps' calculation when they are looking at hurricane damage to the gulf coast, what the impact is to the Nation.

So, 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 whole.

So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Colorado for yielding.

I understand your great passion for solving the water problems. We saw what has happened after the massive fires in Colorado and the inability to stop the flooding from occurring because the ground cover was stripped away by those terrible fires, and I understand the need for Colorado, in the future, having that water storage for your economic development to ensure that agriculture remains an important part of the economy in Colorado.

So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue. I am committed to continuing to work with you, as we have in the past, to try to address these water issues as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Day of the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan. National Day commemorates the beginning of the Wuchang Uprising in 1911, which led to the establishment of Taiwan.

Taiwan has been a friend of the United States and a shining example of democracy in the Asian-Pacific Region. They share our values and respect for human rights, freedom, and a market-based economy. Taiwan is a key trading partner and trusted ally. The relationship between our two countries continues to grow along with the cultural and economic benefits it creates.

I am pleased to recognize Taiwan's National Day and voice my support for our nations' continued friendship.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama will negotiate with the Russians, talk to the Iranians; but he won't come to Capitol Hill and work with the duly elected representatives of the American people.

Harry Reid refuses to work with House Republicans to end the government shutdown and level the playing field for Americans.

The House has made numerous attempts to delay ObamaCare for the American people, just like the President has for businesses.

We also want fairness for all and have voted to strip out Federal contributions for Members, staff, the President's Cabinet, and political appointees. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn't care about providing fairness for hardworking American families.

It's time for the Senate and the President to engage in the process and fight for commonsense solutions for the American people. The government shutdown will only be temporary, but ObamaCare is going to have long-term consequences that will hurt our economy.

I urge the Senate and the President to come to the table, work with the House Republicans, end the shutdown, and provide fairness for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 485, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 484, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 307, I was inadvertantly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 318, I inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to echo what the gentleman from Washington said. This is an extremely important program to small business that operates in the defense industrial base. We are making it more and more difficult for them to operate. This fund, the Rapid Innovation Fund, is just the solution to keeping them involved in the innovation and coming out with new products, faster products. So in the long run, this is going to save money. It is going to have new products the warfighters need. This fund has been very important to them.

Mr. Larsen and I chaired a panel on this, a panel on business challenges in the defense industry. We traveled the country listening to small businesses. This was what they asked for. It was so important to the development of their products. In fact, when we started this, we had Secretary Rumsfeld come before the committee and say, when I asked him, What would you recommend to businesses doing business with the Department of Defense? And he said, I recommend they don't do business. It's so difficult. In fact, he said, It's like sleeping with a hippopotamus. Eventually, it's going to roll over and crush you, and it will never know that it did it.

This is extremely important to the small business community to keep them engaged. The big defense contractors need the small folks there developing and innovating.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coffman amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 95th anniversary of Republic Day on May 28th.

Azerbaijan and the United States have developed a robust and growing relationship over the last two decades. I am extremely proud that we have established what Secretary Clinton has called ``deep, important, and durable bonds between the United States and Azerbaijan.''

Although located in a geopolitically tough location between Russia and Iran, Azerbaijan has consistently looked to the United States as an ally despite these difficult neighbors. A secular country with a predominantly Muslim population, Azerbaijan has also been home to vibrant Christian and Jewish communities representing a role model for peaceful coexistence and harmony of different religions and ethnic groups.

Azerbaijan was also the first country to open Caspian energy resources to development by U.S. and European companies and has emerged as a key player for global energy security. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project, supported by successive U.S. Administrations, is the most successful project contributing to the development of the South Caucuses region. Realization of the Trans Anatolian Pipeline (TANAP) Project between

Azerbaijan and Turkey will immensely contribute to energy security in Europe by exporting Azerbaijani natural gas to the European markets.

On a security front, Azerbaijan has been a key ally in a post 9 /11 era, emerging as one of the first countries to offer strong support and assistance to the United States. Actively participating in joint operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Azerbaijan has also extended important overflight clearances for U.S. and NATO flights and provided key supply routes to Afghanistan by making available its ground and Caspian naval transportation facilities. The transit route through Azerbaijan accounts for roughly 40 percent of the Coalition supplies bound for Afghanistan.

