The Hahn amendment was debated, and a vote will occur later. Please see the below from Jim Sartucci for further information, including the Final Hahn/Huizenga amendment and transcript of debate.
Hahn Amendment: Army Corps of Engineers Water Protection Projects Rep. Hahn, D-Calif., offered an amendment that would increase funding for the operation and maintenance of various existing river, harbor, flood, storm damage reduction and other water protection projects at the Army Corps of Engineers by $58 million and reduce funding for nuclear energy activities including the purchase, construction or acquisition of equipment for such activities by $73 million.
The vote on the amendment has been postponed.
Rough CQ Transcript of the Hahn-Huizenga Amendment Debate:
Hahn (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The chair: the clerk will report the amendment.
THE CLERK: An amendment offered by Ms. Hahn of California. Page 4, line 24, insert increased by $56,– insert reduced by $73, 309,100. the chair pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Hahn, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California.
Hahn (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. i yield myself however much time I may consume. I rise to offer the Hahn-Huizenga amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill to utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund at the target set forth in the recently passed water resources reform and development act. As a representative of the nation’s busiest port complex and the co-founder, along with you, Mr. Speaker, of the Ports Caucus, I have fought hard from my first day here in Congress to increase the funding for our nation’s ports and to fully utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund to ensure that the money that we collect at our ports goes back to our ports.
Around here they’re starting to call me Ms. harbor maintenance — and after working for months with my colleagues, we reached a plan to finally put the harbor maintenance trust fund to work and fully utilize this trust fund by 2025.
I appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member and the hard work that you’ve put on the bill before us today, but I have one little problem with it. The bill on the floor today fails to follow the law that we just passed seven weeks ago in such a bipartisan fashion, and we are falling behind by over $57 million towards utilizing that harbor maintenance fund. That’s money that our ports have paid for and they need. I understand the difficult task the Appropriations Committee has in front of it, but for our ports to remain competitive, they need this funding. And with that I’d like to reserve the balance of my time.
The chair the gentlelady from California reserves. Who seeks recognition?
The gentleman from Idaho:
Simpson, M. (R-ID): I seek time in opposition to the amendment.
The chair: the gentleman from Idaho is recognized for five minutes.
Simpson, M. (R-ID):Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Let me assure my colleague I agree with her on the importance of sufficient maintenance of our nation’s waterways, water resources infrastructure, including our waterways. Seems like the amendments that members are offering I get up and agree with them, however there are challenges that they face. I also agree that since the harbor maintenance tax is collected for a specific purpose, and since the needs for dredging is apparent, we should be using these funds for the intended purpose, to the greatest extent possible, rather than allowing a balance to accumulate in the trust fund. That’s an issue that we’ve been dealing with for the last several years with my good friend from Louisiana trying to figure out how we can exactly do that without harming all of the other programs within the budget. And unfortunately that’s what they do until we change our budget rules or something. And I don’t have the answer to it yet, but week of been working with try — but we’ve been working with the — trying to work with the budget committee to make sure that the taxes collected are used to do what it was intended to do. And if the account is just growing, then we shouldn’t be collecting the tax.
I know that’s what it sounds like. In fact, the bill continues to increase funding for harbor maintenance trust fund activities above the previous year and above the budget request as the committee has repeatedly done over the past few years. The bill includes more than $1.1 billion for these activities which equates to more than a 20% increase over the amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2015. While I understand that there is almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the energy and water bill. The amendment would reduce the nuclear energy account by $12.8 million, which would bring the account below the fiscal year 2014 level. The underlying bill provides a total of $899 million for nuclear energy programs, only $10 million above last year. That’s what seems strange about this. Doing what we all think is the right thing to do, using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance, by increasing that we hurt nuclear energy, which is I don’t think what the intent of the lady is or the gentleman from Louisiana or others that want to do this.
In addition to protecting the department of energy’s nuclear energy materials, this funding protects a range of national security programs at the NNSA, Department of Homeland Security and other Federal Agencies.
Furthermore, I oppose the reducing — reduced funding for nuclear energy research and development which is a critical part of this bill’s support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently generates 20% of the nation’s electricity and it will continue to play a large role in the future. As I said, I’m sympathetic to what the gentlelady is trying to do.
In fact, I was a co-sponsor at one time of a bill by my friend from Louisiana that would have said that you have to use the harbor maintenance trust fund and use it to dredge the harbors, which is what we all know it should be doing. if there’s a need out there, we ought to be using that to do it. We need to work together to try to solve this problem and, believe me, it would help us a lot in crafting this bill if somehow we could do that.
Otherwise we shouldn’t be collecting the tax, if we’ve got a need and the account is growing. But it’s because of our budget rules and so forth that it creates this problem. But I understand what the gentlelady is doing.
Unfortunately her amendment would hurt the nuclear account and other accounts within the bill which has been the problem in the past. With that I reserve the balance of my time.
