July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7813 CONCLUSION OF MORNING committee of jurisdiction, my friend those who help pay for Corps projects BUSINESS from Montana, Senator BAUCUS, made either through their Federal tax dol- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning a commitment to me to address the lars or, in many cases, through taxes business is closed. issues that plagued the Corps. they pay at a local level as part of a At that time I sought to offer an non-Federal cost-sharing arrange- f amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an ment—can rest easy knowing that WATER RESOURCES independent peer review process for the their flood control projects are not DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005 Army Corps. In response to my amend- going to fail them, their ecosystem res- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under ment, the bill managers adopted lan- toration projects are going to protect the previous order, the Senate will re- guage to authorize the National Acad- our environmental treasures, and their sume consideration of S. 728, which the emy of Sciences to study peer review. navigation projects are based on sound clerk will report. This study has long been complete, and economics and reliable traffic projec- The assistant legislative clerk read the final recommendation was clear. In tions. as follows: a 2002 report—Review Procedures for Much of the work that has gone into A bill (S. 728) to provide for the consider- Water Resources Planning—the Na- reforming the Corps was done before ation and development of water and related tional Academy of Sciences rec- our Nation saw a major U.S. city laid resources, to authorize the Secretary of the ommended creation of a formalized to waste. When Hurricane Katrina Army to construct various projects for im- process to independently review costly rocked New Orleans, none of us imag- provements to rivers and harbors of the or controversial Corps projects. ined the horrors that would ensue. United States, and for other purposes. Four years later, and with Corps re- None of us imagined that much of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- form bills in the 106th, 107th, 108th, and flooding—much of the flooding—that ator from Wisconsin. 109th Congresses, we are still trying to occurred could have possibly been pre- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I enact such a mechanism. vented had some of the reforms we will would like to start off by making a I would just like to note that I am be discussing today been in place dec- general statement about the amend- pleased to see my friend involved in ades ago. ments we are going to offer, and I as- this issue, particularly given the role Despite every wish to the contrary, sume that time will come off the time he played in 2000. My only hope is, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina ex- of the amendment I will offer, the after 6 years of work on this issue, we posed serious problems that this body amendment on independent peer re- can go home tonight knowing we did will be addressing for years to come. view. Is that correct? right by the taxpayers, by the citizens Many have stood on this floor and in The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without of our country who rely on sound Corps their States and talked about what objection, that is the case. projects to protect their families, their must be done to responsibly move for- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will property, and the natural systems they ward in a post-Katrina landscape. And make a few remarks, and then I would want to protect for future generations. many of those discussions have, of like to turn to the distinguished rank- Yes, Corps reform has been a work in course, centered, appropriately, on the ing member of the committee, my progress. In 2001, I introduced a stand- Federal Emergency Management Agen- friend, Senator JEFFORDS, for a few re- alone bill to modernize the Corps. cy. marks. Then after he has talked, I will Later that Congress, I cosponsored a I am here to say that if you were out- offer the amendment. bill with Senator SMITH from New raged by FEMA’s poor response, like Mr. President, today the Senate will Hampshire, Senator Daschle of South me, then you should be equally out- consider two tremendously important Dakota, Senator ENSIGN of Nevada, and raged by problems with the Corps and amendments to the Water Resources Senator MCCAIN, the senior Senator the process that has determined where Development Act. Those amendments from Arizona. In March 2004 I intro- limited Federal resources are spent. are the Feingold-McCain-Carper- duced another stand-alone Corps re- While any hurricane that makes Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins inde- form bill along with Senator Daschle landfall will leave some level of de- pendent peer review amendment and and Senator MCCAIN. Then in the struction behind, the country has been the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-Fein- spring of 2005, Senator MCCAIN and I of- shocked to learn that there were engi- stein prioritization amendment. fered another bill detailing the changes neering flaws in the New Orleans lev- As many know, I have tried to work we hoped to see in the agency. And, fi- ees, and that important information for a long time to modernize the Army nally, this spring we introduced an- was ignored by the Corps. According to Corps of Engineers to ensure that this other stand-alone bill. one of the independent reviewers look- Federal agency is best situated to serve What these efforts have been about is ing into what happened with the levee our great Nation. I have worked along- restoring credibility and account- failures, the causes of the failures ‘‘are side Senator MCCAIN in these efforts, ability to this Federal agency that has firmly founded in organizational and and I thank him for his dedication to been rocked by scandal, overextended institutional failures that are pri- helping me bring attention to the need to the tune of a 35-year backlog, and marily focused in the Corps of Engi- for congressional leadership to address constrained by a gloomy fiscal picture. neers.’’ what many have noted as fundamental We can do that today. We can restore Now, I had the chance to visit New problems with the Corps. credibility and accountability to the Orleans a little over a week ago, and I I want to be clear about my inten- Corps by passing the amendments that can attest that the sentiment toward tions with the amendments we will my friend, the Senator from Arizona, the Corps is anything but cordial. offer this morning, as well as our other and I will be offering. There is a lot of anger toward the efforts involving the Corps. We just Some have said I have an ax to grind Corps down there, and we have a re- want to get this agency back on track with the Corps. That is not true. The sponsibility in Congress to address it. to serve the interests of all Americans. reason I am dedicated to improving Additionally, following the hurri- That is what it is about, period. this embattled agency is that I care cane, we have faced questions from our As many have noted over the past about the Corps, and I want it to suc- constituents about where the Corps few days, I have been trying to bring ceed. My home State of Wisconsin and was spending its limited budget and up this issue for quite some time. In numerous other States across our why. We have a responsibility to ad- fact, I have waited 6 long years to come country rely on the Corps. From the dress those legitimate concerns, too. down to the floor of the Senate to push Great Lakes to the Mississippi, the The Times-Picayune of New Orleans for meaningful reform of the U.S. Corps is involved in providing aid to recently said the following: Army Corps of Engineers. navigation, environmental restoration, Back in 2000, during debate on final Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, flood control, and many other valuable are critical for this state [meaning Lou- passage of the last enacted WRDA, the services. isiana, of course] which—after the levee fail- former chairman of the Environment I want to improve the way this agen- ures during Hurricane Katrina—could serve and Public Works Committee and the cy operates, so that not only Wiscon- as the poster child [the poster child] for the current ranking member of the sub- sinites but all Americans—particularly Corps’ shortcomings.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.007 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

The best chance for changing the way the The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. FEIN- days of receipt of a written request for a con- Corps operates is through reforms sought by GOLD], for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. CARPER, troversy determination by any party, that Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Ms. COLLINS, proposes the project is controversial because— And finally, an amendment numbered 4681. (i) there is a significant dispute regarding Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous the size, nature, potential safety risks, or ef- interested in changing the way the Corps consent that reading of the amendment fects of the project; or does business. The McCain-Feingold amend- be dispensed with. (ii) there is a significant dispute regarding ments face opposition and a rival set of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without the economic, or environmental costs or ben- measures by the main authors of the water efits of the project. objection, it is so ordered. (2) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW PANELS.— resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe and Kit (The amendment is printed in today’s Bond. What those Senators offer as reform is (A) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW PANEL MEM- RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’) meaningless, however . . . Sham reform BERSHIP.—For each water resources project won’t do anything to restore confidence in AMENDMENT NO. 4681, AS MODIFIED subject to review under this subsection, the the Corps and the Congress must do better. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call Director of Independent Review shall estab- up a modified version of the amend- lish a panel of independent experts that shall I agree that this body must do better be composed of not less than 5 nor more than than sham reform. Today Senator ment which is at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 9 independent experts (including at least 1 MCCAIN and I will be offering amend- objection, the amendment is so modi- engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1 biologist, and 1 ments that we believe are the min- economist) who represent a range of areas of fied. imum changes this body must accept expertise. The Director of Independent Re- The amendment (No. 4681), as modi- view shall apply the National Academy of as we look to the future and reflect on fied, is as follows: the past. I sincerely hope my col- Science’s policy for selecting committee Strike section 2007 and insert the fol- leagues will join me in demonstrating members to ensure that members have no lowing: conflict with the project being reviewed, and that the Senate can respond to over 10 SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. shall consult with the National Academy of years of Government reports—from the (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: Sciences in developing lists of individuals to Government Accountability Office, the (1) CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.—The term serve on panels of experts under this sub- National Academy of Sciences, and ‘‘construction activities’’ means develop- section. An individual serving on a panel even the Army Inspector General—on ment of detailed engineering and design under this subsection shall be compensated the horrific aftermath of Hurricane specifications during the preconstruction en- at a rate of pay to be determined by the Sec- Katrina and provide the leadership to gineering and design phase and the engineer- retary, and shall be allowed travel expenses. move the Army Corps into the 21st cen- ing and design phase of a water resources (B) DUTIES OF PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW project carried out by the Corps of Engi- PANELS.—An independent panel of experts es- tury. tablished under this subsection shall review I want to publicly recognize the EPW neers, and other activities carried out on a water resources project prior to completion the project study, receive from the public Committee chairman and ranking of the construction and to turning the written and oral comments concerning the member, Senators INHOFE and JEF- project over to the local cost-share partner. project study, and submit a written report to FORDS, as well as the Subcommittee on (2) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project the Secretary that shall contain the panel’s Transportation and Infrastructure study’’ means a feasibility report, reevalua- conclusions and recommendations regarding chairman and ranking member, Sen- tion report, or environmental impact state- project study issues identified as significant ators BONDS and BAUCUS. Late this ment prepared by the Corps of Engineers. by the panel, including issues such as— spring those offices approached Sen- (b) DIRECTOR OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW.— (i) economic and environmental assump- The Secretary shall appoint in the Office of tions and projections; ator MCCAIN and me and indicated a the Secretary a Director of Independent Re- (ii) project evaluation data; willingness to talk about some of our view. The Director shall be selected from (iii) economic or environmental analyses; interest with respect to the Corps. among individuals who are distinguished ex- (iv) engineering analyses; From those discussions came real com- perts in engineering, hydrology, biology, ec- (v) formulation of alternative plans; promise on both sides. The result is onomics, or another discipline related to (vi) methods for integrating risk and un- that the underlying WRDA bill does in- water resources management. The Secretary certainty; clude significant language to ensure shall ensure, to the maximum extent prac- (vii) models used in evaluation of economic periodic updating of the principles and ticable, that the Director does not have a fi- or environmental impacts of proposed nancial, professional, or other conflict of in- projects; and guidelines that form the foundation of terest with projects subject to review. The (viii) any related biological opinions. every Corps project but which have not Director of Independent Review shall carry (C) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW RECORD.— been updated since 1983. out the duties set forth in this section and (i) IN GENERAL.—After receiving a report The language also includes a min- such other duties as the Secretary deems ap- from an independent panel of experts estab- imum mitigation standard for Corps propriate. lished under this subsection, the Secretary civil works projects. The Corps’ track (c) SOUND PROJECT PLANNING.— shall take into consideration any rec- record on mitigation suggests that the (1) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PLANNING RE- ommendations contained in the report and Nation would be better served through VIEW.