As the Co-Chairman of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, it is my distinct pleasure to honor the Republic of Azerbaijan in celebration of the 95th anniversary of Republic Day and to recognize the valuable bilateral relationship between the United States and Azerbaijan. I also encourage my colleagues who are interested in supporting Azerbaijan to join me as a member of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus, a bipartisan group of more than 40 Members of Congress working to help foster the growing partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan and to advance U.S. interests in this pivotal region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, which allows construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. I'm happy to say it passed out of full committee in Transportation and Infrastructure on May 16 with a bipartisan vote of 33 to 24.

My good friend from California is right: When is enough time enough?

My good friend from West Virginia asked: What gives us the right? What gives us the right is the Constitution.

The House of Representatives, the Senate, the legislative body, to pass laws, to move things forward, 5 years is way too long. We need to develop the energy in America. We need to bring energy from our good friends from Canada. This all adds to the regulatory burden that this administration has put on us.

This pipeline is the lifeline that powers nearly all of our daily activities.

The hallmark of America's 2.5 million-mile pipeline network continues to be that it delivers extraordinary volumes of product reliably, safely, efficiently, and economically. Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective means to transport the products that fuel our economy. In fact, pipelines provide more than two-thirds of the energy used in the United States. The Keystone XL project will be a critical addition to this extensive network, increasing our Nation's supply of oil, and thus helping to reduce the cost of fuel used in the transportation sector.

H.R. 3 is a commonsense bill that allows construction, maintenance, and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward. The pipeline has been subject to extensive environmental reviews already conducted. In fact, it is the most studied pipeline in the history of America.

The bill would require no Presidential permit process for the approval of the pipeline, and therefore avoids further political delays of this project.

Of particular interest to taxpayers, this pipeline doesn't require one Federal dollar.

Further, the very nature of infrastructure creates jobs, and the Keystone is no exception. In fact, the U.S. State Department estimates that Keystone XL will produce 42,000 jobs--jobs that will not be created unless this project goes forward.

This project will have a significant positive economic impact, including an estimated $3.3 billion in direct expenditures for construction and materials and $2.1 billion in earnings.

Finally, as noted throughout the process, the Keystone XL will be the safest pipeline ever constructed. Let me repeat that: the safest pipeline ever constructed. It should be approved without further delay.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this pipeline to help secure America's energy independence.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I do rise in opposition to the amendment.

My good friend from Virginia, I understand his need to make sure that our pipelines are safe, but this amendment is redundant of existing Transportation Security Administration guidelines. It's unnecessary and simply attempts to further delay the project.

TSA guidelines bring a risk-based approach to the application of the security measures throughout the pipeline industry. As stated in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, DHS assesses risk as a function of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences. With this in mind, the most effective security programs employ a risk management process that facilitates protective planning and decisionmaking to mitigate the risk for pipeline assets.

The operator's risk assessment methodology is subject to review by the TSA. Therefore, risk and vulnerability to pipelines are already covered under current guidelines. There is no need to specifically single out this pipeline for further study.

Clearly, this is intended to delay the Keystone pipeline from being built, so I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Oregon is right about this committee building infrastructure, but there is nothing more important right now than making sure our pipelines are in place to bring the energy safely to millions of Americans, and efficiently to millions of Americans. This is a core of what this committee does. That's why we have primary jurisdiction. That's why we're here debating this issue today.

This bill simply takes back congressional authority--constitutional congressional authority--for us to be able to pass legislation to move things forward, and in this case to move this pipeline forward. This permit as processed will set up an executive order taking away congressional authority. So I am very, very proud and pleased to stand here today and to urge my colleagues to take a vote today to take back part of our constitutional congressional authority, move this pipeline forward, creating jobs, giving us more energy security in the world.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Once again, this amendment does nothing more than to delay or gut the bill. It is correct what the gentlelady from Connecticut says in that this amendment does not impact the construction at all--and it does not. Yet, as the gentleman from California pointed out, the analogy here is, if you build a house, this amendment would say you can't live in the house, that you can't operate in the house. Again, this amendment does nothing more than gut the bill. It's a delay tactic.

As I said earlier, this bill allows Congress the ability to regain its constitutional authority. Congress has the express authority under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution ``to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.''