I’d yield to the gentlelady from Ohio. The chair the gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Kaptur (D-OH): I thank the Chairman for yielding and for your sympathy toward the intent of the amendment. I wanted to commend Congresswoman Hahn and Congressman Huizenga on a bipartisan basis for elevating the question of our ports and waterborne shipping is the most efficient mode of moving goods in and out of this country. I think they are performing for this Congress an extraordinary service by uniting on a bipartisan basis and kind of ringing the bell to us and saying, hey, pay attention to what’s happening here with this harbor maintenance tax and how we help our ports compete as we see the panama canal come online and ship building occurring in other countries like South Korea, for example, and China, and Singapore and lots of other places and saying, hey, America, wake up. and i feel some urgency to want to support the direction of their efforts, so as with the chairman, you know, comes to where the offset is, it is true that the harbor maintenance tax fund’s $185 million have been moved as a result of our efforts into the fund that the Administration had not requested, so we as a Subcommittee are moving in the right direction, but I’m hoping that this might begin a conversation with our subcommittee in how we work with them on the harbor maintenance task in a more — tax in a more effective manner. So I thank the chairman for yielding. They brought an important issue before us that we need to resolve more effectively.
The chair the gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady from California is recognized and has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.
Hahn (D-CA): Thank You, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to be joined by my colleague from Michigan, Congressman Huizenga and at this time I’d like to yield to him 90 seconds.
The Chair: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for a minute and a half.
Huizenga (R-MI): Thank you. I thank my colleague from California for working with me on this and I’m glad to hear the elevation that this issue is getting attention. In fact, on Monday I met with a shipping company in my district about this issue, among other things, about Great Lakes shipping. I can tell you though that it seems to me, as we pass the WRRDA bill just a short seven weeks ago, I was willing to compromise on that glide path. What I don’t see currently is that glide path to that direction. We are $5 million below what was laid out in that bill and my — the chairman from Idaho, who has a very difficult job balancing all of this, has pointed out that the nuclear energy program is the way that we are going to offset this.
I will point out though that it is appropriated for $899 million this year, a level that is $36 million above the president’s budget request, $10 million above the fiscal year enacted level, and $243 million above the level proposed by the house Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2014.
So it doesn’t seem to me we’re exactly raiding that, when everybody has said that we are overfunding that portion of the bill and it seems to me that this is a great way of impacting our economy, to help create jobs, and to help create that continuing to move forward .
So with that, I just want to thank the committee for working towards the solution. I know that i too had signed onto Mr. Boustany’s bill earlier and have been a champion of this. We’re working toward a true solution in this.
I encourage my colleagues to support this at this time. So with that I yield back.
The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Hahn (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. i yield one minute to my friend from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
Green, G. (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. i speak in favor of the Hahn amendment and I’d like to have my full statement placed into the record. I’d like to commend the Appropriations Committee efforts for increased — increasing the corps of engineers’ budget. We have serious water and infrastructure needs at the Port of Houston which I represent; we need operation and maintenance as well as construction money. I greatly appreciate the committee’s efforts for our needs, for $31 million, but this amount does not reflect the amount that’s needed. The Port of Houston’s the second largest port in the country by tonnage. In 2012 we expanded operations to cruise ships. Maintenance dredging operations at the Port of Houston requires $70 million annually. They generate a given tax revenue both for the state and federal government. The challenge is to meet the opportunities of the 21st century, the ports all over the country need more than what’s available in this appropriations bill. That’s why I’m a strong supporter of the Hahn amendment and again I would ask unanimous consent to place my full statement into the record.
The chair without objection, so ordered. The gentleman’s time has expired.
The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Hahn (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to now yield 45 seconds to my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Benishek.
The chair: the gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 45 seconds.
Benishek (R-MI): Thank you very much. I’d like to have my entire statement in the record, please.
The chair: without objection.
Benishek (R-MI): Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hahn-Huizenga amendment which would increase funding for United States army corps of engineers’ operation and maintenance accounts by $57 million a funding level that was established in the house-passed WRRDA bill. This is offset and bipartisan in nature. I’m here today to support the additional funding because my district, Michigan’s first, is in urgent need of funding to address the backlog of projects on the books. From dredging, to basic port maintenance, to the locks which are in desperate need of replacement, the backlog affects jobs and our local economy in Northern Michigan. Mr.
Chairman, I understand a tough decision must be made during these economic times. All Americans depend on the Great Lakes for transportation of goods and services. I appreciate the consideration ever — the consideration of this amendment and ask for a yes vote from my colleagues.
The chair the gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 15 seconds.
Hahn (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, and co-founder of my ports caucus, are you telling me i have 15 seconds left?
The chair: 15 seconds.
Hahn (D-CA): I’d like to yield to — 10 seconds — to Mr. Nolan.
The chair: the gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 10 seconds.
Nolan (D-MN): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment; the Great Lakes are operating at 80% of capacity. It’s costing us $3 billion in annual business, jobs, growth and income. This amendment would restore these funds and move our country forward economically. Thank you, Mr.
The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Hahn (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge an aye vote on this amendment.
When our ports are strong, our country is strong. Thank you. I yield back.
The chair: The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The gentleman from Idaho.
Simpson, M. (R-ID): I ask for a recorded vote.
The chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California will be postponed.
Tags: navigation, policy