—The Secretary shall ensure that each shall immediately make the report available project study for a water resources project to the public on the internet. the standard described in the under- shall be reviewed by an independent panel of (ii) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Secretary lying bill. As WRDA moves through experts established under this subsection if— shall prepare a written explanation of any conference, I look forward to the EPW (A) the project has an estimated total cost recommendations of the independent panel Committee standing by the language of more than $40,000,000, including mitigation of experts established under this subsection we agreed on and included in the un- costs; not adopted by the Secretary. Recommenda- derlying bill in sections 2006 and 2008 so (B) the Governor of a State in which the tions and findings of the independent panel that it is included in any bill that water resources project is located in whole of experts rejected without good cause comes out of Congress. or in part, or the Governor of a State within shown, as determined by judicial review, I will now give some of my time on the drainage basin in which a water re- shall be given equal deference as the rec- the amendment to my friend, a distin- sources project is located and that would be ommendations and findings of the Secretary directly affected economically or environ- during a judicial proceeding relating to the guished leader in this area, the Senator mentally as a result of the project, requests water resources project. from Vermont. in writing to the Secretary the establish- (iii) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS AND PUBLIC The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ment of an independent panel of experts for AVAILABILITY.—The report of the inde- ator from Vermont is recognized. the project; pendent panel of experts established under AMENDMENT NO. 4681 (C) the head of a Federal agency with au- this subsection and the written explanation Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, be- thority to review the project determines of the Secretary required by clause (ii) shall fore yielding to the Senator from that the project is likely to have a signifi- be included with the report of the Chief of Vermont, I will offer the amendment, if cant adverse impact on public safety, or on Engineers to Congress, shall be published in there is no objection. I have an amend- environmental, fish and wildlife, historical, the Federal Register, and shall be made cultural, or other resources under the juris- available to the public on the Internet. ment at the desk numbered 4681 regard- diction of the agency, and requests in writ- (D) DEADLINES FOR PROJECT PLANNING RE- ing independent peer review. ing to the Secretary the establishment of an VIEWS.— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The independent panel of experts for the project; (i) IN GENERAL.—Independent review of a clerk will report. or project study shall be completed prior to the The assistant legislative clerk read (D) the Secretary determines on his or her completion of any Chief of Engineers report as follows: own initiative, or shall determine within 30 for a specific water resources project.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.008 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7815 (ii) DEADLINE FOR PROJECT PLANNING RE- a written report to the Secretary on the ade- Before I explain exactly what my VIEW PANEL STUDIES.—An independent panel quacy of the construction activities prior to amendment does, let me take a few of experts established under this subsection the initiation of physical construction and minutes to talk about what various shall complete its review of the project study periodically thereafter until construction ac- Government reports have said about and submit to the Secretary a report not tivities are completed on a publicly available later than 180 days after the date of estab- schedule determined by the Director of Inde- the Corps’ study process, as these re- lishment of the panel, or not later than 90 pendent Review for the purposes of assuring ports have been the basis of my efforts days after the close of the public comment the public safety. The Director of Inde- over the last 6 years. period on a draft project study that includes pendent Review shall ensure that these re- More than a decade of reports from a preferred alternative, whichever is later. views be carried out in a way to protect the the National Academy of Sciences, the The Secretary may extend these deadlines public health, safety, and welfare, while not Government Accountability Office, the for good cause. causing unnecessary delays in construction U.S. Army inspector general, U.S. (iii) FAILURE TO COMPLETE REVIEW AND RE- activities. Commission on Ocean Policy, and PORT.—If an independent panel of experts es- (4) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW RECORD.— other independent experts have re- tablished under this subsection does not sub- After receiving a written report from an vealed a pattern of stunning flaws in mit to the Secretary a report by the deadline independent panel of experts established established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engi- under this subsection, the Secretary shall— U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project neers may continue project planning without (A) take into consideration recommenda- planning and implementation and delay. tions contained in the report, provide a writ- urged substantial changes to the Corps’ (iv) DURATION OF PANELS.—An independent ten explanation of recommendations not project planning process. Most re- panel of experts established under this sub- adopted, and immediately make the report cently, in June of this year, a report section shall terminate on the date of sub- and explanation available to the public on entitled ‘‘U.S. Army Corps of Engineers mission of the report by the panel. Panels the Internet; and Performance Evaluation of the New Or- may be established as early in the planning (B) submit the report to the Committee on leans and Southeast Louisiana Hurri- process as deemed appropriate by the Direc- Environment and Public Works of the Senate tor of Independent Review, but shall be ap- and the Committee on Transportation and cane Protection System Draft Final pointed no later than 90 days before the re- Infrastructure of the House of Representa- Report on the Interagency Perform- lease for public comment of a draft study tives. ance Evaluation Task Force’’ acknowl- subject to review under subsection (c)(1)(A), (e) EXPENSES.— edged that the New Orleans levees and not later than 30 days after a determina- (1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of an inde- failed catastrophically during Hurri- tion that review is necessary under sub- pendent panel of experts established under cane Katrina because of poor design section (c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D). subsection (c) or (d) shall be a Federal ex- and flawed construction. In planning (E) EFFECT ON EXISTING GUIDANCE.—The pense and shall not exceed— the system, the Corps did not take into project planning review required by this sub- (A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project section shall be deemed to satisfy any exter- in current year dollars is less than account poor soil quality and failed to nal review required by Engineering Circular $50,000,000; and account for the sinking of land which 1105–2–408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of De- (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the caused sections to be as much as 2 feet cision Documents. project in current year dollars, if the total lower than other sections. (d) SAFETY ASSURANCE.— cost is $50,000,000 or more. Breaches in four New Orleans canals (1) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SAFETY ASSURANCE (2) WAIVER.—The Secretary, at the written were caused by foundation failures that REVIEW.—The Secretary shall ensure that the request of the Director of Independent Re- were ‘‘not considered in the original construction activities for any flood damage view, may waive the cost limitations under design.’’ The system was designed to reduction project shall be reviewed by an paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines ap- independent panel of experts established protect against a relatively low- propriate. strength hurricane, and the Corps did under this subsection if the Director of Inde- (f) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after pendent Review makes a determination that the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec- not respond to repeated warnings from an independent review is necessary to ensure retary shall submit to Congress a report de- the National Oceanic and Atmospheric public health, safety, and welfare on any scribing the implementation of this section. Administration that a stronger hurri- project— (g) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this sec- cane should have been the standard. (A) for which the reliability of perform- tion shall be construed to affect any author- The Corps also did not reexamine the ance under emergency conditions is critical; ity of the Secretary to cause or conduct a heights of the levees after it had been (B) that uses innovative materials or tech- peer review of the engineering, scientific, or niques; technical basis of any water resources warned about significant subsidence. (C) for which the project design is lacking project in existence on the date of enactment In discussing this report, the Corps’ in redundancy, or that has a unique con- of this Act. chief of engineers acknowledged that struction sequencing or a short or overlap- Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. the agency must change, telling report- ping design construction schedule; or I offer this independent peer review ers that ‘‘words alone will not restore (D) other than a project described in sub- amendment on behalf of myself, Sen- trust in the Corps.’’ paragraphs (A) through (C), as the Director ators MCCAIN, CARPER, LIEBERMAN, and Also, in June of this year, a report of Independent Review determines to be ap- issued by the American Society of Civil propriate. COLLINS. As we all know, Senator COL- LINS and Senator LIEBERMAN, through Engineers, ‘‘Project Engineering Peer (2) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW PANELS.—At Review Within the U.S. Army Corps of the appropriate point in the development of their leadership of the Homeland Secu- detailed engineering and design specifica- rity and Government Affairs Com- Engineers,’’ recommends that Congress tions for each water resources project sub- mittee, have done an extensive inves- enact legislation to mandate external, ject to review under this subsection, the Di- tigation into all aspects of the after- independent peer reviews for all major rector of Independent Review shall establish math of Hurricane Katrina. I applaud Corps projects that would include re- an independent panel of experts to review their leadership and am proud they are views of the feasibility report, subse- and report to the Secretary on the adequacy cosponsoring this amendment, as I quent design and engineering reports, of construction activities for the project. An think it is a testament to the impor- the project plans, and specifications independent panel of experts under this sub- tance of implementing the changes in- and construction. Reviews should be section shall be composed of not less than 5 carried out by experts who have no nor more than 9 independent experts selected cluded in this amendment. Addition- from among individuals who are distin- ally, Senator JEFFORDS has consist- connection to the Corps, to the local guished experts in engineering, hydrology, or ently pushed, through his position as project sponsor, or to the particular other pertinent disciplines. The Director of ranking member of the Environment project contract. Independent Review shall apply the National and Public Works Committee, for many In May of this year, we got ‘‘A Na- Academy of Science’s policy for selecting of the provisions of this amendment. I tion Still Unprepared,’’ a report that committee members to ensure that panel publicly thank him for all his atten- resulted from the excellent work of my members have no conflict with the project tion to this matter. friend from Maine, Senator SUSAN COL- being reviewed. An individual serving on a Finally, Senator CARPER has seen the LINS, chair of the Senate Homeland Se- panel of experts under this subsection shall need for an independent peer review curity and Governmental Affairs Com- be compensated at a rate of pay to be deter- mined by the Secretary, and shall be allowed amendment through both his Home- mittee, and a cosponsor of our inde- travel expenses. land Security Committee membership pendent peer review amendment, and (3) DEADLINES FOR SAFETY ASSURANCE RE- and his EPW Committee membership, Senator JOE LIEBERMAN, ranking mem- VIEWS.—An independent panel of experts es- and I appreciate his support in moving ber of the committee, and another co- tablished under this subsection shall submit this issue forward. sponsor of our amendment.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.001 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7816 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 That report recommends independent cisions made during the original design to water resources planning at the peer review of levee systems that pro- phase led to the failure of the 17th scale of river basins and coastal sys- tect population centers throughout the Street canal floodwall in New Orleans tems and recommends needed changes country. I don’t know if Senator COL- and are representative of ‘‘an overall to the Corps’ current planning prac- LINS or Senator LIEBERMAN will have pattern of engineering judgment incon- tices. time to elaborate more on the thor- sistent with that required for critical ‘‘Analytical Methods and Approaches ough investigation their committee structures.’’ These problems pose ‘‘sig- for Water Resources Planning’’ rec- conducted and on their key findings nificant implications for the current ommends needed changes to the Corps’ and recommendations, but the report and future safety offered by levees, ‘‘Principles and Guidelines’’ in plan- in many ways speaks volumes on its floodwalls and control structures in ning guidance policies. own. New Orleans, and perhaps elsewhere.’’ In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commis- One of the most striking reports, The External Review Panel rec- sion’s ‘‘America’s Living Oceans, conducted by R.B. Seed in May of this ommends a number of immediate ac- Charting a Course for Sea Change, A year, ‘‘Investigation of the Perform- tions to improve Corps planning for Report to the Nation, Recommenda- ance of the New Orleans Flood Protec- ‘‘levees and floodwalls in New Orleans tions for a New Ocean Policy’’ rec- tion Systems and Hurricane Katrina on and perhaps everywhere else in the na- ommends enactment of ‘‘substantial August 29, 2005, Draft Final Report,’’ tion,’’ including external peer review of reforms’’ of the Corps, including legis- finds that the catastrophic failure of the Corps’ design process for critical lation to ensure that Corps projects are the New Orleans regional flood protec- life safety structures. environmentally and economically tion system was the result of ‘‘engi- In September 2005, the GAO issued a sound and reflect national priorities. neering lapses, poor judgments, and ef- report which backs up our call for The Pew report recommends develop- forts to reduce costs at the expense of prioritization. ‘‘Army Corps of Engi- ment of uniform standards for Corps system reliability.’’ The Corps failed to neers, Improved Planning and Finan- participation in shoreline restoration design the system with appropriate cial Management Should Replace Reli- projects and transformation of the safety standards, failed to adequately ance on Reprogramming Actions to Corps over the long term into a strong address the complex geology of the re- Manage Project Funds’’ finds that the and reliable force for environmental gion, failed to provide adequate design Corps’ excessive use of reprogramming restoration. The report also rec- oversight, and engaged in ‘‘a persistent funds is being used as a substitute for ommends that Congress direct the pattern of attempts to reduce costs of an effective priority-setting system for Corps and other Federal agencies to de- constructed works at the price of cor- the civil works program and as a sub- velop a comprehensive floodplain man- ollary reduction in safety and reli- stitute for sound fiscal and project agement policy that emphasizes non- ability.’’ management. structural control measures. These failings led to the ‘‘single most In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the In May 2002, the GAO found in its re- costly catastrophic failure of an engi- Corps reprogrammed funds over 7,000 port ‘‘Scientific Panel’s Assessment of neered system in history’’ that caused times and moved over $2.1 billion Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guid- the deaths of more than 1,290 people among projects within the investiga- ance’’ that the Corps has proposed no and some $100 to $150 billion in dam- tions and constructions account. mitigation for almost 70 percent of its ages to the greater New Orleans area. In September 2004, the U.S. Commis- projects. And for those few projects I could go on, and I will. I want my sion on Ocean Policy issued a report, where the Corps does perform mitiga- colleagues to know what is at stake. In ‘‘An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Cen- tion, 80 percent of the time it does not March 2006, the Government Account- tury Final Report of the U.S. Commis- carry out the mitigation concurrently ability Office testified that ‘‘the Corps’ sion on Ocean Policy.’’ This report rec- with project construction. track record of providing reliable infor- ommends that the National Ocean In response to language that was in- mation that can be used by decision Council review and recommend cluded in the WRDA 2000 bill, the Na- makers . . . is spotty, at best.’’ Four changes to the Corps’ civil works pro- tional Academy of Sciences, in ‘‘Re- recent Corps studies examined by GAO gram to ensure valid, peer-reviewed view Procedures for Water Resources were ‘‘fraught with errors, mistakes, cost-benefit analyses of coastal Planning’’ issued in 2002, recommends and miscalculations and used invalid projects; provide greater transparency creation of a formalized process to assumptions and outdated data.’’ These to the public; enforce requirements for independently review costly or con- studies ‘‘did not provide a reasonable mitigating the impacts of coastal troversial Corps projects. And in one of basis for decisionmaking.’’ The recur- projects; and coordinate such projects the most disturbing of the numerous ring problems ‘‘clearly indicate that with broader coastal planning efforts. reports on the Corps and the problems the Corps’ planning and project man- The report also recommends that endemic in this agency, in November agement processes cannot ensure that Congress modify its current authoriza- 2000, the Department of the Army In- national priorities are appropriately tion and funding processes to encour- spector General issued a report entitled established across the hundreds of civil age the Corps to monitor outcomes ‘‘Investigation of Allegations Against works projects that are competing for from past projects and study the cumu- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In- scarce federal resources.’’ Problems at lative and regional impacts of its ac- volving Manipulation of Studies Re- the agency are ‘‘systemic in nature and tivities within coastal watersheds and lated to the Upper Mississippi River therefore prevalent throughout the ecosystems. and Illinois Waterway Navigation Sys- Corps’ Civil Works portfolio’’ so that In 2004, the National Academy of tems.’’ Their report found that the effectively addressing these issues Sciences issued a slew of reports: Corps deceptively and intentionally ‘‘may require a more global and com- The ‘‘U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manipulated data in an attempt to jus- prehensive revamping of the Corps’ Water Resources Planning: A New Op- tify a $1.2 billion expansion of locks on planning and project management portunity for Service’’ recommends the upper Mississippi River and that processes rather than a piecemeal ap- modernizing the Corps’s authorities, the Corps has an institutional bias for proach.’’ planning approaches, and guidelines to constructing costly, large-scale struc- I commend to my coleagues this better match contemporary water re- tural projects. damning testimony before the House sources management challenges. Back in 1999—yes, 7 years ago—the Energy and Resources Subcommittee ‘‘Adaptive Management for Water National Academy of Sciences, in their of the Committee on Government Re- Resources Project Planning’’ rec- report titled ‘‘New Directions in Water form by Ann Mittal, Director, Natural ommends needed changes to ensure ef- Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Resources and Environment, GAO. fective use of the adaptive manage- Corps of Engineers’’ recommends key In March of 2006, the American Soci- ment by the Corps for its civil works changes to the Corps’ planning process ety of Civil Engineers External Review projects. and examines the length of time and Panel for the Interagency Performance ‘‘River Basins and Coastal Systems cost of Corps studies in comparison Evaluation Task Force letter to the Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps with similar studies carried out by the Corps’ chief of engineers found that de- of Engineers’’ describes the challenges private sector.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.010 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7817 Twelve years ago, in June of 1994, the the 2002 National Academy of Sciences and planning, and issues considered Interagency Floodplain Management report on peer review that said that Corps reform, were not negotiated by Review Committee report, ‘‘Sharing independent reviewers should be given the bill’s managers. the Challenge: Floodplain Management the flexibility to bring important However, in the previous Congress, Into the 21st Century,’’ a Report to the issues to the attention of decision- the managers were able to reach a com- Administration Floodplain Manage- makers; No. 4, it includes strict dead- promise agreement on these issues, in- ment Task Force—often referred to as lines for reviews. Reviews are subject cluding peer review, which I offered the Galloway Report after the report’s to a strict timeline that requires inde- during committee consideration of this primary author, BG Gerald Galloway— pendent review panels to complete the bill, but it did not prevail. recommends changes to the Nation’s review 180 days after being impaneled Since committee consideration of the water resources policies based on les- or 90 days following the close of public bill, some improvements have been sons learned from the great Midwest comment, whichever provides the most made to the planning provisions of the Flood of 1993, including modernizing time. This timeline balances the need bill, due to the work of Senator FEIN- the Corps’ Principles and Guidelines, to not delay the planning process with GOLD, and I want to thank him for working with the managers to incor- requiring the Corps to give full consid- the need to ensure that the panel will porate those revisions. eration to nonstructural flood damage be able to review the full draft study reduction alternatives, requiring peri- I think many believe there should be and to consider any relevant public independent peer review of Corps odic reviews of completed Corps comments; and No. 5, it implements projects, adopting floodplain manage- projects, the debate is over what form recommendations from the Senate that review should take and which ment guidelines that would minimize Homeland Security and Government projects should be reviewed. impacts to floodplains land reduce Affairs Committee’s Katrina report by In fact, the Assistant Secretary of vulnerabilities to population centers requiring review of the more detailed the Army, Mr. Woodley, on March 31, and critical infrastructure, and reinsti- technical design and construction work 2004, in testimony before the Environ- tuting the Water Resources Council to for Corps flood control projects where ment and Public Works Committee facilitate improvement in Federal failure could jeopardize the public safe- stated: water resources planning. ty. The concept of requiring a peer review is Lastly, but certainly not least, in In a nutshell, that is what the something that should be addressed. We are 1994 that very busy National Academy amendment does. supportive of requiring outside independent of Sciences issued yet another scathing Mr. President, when you have worked peer review of certain Corps projects. Peer report, ‘‘Restoring and Protecting Ma- on an issue as long as I have worked on review, where appropriate, would be a very rine Habitat: The Role of Engineering Corps reform, you are likely to hear useful tool and add significant credibility to and Technology,’’ which finds, among the Corps project analyses and to our ability your intentions mischaracterized. to judge the merits of a project. other things, that the Corps and all I wish to address at some point today Federal agencies with responsibility some of the myths out there about I think the Feingold-McCain amend- for marine habitat management should what we are trying to do here. At this ment provides the strong, truly inde- pendent peer review that is needed to revise their policies and procedures to point, I inquire whether my cosponsor, assure that taxpayer dollars are being increase use of restoration tech- the Senator from Arizona, is interested spent on projects that have had the ut- nologies; take into account which nat- in addressing this issue. ural functions can be restored or facili- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. most scrutiny and unbiased review. The Inhofe/Bond amendment does not. tated; improve coordination con- GRAHAM). The Senator from Arizona is Mr. President, I yield the floor. cerning marine resources; include envi- recognized. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ronmental and economic benefits de- Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, the Sen- ator from Arizona is recognized. rived from nonstrucural measures in ator from Oklahoma wants to speak Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I am benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat first. pleased to join Senators FEINGOLD, projects; and examine the feasibility of Mr. INHOFE. Yes, Mr. President, I CARPER, LIEBERMAN, and JEFFORDS in improving economic incentives for ma- think the ranking member of the com- sponsoring the amendment. This rine habitat restoration. It has been a mittee would like to make a short amendment has been described already long recitation of these reports, but it statement, and then it would be fine by my friend from Wisconsin. I will is an amazing record. for Senator MCCAIN to go and, after point out again that it establishes a Over 12 years of analysis on how we that, Senator BOND. truly independent system for con- can improve the Corps of Engineers. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ducting peer review of certain Army During that time, WRDA bills passed ator from Vermont is recognized. Corps projects. in 1996, 1999, and 2000, with the only re- Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise As my colleagues know, the Corps form coming in the NAS study I got in- in support of the Feingold-McCain comes under intense scrutiny by Gov- cluded in the 2000 bill. That is why amendment on the Army Corps of En- ernment watchdog agencies and tax- today is the day to implement the gineers’ independent peer review, payer groups, including the Govern- knowledge we have from all of this ex- which I am proud to cosponsor. ment Accountability Office and the Na- pert consideration of the Corps. Today For years, we have heard from a vari- tional Academy of Sciences. Investiga- is the day for action. ety of reports about the need for re- tion after investigation into the Corps’ With that history in mind, let me de- forming the Corps, reports that Sen- project review practices has revealed scribe what our independent peer re- ator FEINGOLD has elaborated on in his serious problems with the quality, ob- view amendment does: No. 1, it re- statement. jectivity, and credibility of the Corps quires independent review of projects I thank him for his leadership in this when reporting on the economic and that are costly, controversial, or crit- issue. In fact, Senator FEINGOLD has environmental feasibility of proposed ical to public safety. Under my amend- been a leader on this issue for many water projects. One GAO report con- ment Corps project planning will be years. Through his efforts, an amend- cluded in 2006 that the Corps’ planning independently reviewed if the project ment was included in the last water re- studies ‘‘were fraught with errors, mis- costs more than $40 million, a Gov- sources bill in 2000 directing the Na- takes, and miscalculations, and used ernor requests a review, a Federal tional Academy of Sciences to under- invalid assumptions and outdated agency finds the project will have a take a 1-year study on peer review. In data.’’ The same GAO report cited sev- significant adverse impact, or the Sec- the 107th Congress, Senator FEINGOLD eral examples of the Corps’ failure to retary of the Army determines that the introduced a comprehensive Corps re- properly analyze projects. project is controversial; No. 2, it en- form bill and the Environment and These include the Sacramento flood sures truly independent review panels Public Works Committee held a hear- protection project. According to the by implementing National Academy of ing on it. GAO, the Corps didn’t fully analyze Sciences criteria about who would be While development of the bill before likely cost increases for the Sac- eligible to provide expert review; No. 3, the Senate today was a bi-partisan ef- ramento flood protection project or re- if implements the recommendation of fort, independent reviews, mitigation port cost overruns to Congress in a