So this bill does that. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 982) to prohibit the Corps of Engineers from taking certain actions to establish a restricted area prohibiting public access to waters downstream of a dam, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend and include extraneous materials on S. 982.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

S. 982, the Freedom to Fish Act, would prohibit the Corps of Engineers from restricting public access in the vicinity of the 10 dams on the Cumberland River in Kentucky and Tennessee. This bill, this legislation, was introduced in the Senate by the leader, Senator McConnell, and also by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and our own in- House version authored by our colleague, Ed Whitfield from Kentucky.

The bill provides for a 2-year moratorium to give the public, the two States, and the Corps of Engineers more time to carefully review conditions at these facilities, and to deal with the immediate threat to fishing, tourism, and the economy.

I applaud our leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today. This is an excellent example of Congress exercising our constitutional authority to oversee Federal agencies. Far too often, the executive branch and the Federal bureaucracy operate without input and guidance from Congress. My colleagues on the floor of this House every day criticize rules, regulations, and actions by unelected bureaucrats that hurt our districts, our constituents, and our economy. Congress has the right, the constitutional duty, to oversee Federal agencies and provide them with clear guidance and direction.

As chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, problems with the Army Corps of Engineers are frequently brought to my attention by my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. I am pleased to work whenever possible to address these issues with clear guidance from Congress.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the author of the House version of this bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it's now a great pleasure for me to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Frog Jump, Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, once again, I just want to applaud our leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today. As I said earlier, this is an excellent opportunity, excellent example for Congress to exercise our constitutional authority over these Federal agencies.

With that, I would urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this important legislation, S. 982, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we approach the summer months, we get closer to the dreaded date of 2014 when ObamaCare is launched. We still face major uncertainty to how this massive takeover of health care is actually going to work. In fact, the administration is not even certain of that.

Families and small businesses in my district have great concern over what's going to happen. In fact, when I talk to small business owners, many of them say they're going to have to stop providing health care and put these folks into these exchanges because they need the money to stay competitive. It's going to be something that they can find savings; and, again, in these uncertain times, they're not sure exactly what they're going to do.

When you look at what the President said that ``if you like your health care, you can keep your health care,'' well, in fact, in my district, there's going to be 44,000 seniors that are going to lose Medicare Advantage because of ObamaCare.

Taxes will go up. Taxes will go up on businesses and families. Individuals are already seeing their premiums increased.

And the President has done nothing to provide certainty, as I said. The administration isn't even sure how this is going to play out. And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that this is going to end up in a train wreck. This is going to end up in something that is going to hurt the economy and hurt health care.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in support of H.R. 1765 so that we can stop this needless pain on the American traveling public and our economy.

The administration and the FAA have refused for months to provide us with a plan to work with the airline industry in order to figure out how this could be implemented without all of this pain to the traveling public and to our economy.

I'd like to remind my colleagues that this industry provides $1 trillion to our economy, so it's extremely important to the hardworking men and women of America that our airlines and our folks are getting where they need to be on time and without delay. This is very, very damaging to the economy.

Again, I believe this has been mismanaged, and I believe that this bill will force the administration to stop these needless furloughs so that we can continue making sure that the airline industry is functioning in order to keep our economy growing stronger and to allay the safety concerns of the traveling public.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Budget Resolution, which balances the budget in 10 years.

We must get our fiscal house in order, and that starts with a plan to reduce spending responsibly--allowing to grow at 3.4 percent instead of 5 percent.

This budget cuts $5.7 trillion in spending and reforms Medicare to save it for future generations while preserving the traditional model for those at or near retirement.

The Federal Government has to deal with the tough issues and make responsible decisions to restore balance.

I thank Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee for supporting key transportation initiatives in the resolution.

Transportation specific provisions:

House Budget Resolution supports MAP-21 funding levels until it expires at the end of 2014. MAP-21 reformed our Federal transportation programs by eliminating unneeded programs, streamlining the project approval process, and putting the highway trust fund on sound financial footing through 2014.

The budget resolution acknowledges that maintaining the long term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the tradition of the fund being user fee supported is a priority for the Congress as it begins to work on reauthorizing MAP-21.

Budget also contains language supporting the innovative financing mechanisms for transportation included in MAP-21 such as public private partnerships and the TIFIA program.

I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee, as we move the Nation toward fiscal responsibility and a growing economy.