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.002 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7818 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 timely manner. The GAO found that It also called for an urgent reexamination of There have been many studies and the estimated cost of the project origi- the entire levee system, saying there are no views of what happened in New Orle- nally totaled about $114 million but in- assurances that the miles of concrete ‘‘I- ans. We all know that canal intensified creased to about $500 million by 2002. walls’’ in New Orleans will hold up against the damage. We all know that the lev- even a moderate hurricane. By the time the Corps reported those ees were not well built. Some of them, cost increases to Congress in 2002, it We have just experienced an incred- according to other news reports, had had already spent or planned to spend ible disaster and, apparently, the Corps already been turned over to the local more than double its original esti- of Engineers is not taking the proper authorities. mated cost. measures to repair it. What we are asking for is rather The Delaware deepening project: The Corps officials said they had already taken modest. I am going to be astonished at GAO found that the Corps substan- steps to address problems identified in the the response of my dear friends from letter, starting with an effort to replace tially overstated the projected eco- miles of I-walls with sturdier structures. But Missouri and Oklahoma about this be- nomic benefits of the Delaware River agency officials insisted the Corps was not cause basically all this says is that channel-deepening project. Whereas solely to blame for weaknesses in the sys- there would be a peer review if a the Corps estimated the benefits to be tem. project costs more than $40 million, $40.1 million per year in 1998, the GAO ‘‘We have done the best things we could and if the Governor of an affected projected only $13.3 million per year. have done. We live here,’’ spokeswoman State—which seems to be a fairly good The GAO urged the Corps to reanalyze Susan J. Jackson said. . . . Republican principle to me—requests a The American Society of Civil Engineers the project, which later revealed it panel is one of three independent teams in- review that it should be allowed, and a could be built for $56 million less than vestigating the failure of the New Orleans Federal agency with statutory author- the Corps estimated. levees, and until now it has been the most ity to review a project finds that it will The list goes on and on of these cautious in its public criticisms. The other have a significant adverse impact or projects that have been understated in investigating teams quickly endorsed its the Secretary of the Army determines cost, not properly justified. There is findings. that the project is controversial. not a proper prioritization. ‘‘We agree that every single foot of the I- The timing of the review is flexible, Regarding the Corps’ analysis of the walls is suspect,’’ said Ivor van Heerden, leader of a Louisiana-appointed team of en- but the duration is strictly limited in Oregon Inlet jetty project, according to gineers. ‘‘When asked, we have constantly order to not delay the process. Review- the GAO, the Corps’ analysis of the Or- urged anyone returning to New Orleans to ers will be able to consider all the data, egon Inlet jetty project, issued in 2001, exercise caution . . . facts, and models used. failed to ‘‘consider alternatives to the We are talking about a pretty serious Finally, the amendment establishes proposed project, used outdated data to situation here. an independent safety assurance review estimate benefits to fishing trawlers, On May 14, 2006, an article entitled for flood control projects where the and did not account for the effects on ‘‘A Flood of Bad Projects,’’ was written public safety could be at risk should smaller fishing vessels.’’ by Mr. Michael Grunwald who is a the project fail. In 2005, the Corps adopted guidelines Washington Post staff writer. He goes By the way, that was recommended for conducting external reviews of on to say: in the Senate Homeland Security Com- projects. It sounds like a good idea. In 2000, when I was writing a 50,000-word mittee’s report on Hurricane Katrina. The current guidelines give the Corps Washington Post series about dysfunction at I would think that the Members of virtually complete discretion to decide the Army Corps of Engineers, I highlighted a this body, knowing the intense criti- what projects should be reviewed from $65 million flood control project in Missouri cism that the Corps of Engineers has outside the Corps. The so-called peer as Exhibit A. Corps documents showed that come under for years and these dra- reviewers themselves are selected by the project would drain more acres of wet- matic cost overruns time after time—I the Corps and in some circumstances lands than all U.S. developers do in a typical later may submit for the RECORD the can even be Corps employees. Accord- year, but wouldn’t stop flooding in the town very long list of cost overruns that it was meant to protect. FEMA’S director ing to the American Society of Civil called it ‘‘a crazy idea’’; the Fish and Wild- have been incurred due to bad esti- Engineers, Corps officials have identi- life Service’s regional director called it ‘‘ab- mates to start with—that we would fied approximately 25 engineering stud- solutely ridiculous.’’ want to have greater oversight, that ies as eligible for outside peer review Six years later, the project hasn’t we would want to have a peer review since the peer review guidelines were changed—except for its cost, which has system that would only apply to enacted over a year ago, but the Corps soared to $112 million. projects over $40 million each and if a has not been able to point to any study Remember, Mr. President, originally, Governor of a State requests it. where an external review was actually it was $65 million. If I were in the Corps of Engineers, carried out. Larry Prather, chief of legislative manage- maybe I would like to continue to do Clearly, the system needs to be fixed. ment for the Corps, privately described it in business as usual, but I think we According to this amendment, Corps a 2002 e-mail as an ‘‘economic dud with huge showed in New Orleans that we are not studies would be subject to peer review environmental consequences.’’ Another talking about just cost overruns. We Corps official called it ‘‘a bad project. Pe- if the project cost more than $40 mil- riod.’’ But the Corps still wants to build it. are not just talking about featherbed- lion, the Governor of an affected State ‘‘Who can take this seriously?’’ Prather ding in bureaucracies. We are talking requests a review, a Federal agency asked in his e-mail. That’s a good thing about the lives of our citizens and ca- with statutory authority to review a question to ask about the entire civil works tastrophes that could take place. project finds that it will have signifi- program of the Corps. I hope my colleagues will understand cant adverse impact, or the Secretary It goes on to say: that this amendment is meant to try of the Army determines that the Somehow, America has concluded that the to improve the image of the Corps of project is controversial. scandal of Katrina was the government’s re- Engineers, to give greater confidence This kind of issue hits home pretty sponse to the disaster, not the government’s to the taxpayers of America that their much when we have a situation such as contribution to the disaster. The Corps has tax dollars are being wisely spent, and the catastrophe in New Orleans. eluded the public’s outrage—even though a that we will do everything we can to According to a March 25, 2006, article useless Corps shipping canal intensified prevent the kind of construction and Katrina’s surge,— in the Washington Post: failing that took place in New Orleans Remember that, we have come to the An organization of civil engineers yester- which caused so much damage, includ- day questioned the soundness of large por- shipping canal intensified Katrina’s ing the construction of a canal that ag- tions of New Orleans’ levee system, warning surge— gravated dramatically the disaster that the city’s federally designed flood walls even though poorly designed Corps flood- that took place. were not built to standards stringent enough walls collapsed just a few feet from an un- I might add, it was also the Corps of to protect a large city. necessary $750 million Corps navigation The group faulted the agency responsible project, even though the Corps had promoted Engineers’ projects which depleted the for the levees, the Army Corps of Engineers, development in dangerously low-lying New wetlands which have been the natural for adapting safety standards that were ‘‘too Orleans floodplains and had helped destroy barrier to hurricanes for hundreds of close to the margin’’ to protect human life. the vast marshes that [surround it.] years, which are disappearing as we

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.014 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7819 speak. As we speak, the wetlands south I was very pleased that my friend vironment will be better or that the of Louisiana are being eroded on a from Arizona finally called attention needs of the people in the communities daily basis. to the St. John’s Bayou-New Madrid will be better satisfied. Mr. President, I thank my colleague floodway project. This is a very impor- I want to discuss, very briefly, the from Wisconsin for his involvement in tant project. I invite the Senator out technical and scientific independent re- this issue. I hope my colleagues will to see it sometime because this area, a view amendment offered by Senator understand, considering the rather sig- large area of southeast Missouri, was INHOFE and me and the peer review nificant shortfalls and shortcomings converted to cropland in the early amendment offered by Senators we have found involved in the Corps of 1900s. MCCAIN and FEINGOLD. Although the Engineers, that we would want to sup- One can argue whether that was a difference between independent review port an effort for greater account- good idea, but for over a century, it has and independent peer review appears to ability and greater transparency and been farmed and farmed successfully. be semantic and minor, when you look more involvement by local govern- They are not wetlands. There are no at what is in them, you see the dif- ment. wetlands being drained there. This is ference. Both proposed amendments I also remind my colleagues that cropland, and it is farmed. Some of the address Corps reform and both address there are many projects which are on farming is done by very low economic external review. Nobody is arguing to the boards, in planning stages. We will people. Minority communities are lo- say there shouldn’t be review, that we be discussing that when I propose my cated there. The minority community shouldn’t take a look and see what amendment for a process of of Pinhook holds many of the farmers needs to be done and how it needs to be prioritization for these projects. who farm this land. done better. Everybody can focus on I yield the floor. We have had very compelling testi- the problems of New Orleans. Well, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- mony before the Environment and Pub- when you look at the problems of New ator from Oklahoma. lic Works Committee. When the late Orleans, there are many factors that go Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I Jimmy Robbins, one of the leaders of into account. We are not going to ad- ask unanimous consent to add the fol- Pinhook, came up and explained that dress those here. But you take a look lowing cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond without closing the St. John’s Bayou- at how money was spent locally that amendment: Senators COCHRAN, New Madrid floodway, every time the was supposed to be spent on levees, and DOMENICI, and THUNE. river comes up, the river floods you take a look at the decisions made The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Pinhook. The entire community is cov- along the way that were not well made. objection, it is so ordered. ered in floodwater. They have to get Senator INHOFE and I have offered an Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, also, I out high-wheel tractors and large farm amendment which is before us that is am going to announce what we are tractors to ferry their children to going to require an independent review doing. We are going to be considering school, to ferry them back and forth to by qualified, interested experts, com- these two amendments, and after the work, to take care of their basic needs. piled by the National Academy of time has expired for both amendments Do we want to subject these people to Sciences, and the review will occur under the time agreement, then we will continued flooding? throughout the entire process. In other actually be voting on them side by My predecessor, Senator Tom Eagle- words, people such as representatives side. That will take place and people ton, back in 1976, proposed bringing re- from the National Academy of will have a choice. lief to the minority communities living Sciences, the IRC, the American Soci- I also want to mention that the Sen- in the area that floods when the Mis- ety of Civil Engineers, will be focusing ator from Wisconsin and the Senator sissippi River rises. Guess what. That on the project as it is developed. There from Arizona acknowledge that the un- was a mere 30 years ago because his are many stages in the development of derlying substitute amendment does project had been reviewed, re-reviewed, these projects, and they need to be re- improve this situation. I don’t think replanned, challenged, re-reviewed, re- viewed to make sure the work that is being done by the Corps is being done anyone is saying that what we have reviewed, and the people of Pinhook had in the past is acceptable. It is not accurately. continued to be flooded. This is a general operation of what acceptable. We are talking about mak- This is not about draining wetlands. happens before you go to a decision to This is a problem of what happens to ing major changes, and the underlying move forward. There is the chief’s re- substitute amendment does that as the people who actually live there. port; it is referred. There are letters, The purpose of the project is to pro- well as either of the amendments we OSA reviews, the Office of Management are considering now. tect communities, farmlands, and wild- and Budget reviews, the Office of Man- Before I forget to do this, I wish to life in a flood-prone area. No wetlands agement and Budget has to clear it, the repeat something I said a couple of will be drained. The majority of the Assistant Secretary of the Army rec- days ago. I thank Senator MCCAIN and land has been leveled, improved, irri- ommends it to Congress, and then Con- Senator FEINGOLD and all the members gated and is not functioning as wet- gress approves it. All of these steps— of our committee for working closely lands habitat but is functioning as there are about 103 separate steps that together so that this very significant farmland. have to be followed. So it comes to the legislation could come to the floor. I The Corps has reevaluated operations Congress as a policymaker to decide think, regardless of what amendments for fishery habitat for the area and de- whether it is an appropriate policy. are adopted, we are going to have a termined that this project still exceeds But all along that path, we want to dramatic improvement over the cur- the 1-to-1 benefit-to-cost ratio. I can have people who are scientifically rent system. tell you it is a whole lot more expen- qualified to make sure that if they are Speaking of thanking people, I thank sive than it would have been had the building a levee, they build a levee that Senator BOND. He is the one who has project been done in a timely fashion will hold as projected. If they are build- been a driving force in this committee. after 1976. That is what happens when ing a lock, they want to make sure it I yield to him at this time whatever you study, when you threaten to bank- will hold water, that it will be sound, time he wants to consume on our rupt local communities trying to pay that it will be safe, whether it is a amendment or on the Feingold-McCain their share. You put the State at great levee or a lock. amendment. expense to continue these operations. As a result of the admission from the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who Yes, we should study, and the amend- Corps that some of the problems ex- yields time? ment that has been proposed by Sen- isted with the planning and construc- Mr. INHOFE. I just did. ator INHOFE and me provides for review tion of the New Orleans levees, no The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- to make sure the review is accurate. one—not even the Corps—is denying ator from Missouri. But to provide the additional bureauc- that realistic reform is an important Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very racy, the additional hassle that the component of this WRDA bill. The grateful to the chairman of the com- Feingold-McCain amendment provides challenge is to enact realistic reform mittee for giving me this opportunity does not in any way assure that the that provides sufficient project review to respond. taxpayers will get a better deal, the en- without creating unnecessary costs.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.016 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7820 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 The Inhofe-Bond amendment pro- through the study process with unac- that unnecessarily delaying and expen- posed does just that. It provides reform ceptable expense and delay, and it sive, but it kills the motivation of em- that will establish greater account- would, in effect, become a second study ployees, and it delays. I, along with ability and assure us that scientific, process. The first go-round, the local Senator INHOFE, propose independent technical standards are observed with- cost share, would increase, because peer review during this study process. out adding unjustified delays and costs. they have to pay for it, the locals have One other thing, the inclusion of the The peer review panels in the Fein- to pay for it. It takes 1 to 3 years to go expectation of litigation. Their amend- gold-McCain amendment are not clear- through the process in the first place, ment talks about judicial review and ly restricted to reviewing the scientific and then you start a peer review at the invites judicial review. Well, that is and engineering basis. The panels are end and it could take another period of another cost adder that will continue permitted to get into policy, value, time, and if they send it back, you to impose burdens on communities and public controversy, and make the deci- start it 1 to 3 years over. That becomes delay the effectiveness of the ability to sions that Congress and the local com- extremely expensive for the local co- construct needed projects. With the munity are supposed to make. The sponsors. It becomes extremely expen- clear-cut incentives to litigate, we are local community decides whether to sive for the taxpayers who are paying going to see more lawsuits and less support it. Congress makes a policy de- for the tab if you redo it without re- projects. Clear-cut opportunities to cision. Congress has provided already viewing the project as you go forward. litigate, if the committee is unhappy for public hearings, public comment. Doubling the time and moving the with the chief’s report, will only com- Yesterday I went through the process costs of a project outside of the realm plicate the cost-benefit analysis, when of the number of meetings that had of the local community’s ability to pay it is already too challenging to place a been held with Governors, with public makes no sense. value on human life and the economic hearings on the locks projects on the Now, of course, beyond the peer re- lifeline of the country. The Corps study upper Mississippi, with the number of view process, there is the congressional process already takes too long and will comments, the number of people who process. Congress must authorize and be too expensive, and it will continue participated. There is tremendous pub- fund studies on each project and then to delay the progress we need. lic participation and input. Setting up authorize and appropriate funds to con- Media reports and editorials have a separate body to judge that input, struct each project. As we all know, criticized what went on, and they play rather than the Congress, is not, I the congressional process does take the blame game—they burden the think, good policy. We are supposed to years. If my ancient memory serves Corps with the blame. But Senators make the policy based on the best sci- me, this is the 2002 Water Resources should understand that the Corps needs entific recommendations we can get. Development Act. This was the bill to have an improved process, and we OMB has a crack at the policy when that was due in 2002. Here we are 4 are going to do our best to make sure they send it up. But these policy re- years later. Don’t let anybody tell you that process is driven by sound science views would be second-guessing the sci- that Congress doesn’t review it and re- throughout the process. About 80 of our colleagues signed a entific decisions. view it and review it and review it letter saying, Bring this bill to the Let’s think about how this would until it is lying on the floor gasping for floor. The 80 colleagues who are signed play out in the transition. Once the breath. on to that letter believe they have comment period moves beyond the The amendment Senator INHOFE and projects in their communities, in their technicality and the science, what I propose establishes a peer review States, that are important. If you wish independent experts are dictating the panel that provides a safety net. We to continue to delay the passage of the project approval? We should not dilute are elected to represent the interests of WRDA bill for another 2, 4, 6, 8 years, public review by giving technocrats a constituents. We are not appointed bu- then forget about the environmental larger role in policy recommendations reaucrats. The amendment takes away benefits—the environmental benefits than is given to the general public. our authority to act on behalf of our which are more than half of the au- There is a reason why we rely upon the constituents and meet the needs of our thorization of this project, and the en- appropriate training and expertise of local communities. It removes the vironmental benefits which the Audu- the people who are generating the proc- checks and balances set forth in our bon Society, the Nature Conservancy, ess to develop and construct our infra- Constitution by shifting power away to and other responsible environmental structure and safety needs. other people. groups say need to happen. Trying to Let’s take a look at the local cost Now, why do we wait until the end of delay the bill or trying to delay the share that would go into the Feingold- the line to do this peer review in the process of implementation of Corps McCain process. It doesn’t even provide first place? The collaborative solutions studies and recommendations is very for integration of peer review until the to urgent flood and storm control and costly and denies us the ability to ac- end of the process. Making sure that other important questions would be complish things that are important for the independent review begins as the moved to the end of the process and the safety, the well-being of our com- process goes forward is the way that we sent back to the drawing board. munities and the people who live in assure the process is better. We want Let’s try another analogy. We test them. integration of the review all through- our schoolchildren throughout each Mr. President, I urge our colleagues out before you make a major mistake grade level and assess their progress. If to oppose the Feingold-McCain amend- and go off in the wrong direction. When a child has difficulty reading, it is ment and to support the Inhofe-Bond you wait to have end-of-the-line peer flagged, and intervention and extra amendment. review—does it make any sense to wait help should be provided. We do not wait The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- until a car is coming off of an assembly until students reach the end of the ator from Oklahoma is recognized. line, is rolled off the assembly line, to eighth grade and then test them to see Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we had a test to make sure that the lights work if they have learned to read in the first list of people wanting to be heard. It is and the switches work? You test them grade and send them back to the first my understanding the Senator from before you put them into the car. That grade. You ought to be testing them Montana wants to be heard, and that is what we are doing, we test along the each year to make sure they are pro- would come from the minority time on line to make sure that what you are ficient, and you ought to be testing the general debate. putting into the process works. You hypotheses of this process throughout. Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes. don’t want to put components into a Common sense says that independent Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to car only to find out, Hey, the lights review is effective only if it is used the Senator from Montana, the rank- don’t work, the switches don’t work, throughout the process. Can you imag- ing member of the Subcommittee on and then have to start tearing the car ine an employee working on a project Transportation and Infrastructure. apart. and planning for several years, and Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over 70 That is what the Feingold-McCain then during the end-of-the-line review years ago one of Montana’s most re- amendment does. It is end-of-the-line finding a technical error and having to nowned political figures, Senator Bur- peer review. It invites multiple passes go back to the beginning? Not only is ton K. Wheeler, attended a meeting

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.017 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7821 with President Franklin D. Roosevelt nomic development and ecosystem res- vision in their project prioritization where be proposed building the Fort toration used to be thought of as mutu- amendment that directs the Water Re- Peck Dam in Central Montana. Fort ally exclusive. No more. This view is sources Planning Coordinating Com- Peck would be the largest hydraulic needlessly divisive. This bill includes a mittee to recommend to Congress a earth-filled dam in the world requiring provision that has brought together process for prioritizing ongoing oper- over 11,000 workers at peak construc- both irrigators and environmentalists. ational activities of the Corps. tion. At a pricetag of $75 million, the The Intake project on the Yellowstone I am proud of the work my colleagues cost of construction was large even by River will authorize the Corps to work and I have done on this bill. It’s been today’s standards. Fifteen minutes with the Bureau of Reclamation in the nearly 6 years in the making, but it after Senator Wheeler’s meeting with design and construction of a dam and has a solid base. This bill keeps our President Roosevelt had begun, Sen- diversion works that will help both economy competitive. It restores fish- ator Wheeler walked out with a prom- farmers and endangered fish. Rebuild- eries along the Yellowstone River so ise from President Roosevelt to have ing the dam at Intake will guarantee our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. the Army Corps of Engineers build farmers water for their crops and allow It protects the gulf coast from the rav- Fort Peck Dam. Construction began in the endangered sturgeon to pass ages of hurricanes. But it can do more. 1933. through the dam, opening 238 miles of With the right amendments, it can re- While it has taken this Congress sig- river habitat for the endangered fish. form the way the Corps does business nificantly longer than it did Senator This bill also includes urgently need- to rebuild the floodwalls of New Orle- Wheeler to advance the water resource ed hurricane protection and coastal ans and the public’s trust in the Corps. needs of the Nation, I am pleased to restoration projects for the State of I very much hope this amendment have worked with my colleagues—Sen- Louisiana. Indeed, this bill authorizes succeeds. ators INHOFE, JEFFORDS, and BOND—to the Corps in consultation with the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who bring the Water Resources Develop- Governor of Louisiana to create a com- yields time? ment Act of 2005 to the floor. prehensive ecosystem restoration plan Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield time to the It has been nearly 6 years since the for Louisiana to rehabilitate coastal Senator from Arizona. last WRDA bill was signed into law. barrier islands and wetlands that serve The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Protection of public safety, continued as natural hurricane barriers. ator from Arizona is recognized. growth of the economy, and the res- Unfortunately, some things at the Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I speak toration of the environment depend on Corps have not changed. In 1938 the in opposition to the Inhofe-Bond our timely action. Fort Peck Dam tragically failed. Thir- amendment. I would like to make it Much has changed since the Corps ty-four workers were swept away in a very clear that the Inhofe-Bond amend- constructed Fort Peck Dam. Today landslide. Eight lost their lives. The ment is not an independent review much of the Corps work in Montana is landslide was the result of inaccurate amendment. In fact, it is business as focused on ecosystem restoration. That soils and foundation analysis. If we do usual. is why I included a provision in this not learn the lessons of history, we are We have an expansion of a system bill that will allow the Corps to plan doomed to repeat them. that has never worked before and will conservation projects on the Yellow- Sixty-seven years later as Hurricane continue to fail in the future because stone River that are identified in the Katrina bared down on the city of New we are putting the fox in charge of the course of the Yellowstone River Cumu- Orleans, floodwalls around New Orleans hen house. We are putting the Corps of lative Effects Study. A cumulative ef- failed because of faulty soils analysis. Engineers in charge of reviewing their fects study has been ongoing along the What makes this event even more trag- own work. Yellowstone River for several years, ic is that an internal Corps study pre- To begin with, I hesitate to call it an authorized by WRDA 1999. This study dicted exactly how the floodwalls independent peer review amendment, has been very successful, and has in- would fail, and it went unread. The un- considering that the amendment di- volved close collaboration with the derlying bill does not go far enough to rects the Chief of Engineers to select State of Montana, the Yellowstone ensure that the Corps learns from the the panels, guaranteeing that the pan- Conservation District Council, and tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and els will not be independent. The local conservation districts, among Rita. The Corps needs a robust pro- amendment makes the Chief of Engi- many others. The provision included in gram of independent peer review and neers the final arbiter of whether an the bill today would provide the Corps project prioritization. The Corps cur- independent review will happen at all. with the authority to move forward rently has a $58 billion project backlog The Corps gets to select the reviewers. with planning, design and construction and a $2 billion a year project budget. There are no criteria at all for ensuring of ecosystem restoration projects along At that pace it would take the Corps independence of those reviewers. Re- the Yellowstone as they are identified roughly 30 years just to work through view is not independent if the Corps by the cumulative effects study. It is the backlog of projects. With limited has control over whether, how, and who so important. All these factors work Federal resources, it is important that will review the projects. Their version, together. It provides for public partici- the Corps separate the wheat from the according to the Inhofe-Bond amend- pation in the selection of projects, and chaff. ment, would be prepared by the Corps, consultation with the State of Mon- In fact I would like to see the controlled by the Corps, evaluated by tana, the Yellowstone Conservation prioritization framework extended to the Corps, and reported by the Corps, District Council, and others. cover not only construction projects locking out input from other relevant The Yellowstone is the longest free but ongoing operational activities of water resources agencies such as the flowing river in the county. Much of the Corps as well. Recreation on the Department of Homeland Security. southern and eastern Montana depends Missouri River generates nearly $85 Putting the structure of the review on the health of the Yellowstone River. million a year, while the barge indus- aside, let’s look more closely at what It irrigates fields, provides world-class try provides only $9 million a year. De- requirements would need to be met in fishing, sustains the tourism sector, spite this disparity, the Corps con- order to trigger a review of a Corps and supplies clean drinking water. It is tinues to maintain at least a 6-month project. According to the Inhofe-Bond a source of great pride and economic navigation season on the Missouri un- amendment, it gives the Corps com- strength for all Montana. This provi- less total water system storage on the plete discretion to avoid review of sion will protect the Yellowstone and Missouri drops below 31 million acre most projects. Review is mandatory Montana’s recreational heritage for feet. That is dryer than a dust bowl only for projects costing more than generations to come. drought. It makes no sense to waste $100 million. Inhofe-Bond lets the Corps While the Corps’ mission has evolved precious taxpayer and water resources ignore Governor and agency requests to include ecosystem restoration, part to maintain a navigation season on the for review. Inhofe-Bond prohibits re- of the Corps’ central mission is to de- Missouri in drought years. That is why view of the Corps’ project proposal. Re- velop our water resources to maintain I was pleased to work with Senators views could only examine scientific, our economic competitiveness. Eco- FEINGOLD and MCCAIN to include a pro- engineering or technical bases of the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.004 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7822 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 decision or recommendation but not supports this amendment. The admin- for the Delaware River and Bay, the the recommendations resulting from istration supports this amendment. Mid-Central Illinois Regional Council that data. The environment review ac- I hope that we would make sure that of Carpenters, Missouri Farm Bureau companying a feasibility study would we can tell our constituents and the Federation, Mississippi Welders Sup- not be subject to review. people who live in areas that may be ply, Incorporated, the Missouri Corn The Inhofe-Bond amendment pro- buffeted by hurricanes or other natural Growers Association, Missouri Levee & hibits reassessment of key models and disasters, particularly as we enter an- Drainage District Association, Na- data. This permanent moratorium other what is predicted to be a heavy tional Association of Manufacturers, guarantees that the Corps will con- hurricane season, that at least in fu- National Association of Waterfront tinue to use models that are widely ture projects, we have installed a prop- Employees, National Corn Growers As- recognized as inaccurate and flawed. er system of scrutiny and oversight— sociation, National Grain & Feed Asso- Mr. President, I think events of New not only so their tax dollars aren’t ciation, National Grain Trade Council, Orleans cry out for independent review wasted but, far more important, that National Grange, National Heavy & and outside scrutiny. It is alarming they don’t experience an unnecessary Highway Alliance, Laborers’ Inter- what we have found out, after some of disaster. national Union of North America, the hubbub concerning Katrina has I urge we adopt the amendment of International Union of Operating Engi- died down. Senator FEINGOLD and myself and re- neers, United Brotherhood of Car- After Katrina, the Corps of Engineers said ject the Inhofe-Bond amendment. penters & Joiners, International Asso- that all of its failed flood walls had been I will yield the floor. ciation of Bridge, Structural, Orna- overtopped by a hurricane too powerful for The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who mental & Reinforcing Iron Works of the Category 3 protection authorized by Con- yields time? The Senator from Okla- gress, while [the President’s] critics said the America, Operative Plasterers’ & Ce- administration budget cuts had hamstrung homa. ment Mason International Association, the Corps. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my International Brotherhood of Team- Both were wrong. Katrina was no stronger understanding the Senator from Iowa sters, and the International Union, than Category 2 when it hit New Orleans, is here, but I don’t see him. Let me do Brickyard Layers & Allied Craft- and many corps [flood walls] collapsed even this. We don’t have any other speakers workers. though they were not overtopped. [Presi- requesting time. The list goes on and on, including, of dent] Bush’s proposed budget cuts were Yesterday, Senator BOND had printed largely ignored, and were mostly irrelevant course, our State of Oklahoma Depart- in the RECORD the National Waterways to the city’s flood protection. New Orleans ment of Transportation. was betrayed by the Corps and its friends in Alliance letter that we received, dated I guess what I am saying here is most Congress. June 30 of this year, wherein they were States—the National Farm Bureau as The Corps helped set the stage for the dis- strongly requesting the passage of the well as the American Farm Bureau and aster decades ago by imprisoning the Mis- WRDA bill which—I think we all are in individual State farm bureaus—are all sissippi River behind giant levees. Those lev- agreement on that. We have not had a in support of the Inhofe-Bond amend- ees helped protect St. Louis, Memphis and reauthorization since the year 2000. ment and they are all opposed to the even New Orleans from river flooding, but They also say they want us to accept they reduced the amount of silt the river Feingold-McCain amendment. I don’t carries to its delta, curtailing the land-build- the Inhofe-Bond amendment and reject want people to think these organiza- ing process that creates marshes and swamps the Feingold-McCain Corps reform. I tions are ambivalent. They are strong- along the Louisiana coast. Those wetlands bring this up because the distinguished ly in support of our approach. serve as hurricane speed bumps—in Katrina, Senator from Arizona commented Again, we all agree on one thing: levees with natural buffers had much higher about a lot of groups that were in favor that is, the need to make some im- survival rates—but they have been vanishing of their amendment. But there are 288 provements. We like our peer review at a rate of 24 square miles per year. organizations—labor organizations, system better, and we will have ample Mr. President, the record of the Chamber organizations, waterway or- time to talk about that. Corps of Engineers cries out for inde- ganizations of the National Waterway I understand Senator GRASSLEY is pendent review and scrutiny and a Alliance. I will go ahead and read a here. I yield whatever time he wants to prioritization of projects. I quote from few: take and suggest it come off the gen- the Washington Post editorial of American Farm Bureau Federation, eral debate. Wednesday, June 7, 2006: American Shore and Beach Preserva- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- tion Association, Arkansas Basin De- ator from Iowa. neers admitted responsibility for much of velopment Association—this is kind of Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. the destruction of New Orleans. It was not interesting. A lot of people don’t real- President. I thank the Senator from true, as the Corps initially had claimed, that ize my State of Oklahoma is navigable. its defenses failed because Congress had au- Oklahoma. thorized only Category 3 protection, with the We have a port. It comes up through I appreciate very much the oppor- result that Hurricane Katrina overtopped the Arkansas River, comes across from tunity to discuss the issue of the Water the city’s floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no the Mississippi into Arkansas and up to Resources Development Act and par- stronger than a Category 2 storm by the my home town of Tulsa, OK. Obviously, ticularly that part of the act that deals time it came ashore, and many of the they are in support of this, too. with the improvement of transpor- floodwalls let water in because they col- The California Coastal Coalition, the tation on the Mississippi River because lapsed, not because they weren’t high Carpenters’ District Council of Greater that improvement is very essential not enough. As the Corps’ own inquiry found, the Saint Louis and Vicinity, Grain & Feed only to the economy of Iowa but to the agency committed numerous mistakes of de- Association of Illinois, the Harris sign. Its network of pumps, walls and levees economy of the whole Midwest, and in was ‘‘a system in name only.’’ It failed to County Flood Control District of turn that relates to the economy of the take into account the gradual sinking of the Texas, the Illinois Chamber of Com- United States. local soil; it closed its ears when people merce, Illinois Corn Growers Associa- Most importantly, it affects the pointed out these problems. The result was a tion, and many of the Illinois—almost economy—meaning the economic com- national tragedy. every organization in Illinois, I believe; petitiveness of our industry and agri- I hope my colleagues will do every- the International Union of Operating culture, and primarily agriculture with thing in their power to make sure we Engineers, Iowa Corn Growers Associa- competition around the world, and par- never see a repeat of this. There are ad- tion, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, ticularly that, as I see it, of Brazil. mitted failures in the process, and I re- Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Brazil is becoming very much a com- spect the effort of my colleagues from Johnson Terminal in Muskogee, OK, petitor with the Midwest of the United Oklahoma and Missouri to make some Kansas Corn Growers, Kentucky Corn States in the production of a lot of changes. But our argument is it is not Growers, the Long Island Coastal Alli- grains, particularly soybeans. enough. It is not enough. Virtually ance, Louisiana Department of Trans- I owe a thank you, particularly to every environmental organization in portation and Development, Maritime Senators BOND and INHOFE, for their America supports this amendment. Association of the Port of New York strong leadership in moving this legis- Virtually every outside organization and New Jersey, Maritime Exchange lation forward.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.020 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7823 This used to happen every 2 years, a ments in its river infrastructure. They gressional Research Service. Of course, bill called the Water Resources Devel- do not have to have locks and dams, our consumers and our manufacturers, opment Act. But we have not dealt such as we do on the Mississippi, in the and to some extent food supply, rely with this issue since the year 2000. This case of the Amazon. I saw facilities on upon importing goods into the United bill is not only long overdue, but it is my trip to Brazil on the Amazon that States. But whether it is exports or im- a very important bill. Not only does we could be very jealous of, the oppor- ports, whether it is consumers or input the bill which is before us include tunity to bring commercial seagoing into manufacturing and agriculture, many updates in existing authorized ships up the Amazon to load in Brazil many of these goods travel on our in- projects, but it also authorizes new on the Amazon and coming in this far land waterways. projects throughout the country. with very major terminals for loading Again, emphasizing the need to get Several examples of these much- primarily soybeans, but also they can this legislation passed, because it is needed projects beyond the ones I am go up the river as well. also forecast to beat our exports and going to emphasize are the coastal wet- There is a new facility being built at imports are going to continue to grow land restorations, but the one I want to this point. I believe these ships go even in the future, we must be able to effi- emphasize the improvement of is the further up. But at least I wanted to be ciently and economically move these Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. sure of here and here that it is possible goods. Coastal wetland restoration will help to load those ships at that point. They When I get more parochial in my eco- protect our inland waterways. We don’t have to use barges as we do from nomic observance of the need of this think, maybe too often, of that as Iowa to New Orleans to load. This legislation, it is because nearly two- being an environmental issue, but it is would be the equivalent of our being thirds of all grain as well as soybean also about protecting our inland water- able to take oceangoing ships up to exports are moved through the Mis- ways, making sure that there is a mul- Memphis to load for soybeans. sissippi and Illinois Rivers. According tiple use of the rivers, recreation, food, You can understand then that we to one study, unless the Army Corps of as well as commerce. have this lock and dam situation that Engineers modernizes, which means In the process of the wetland restora- makes it possible for us to use the Mis- Congress giving them the ability to do tion protecting our offshore energy sissippi River for major transportation. it, unless we modernize the lock and supply, we provide much-needed flood Keeping that up to date is very impor- dam system on the Upper Mississippi protection in the gulf coast region. But tant if we are going to be economically and the Illinois Rivers, the cost of for my State and the Midwest gen- competitive with how they can move transporting just one commodity, corn, erally, the Upper Mississippi and Illi- their agricultural products—primarily to the export market would rise by 17 nois River navigation and ecosystem soybeans—out of Brazil into the world cents per bushel. investments are also very vital because trade. As a result, corn and soybean exports of the multipurpose use of the river. Of What they don’t have that we have is would decline by 68 million and 10 mil- course, Iowa is bounded on the east very good roads, although they are im- lion bushels per year, respectively, and side by the Mississippi River for the en- proving them. They don’t have the rail- the decline in corn and soybean exports tire north and west distance of our road system we have in the United would reduce farm income by $246 mil- State. And Iowa, as well as the Nation, States that makes it possible for us to lion. This highlights how important relies on the river to move both goods get our grain very easily to the Mis- barge transportation is to the farmers that are domestically oriented and dis- sissippi River or using railroads to get but in turn to the economy generally. tributed as well as goods that are it down to the gulf. But they are work- In addition, there are many environ- internationally distributed. ing on that. Right now we are competi- mental benefits to river transpor- The United States enjoys a compara- tive because they do not have that land tation. According to the Environ- tive advantage in corn production infrastructure we have. When they get mental Protection Agency, towboats worldwide. My State is also the No. 1 that, we will have a hard time com- might have 35 to 60 percent fewer pol- producer of corn, and usually we are peting. lutants than either train locomotives also the No. 1 producer of soybeans. That brings up the point of this legis- or our big semitrucks in transporting In regard to corn production, the per- lation and getting it passed, to make anything, but particularly in regard to ton cost of transporting corn in the sure our Mississippi infrastructure is what I am talking about, the necessity United States is lower than any other up to date. We must invest in major of moving grain. A color chart used by country. But our country must not improvements in all of our transpor- the Senator from Missouri shows the allow its transportation infrastructure tation infrastructure. If we don’t make same thing. I have a black-and-white to continue to deteriorate. Quite frank- these investments in our roads, our chart. The information is the same, but ly, that is what this legislation is all rails and water, the U.S. agricultural it is cheaper to make white charts than about. Because of deterioration, it industry and labor will pay the price. it is colored charts. needs to be enhanced, it needs to be im- Last year we did a lot to help with It shows one barge can move what 15 proved, and it needs to be kept up to surface transportation, primarily re- jumbo hopper cars of railroads can date. Our international competitors ferred to as the highway bill, although move or what 58 large semis can move. are making major investments in their maybe not entirely highways. We pro- Not only is that an environmental transportation systems. vided $295 billion for road, transit, and issue, that is an issue of economy of In Brazil, surface transportation— rail improvements in that bill we moving a product. Most importantly, meaning railroads and highways, pri- passed last year. These funds will help when you are waiting for a long train marily highways—is very much infe- facilitate the movement of our goods. at a crossing, think in terms of fewer rior to ours. In March, I took a trip to The surface transportation bill will hopper cars because of what one barge Brazil. I can tell you that when we help alleviate congestion so our trucks can move. Of all of the trucks you meet were out in the countryside, what we can move more efficiently. on the interstate or the two-lane high- would call rural Brazil, we ran into It also provides additional loan au- ways of the Midwest, think how many more potholes than you could count, thority and tax credit to help railroads more there would be if we did not have something that farmers of Iowa would invest in much-needed capital improve- transportation to the gulf by barge. If not anticipate or tolerate from our ments and to help meet the large de- you have 15 of these barges being local officials. You wonder how local mands for their services. pushed by one motor, you would have officials get reelected because they are According to the Congressional Re- 2.25 miles of train, 180 cars or, in this not going to be reelected because of search Service, last year U.S. exports case, 870 large semis. filling potholes. But Brazil, on the of goods and services totaled $1.275 tril- I hope everyone can see that moving other hand, as far as their river trans- lion compared to $1.115 trillion in 2004 a lot of merchandise to export on the portation, brings into question the and $1.023 trillion in the year 2003. Mississippi River is taking an awful lot competitive advantage the United You can see very much an enhance- of pressure off the highways, an awful States might have that we could be los- ment in value of our exports from the lot of pressure off of the railroads. It is ing. Brazil has made significant invest- United States according to the Con- environmentally sound in the process.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.022 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7824 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 The Army Corps of Engineers data year. This does not take into account (The remarks of Mr. SCHUMER are suggests that the Nation currently the huge cost of increased highway and printed in today’s RECORD under saves $100 to $300 million in air pollu- rail transportation. ‘‘Morning Business.’’) tion abatement when moving bulk We realize the authorization of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- commodities by barge through the Mis- lock-and-dam improvements is a first ator from Oklahoma. sissippi River system. In these times of step in a lengthy process, but it is a AMENDMENT NO. 4682 high fuel prices and with the need to necessary step and one that a bipar- (Purpose: To modify a section relating to conserve energy, one gallon of fuel in a tisan group of Senators, an increasing independent reviews) towboat can carry one ton of freight 2.5 number of Senators in a bipartisan Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask times further than rail and nine times way, has been working on for a few unanimous consent that the pending further than trucks. years. amendment be temporarily set aside, Quoting the Minnesota Department It is an important and necessary and I call up amendment No. 4682. of Transportation estimate, shifting project for our Nation. I urge my col- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without from barge to rail results in fuel usage leagues to vote for this balanced legis- objection, it is so ordered. The clerk emissions and probable accident in- lation, not to vote for any amendments will report. creases by the following percentages: that are going to dilute it or harm it in The assistant legislative clerk read 331-percent fuel usage; 470 percent less any way. When we get this number of as follows: emissions; and 290 percent less probable Senators working together in a bipar- The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE] accidents. Shifting traffic from barge tisan fashion, this ought to be a test of for himself, Mr. BOND, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. to trucks increases fuel use 826 percent, something that is needed, a test of THUNE, Mr. DOMENICI, and Mr. BURNS, pro- emissions 709 percent, and probable ac- something that is good, something to poses an amendment numbered 4682. cidents by 5.967 percent. In addition, move forward on. It is balanced legisla- Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask another 1,333 heavy trucks would be tion and, of course, it is good for the unanimous consent that reading of the added to our already congested roads. country. amendment be dispensed with. For these above reasons, we have this The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without legislation before the Senate. Several ator from Oklahoma. objection, it is so ordered. of my Senate colleagues for many Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ap- (The amendment is printed in today’s years have been seeking authorization preciate the comments of the Senator RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’) for this lock and dam modernization as in support of the bill. The Senator from Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con- well as enhanced environmental res- Iowa is in support of the Inhofe-Bond sent that the time until 2:30 be for con- toration of the Mississippi and Illinois amendment and opposed to the Fein- current debate on the pending Fein- Rivers. To get that done, we have to gold-McCain amendment. I remind him gold-McCain amendment and the pend- get this bill to the President for his that virtually every organization in ing Inhofe-Bond amendment and be signature. Iowa, including the Iowa Renewable equally divided between the bill man- I am very pleased the Committee on Fuels Association, Iowa Farm Bureau agers or their designees, and that at Environment and Public Works in- Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Asso- 2:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in re- cluded these important initiatives in ciation, and others, are in support of lation to amendment No. 4681, to be this Water Resources Development Act the Bond-Inhofe amendment. followed by a vote in relation to the and that a truly bipartisan group of I also make a request, and I am sure Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no inter- Senators is advocating for this impor- others will join, asking Members to vening action or debate. tant modernization. If anyone believes come to the Senate if they want to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without it is always Republicans attacking speak on either of the two amendments objection, it is so ordered. Democrats and Democrats attacking that are being discussed right now. Mr. INHOFE. For clarification, I en- Republicans, this is an ideal initiative I ask unanimous consent to add Sen- courage Members to come down be- that shows how widespread bipartisan ator BURNS as a cosponsor of the cause our time is running out. It is support and cooperation can be in this Inhofe-Bond amendment. confusing when you have two amend- Senate when there is a national emer- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MUR- ments that you are using the same gency. That national emergency is en- KOWSKI). Without objection, it is so or- time for. So essentially the time that vironmental, the national emergency is dered. we would have in favor of the Inhofe- for our economy to be competitive, the Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding Bond amendment would be the same as national emergency is safety on our Senator HATCH is going to be making a the time in opposition to the Feingold- highways, to relieve glut on our rail- request to be heard as if in morning McCain amendment. I appreciate the roads. It is all around. business for 15 minutes. Because of the Senator from Wisconsin for his co- This is a bipartisan effort to cooper- time constrains we are operating operation in moving this along. ate for the good of this Nation because under, I will ask that time be taken off The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- this lock-and-dam system of the Upper of my time. ator from Wisconsin. Mississippi River was built in the late The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I 1930s, I suppose over a period of a few objection, it is so ordered. thank the Senator from Oklahoma for decades. But many lock chambers are The Senator from Utah. his continued cooperation in the way only 600 feet long and cannot accom- (The remarks of Mr. HATCH are print- in which this debate is proceeding. I modate the barges we are talking ed in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Morning will use a few minutes of my time to about used in the modern day to get Business.’’) bring us back to the debate on these things into the international market. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- two amendments that are before us. These structures require a moderniza- ator from Wisconsin. First, to make it absolutely clear to tion because there is a tow configura- Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I people that the amendment that Sen- tion that needs a double lock to pass. yield 10 minutes to the Senator from ator MCCAIN and I are offering cer- This adds to mounting delay time when New York, who will speak in morning tainly would not slow down the bill in we do not have the modernization. It business, but I understand the time any way or delude the bill; we have a amounts to increased costs to the ship- will be charged to my side of the time agreement. However, it turns out pers, increased harm to our environ- amendment. the legislation will go forward and ment with higher emissions and higher The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without there is an obvious expectation that sediment suspensions in the river chan- objection, it is so ordered. the bill will pass. In light of the re- nel, the loss of jobs when we are not The Senator from New York. marks of the Senator from Iowa, I competitive, and lower wages when we Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, want to make it clear to people that are not competitive. first, I thank my colleague for yielding this in no way is going to somehow Increased traffic levels without these time generously, as he always does, stop the bill from going through this improvements will result in gross farm and note that I support his amendment body. We will let the chips fall where revenue loss of over $105 million per and look forward to voting on it. they may based on the results of the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.024 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7825 votes, but there is no slowing down of tions of the difference as they consider is a timely and very serious example of the bill. these two amendments. the dramatic difference between the Secondly, I was struck by the re- My amendment implements the rec- amendment that Senator MCCAIN and I sponse to our amendment. Senator ommendations of the National Acad- have offered and the, frankly, inad- MCCAIN and I laid out some pretty emy of Sciences by allowing a thor- equate amendment that is offered as an damning evidence about what the ough analysis of a Corps feasibility alternative. Army Corps of Engineers’ role may study. The Inhofe-Bond amendment ig- I retain the remainder of my time. have been in the Katrina disaster, nores this recommendation by sharply The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who which everybody admits is one of the limiting what independent reviewers yields time? worst disasters in the history of our would be allowed to consider. On this The Senator from Oklahoma. country. I think the Senator from Mis- point, it is good to give an example of Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, souri indicated that he didn’t think we why this matters. Many of us know let me make a couple of observations. I ought to engage in a blame game. I about the Mississippi River Gulf Out- think in the discussions we have had so wouldn’t call it a blame game, but let, MRGO, in Louisiana. In Louisiana, far, there are a lot of things we agree somebody has to be held responsible. MRGO is what this project is referred on. We agree that we need to change We have to acknowledge what might as. the system we have right now. I don’t have caused this horrendous problem, According to most scientists who really take issue with some of the and the evidence is overwhelming. Just have looked at it, MRGO, a Corps navi- things that the Senator from Arizona as FEMA’s performance was abysmal, gation channel, greatly exacerbated and the Senator from Wisconsin have so, too, was the role of the Army Corps the impact of Hurricane Katrina by said about existing problems with the of Engineers in properly establishing funneling and intensifying Katrina’s way that the Corps of Engineers has levees and other engineering that had storm surge directly into New Orleans been working. I recognize also that the to be done. And it may well have been and by destroying 20,000 acres of coast- Senator from Wisconsin agrees that significantly responsible for the trag- al wetlands that could have buffered the underlying substitute amendment edy that occurred in New Orleans. I the storm’s surge. These same experts, does include some provisions to require don’t know if they plan to mount a re- including the independent reviewers peer review, specifically for Corps of sponse to that, but I hope the record looking into what happened in New Or- Engineers studies. The Inhofe-Bond makes it clear that this New Orleans leans, have said that the devastating amendment gives additional detail and situation is Exhibit A in the kinds of flooding that overwhelmed St. Bernard clarity to that requirement as well as problems that can occur if you don’t Parish and the lower ninth ward of New the Feingold-McCain amendment gives have appropriate review of these Army Orleans came from the MRGO. I was in additional detail and clarity to that Corps of Engineers projects. both of those parishes 10 days ago, and amendment. So there are some areas I wanted to also respond to some of that is exactly what the National where I think we are in agreement. the specific issues the Senator from Guard and other people and experts in- Also, we are in agreement on the ne- Missouri spoke about. He talked about dicated to me while I was physically cessity of reauthorizing the Water Re- what issues an independent review looking at this destruction. sources Development Act. It has not group could consider. I want to make it Only 52 of the 28,000 structures in St. been addressed since the year 2000. very clear. Under my amendment, Bernard Parish escaped unscathed from Our amendment ensures that peer re- which directly implements the rec- Katrina. For years, community lead- view is integrated into the Corps study ommendations of the 2002 National ers, including the St. Bernard Parish process. Most stakeholders agree that Academy of Sciences’ report on peer Council, activists, and scientists the current study process is already review, independent panels will ensure warned that the MRGO was a hurricane too long and further delays are not ad- that the Corps’ proposed approach to a highway and called for closing the out- visable. That is not a reason to ignore problem will work to resolve the iden- let. This is not merely an after-the-fact the critical role that peer review can tified problem and not cause unin- recognition that something was wrong. play, but it is a reason to demand that tended adverse consequences. Inde- People who lived and some who died in peer review not be an end of the proc- pendent review panels will not take these communities were warning about ess addition or delay. away any decisionmaking responsibil- this potential disaster before it oc- Our amendment clarifies that peer ities. I want to be clear on that because curred. review panels are to review the tech- a couple of the comments today could Why is this relevant? Under the nical and scientific information that at least be interpreted to suggest that Inhofe-Bond limited review, the other forms the basis of decisions, but the de- somehow this is going to take away the amendment, a panel would not have cisions themselves are a function of the decisionmaking power from those who been able to examine the full implica- Government. It is something the Gov- have it. Under my amendment, no deci- tions of constructing the Mississippi ernment should be doing, not any inde- sionmaking responsibilities are taken River Gulf Outlet or MRGO in New Or- pendent peer review. Decisions regard- away from the Army Corps of Engi- leans. While reviewers would have been ing how best to meet our Nation’s neers. The amendment simply allows able to assess whether the Corps prop- water resources needs all involve trade- for independent experts to identify erly calculated the wetlands impact of offs of some sort. No outside group or problems in the best possible way. the MRGO, they would not have been distinct subject matter experts can Why would anyone not want to hear able to comment on the fact that the truly be considered experts at making the important feedback from inde- recommended plan would put New Orle- those decisions. pendent experts? ans at risk by destroying wetlands I am sure they would all have opin- I would like to talk a little more in vital for buffering storm surge and by ions, but everyone has opinions. Gov- detail about one of the biggest dif- creating a funneling effect that would ernment officials, on the other hand, ferences between our independent re- intensify the storm surge. The Inhofe- are specifically charged with making view amendment and the Inhofe-Bond Bond review also would not have al- the decision. They have that responsi- alternative which will be voted on side lowed any comment on the appro- bility. I believe that is one of the dis- by side starting at 2:30, as the Senator priateness of proceeding with the tinctions between the Inhofe-Bond from Oklahoma indicated. One of the MRGO in light of the increased danger amendment and the approach taken by very clear recommendations from the to the city and the fact that traffic Senators FEINGOLD and MCCAIN. National Academy of Sciences’ 2002 re- projections were vastly overstated. Another aspect of the Inhofe-Bond port on peer review is that reviewers I think we can all agree that this ex- amendment I would highlight is the de- should have the flexibility to comment ample shows what can be at stake if we tailing of which project studies at a on important issues to decisionmakers. don’t allow reviewers some flexibility minimum should undergo peer review. On this point, the two competing to bring up important issues. This isn’t Independent reviews are required if the amendments are very different. I want the only example of where the Inhofe- estimated total project cost is more my colleagues to understand the im- Bond amendment falls short, but I will than $100 million. I believe the Fein- portance and the potential ramifica- try to say more about that later. This gold-McCain approach is $40 million.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.026 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7826 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 We also say it has to be over $100 mil- way the Corps of Engineers operates. I the country to use up enormous quan- lion and if the Secretary of the Army have a few examples I could use. We tities of water, and that we might determines that the project is con- have right now a problem in Oklahoma plant them in the bed of the canal to troversial. Independent reviews may be with one of the individuals who has not soak up the water and then we can go required if a Governor or head of a Fed- been doing a conscientious job. We across, like the children of Israel, on eral agency requests the review. can’t get the Corps of Engineers to lis- dry land. Well, none of that has hap- I know some of those opposed to this ten to us in terms of how this par- pened, so we have to figure out how to amendment have argued that these ticular bureaucrat is abusive in his get across the C&D Canal that disrupts triggers are too lenient, but I don’t be- treatment of individuals. commerce in my State. lieve that is the case. I think that we need to do some- In return for the imposition of this Of the 44 new or contingent author- thing. Our underlying substitute canal, the Corps of Engineers has been izations included in the substitute amendment does something. I think obligated for three quarters of a cen- amendment, 18 would have been subject probably either of these two amend- tury to provide sufficient access across to independent peer review based on ments will take that one step further. that canal. Yet, in recent years, in the $100 million trigger alone. That is There are areas where we agree. spite of population growth that has 40 percent of these projects based on I yield the floor. stretched the capacity of the current just one of the four possible triggers. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- bridges, the Corps has sought to reduce The other triggers would be in addition ator from Wisconsin is recognized. the number of bridges across the C&D to this requirement of the minimum of Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I Canal. Thanks to the support of the $100 million. I don’t consider that le- am pleased to yield 12 minutes to one chairman and ranking member, that nient at all. The Inhofe-Bond amend- of our strong supporters and cosponsors will not happen. ment also incorporates a recommenda- of the amendment, the Senator from The second important provision in tion of the American Society of Civil Delaware, Mr. CARPER. this bill to our State is a late entry. A Engineers to require independent re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- little over a year ago, some of you may view of technical and design specifica- ator from Delaware is recognized. recall that the Senate passed a bill by tions of certain projects critical to Mr. CARPER. Madam President, to unanimous consent to rename our new public safety beyond the study phase. my colleague and friend, Senator FEIN- bridge over the C&D Canal along State Finally, I would like to address an- GOLD, I thank him very much for yield- Route 1 for former U.S. Senator Bill other baseless charge that has been ing, and I thank him even more for his Roth, my predecessor. Senator Roth made against this amendment: that leadership and that of Senator MCCAIN served in the Senate for 30 years and in these panels wouldn’t really be inde- in offering this amendment. the House of Representatives for a time pendent because the chief of engineers Before I talk about the amendment, I before that. I see Senator BOND here; is the official in charge of selecting the want to also thank Senator INHOFE and he served with him for a number of panels. The amendment is clear that our ranking member, Senator JEF- those years. Bill Roth, for over a third the Corps must issue guidelines that FORDS, as well as Senators BOND and of a century, served the people of Dela- are consistent with the Information BAUCUS, for bringing this bill to the ware admirably and with distinction in Quality Act as implemented in OMB’s floor today. It has taken 6 long years the House and later, for many years, in revised bulletin from December 2004. and a huge amount of work on the part the Senate. He also worked hard to This bulletin discusses in some detail of them and their staffs and our staffs make sure about 15 years ago that this requirements for reviewers, including as we have prepared for this debate new bridge over the C&D Canal would expertise and balance of panels, lack of today. be built. conflicts of interest, and independence. We are finally able to move this im- The bill to name the State Route 1 I have been a little concerned, after portant legislation because of their bridge at St. Georges for Senator Roth reading the Feingold-McCain amend- dogged determination, really a collec- passed the Senate unanimously. It has ment, as to just how this works. It is tive determination and willingness to been held up in the House for the past my understanding that it would—in my work with all of us to address our year. I appreciate Senator INHOFE’s and opinion and in the way I look at States’ respective needs, and an open- Senator JEFFORDS’ willingness to move things—create another bureaucracy ness to debating possible reforms for it forward by agreeing to add it to the and another board that would be look- the way we plan and prioritize water Water Resources Development Act. On ing at these. I am not sure this is real- resource projects. behalf of our State and the Roth fam- ly going to be necessary. I do believe This bill includes several provisions ily, we express our deepest gratitude. that we have tried to strike a balance. that are very important to my State of I also rise today to voice my support I believe we have done so. I am quite Delaware. I want to quickly highlight for Senator FEINGOLD’s and Senator confident we can trust a three-star maybe two of those and talk about the MCCAIN’s Corps independent review general to follow direct commands, es- importance of modernizing the Corps of amendment. It is essential that we pecially those issued in law. Engineers. apply the lessons that we learned from As I have outlined, the Inhofe-Bond First, this bill preserves something Hurricane Katrina. This amendment independent peer review amendment called the St. Georges Bridge over the seeks to do that, at least in part. would ensure review of critical infor- Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the This past April, I had the oppor- mation by experts outside the Corps 14-mile canal that really connects the tunity to tour both the devastation in without creating unnecessary burdens Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay. New Orleans, as well as the wetlands and delays. It serves to divide Delaware in half. It that act as a buffer for that city. As a As was stated before, we are going to takes up valuable space within my lit- member of the Homeland Security and first be voting at 2:30 on the Feingold- tle State, disrupts our commerce and Governmental Affairs Committee, I McCain amendment and then on the the movement of people and goods, and have spent many hours hearing from Inhofe-Bond amendment. I will be en- provides a shortcut for ships trying to experts about why the levees failed in couraging them to vote against the get from the Delaware Bay to the New Orleans. Feingold-McCain amendment and for Chesapeake Bay, and it helps to divert One thing became inescapably clear: our amendment. But having said that, traffic away from my port, the Port of There were warnings that were not I would like to say that we are in Wilmington. To say that I am not a heeded. The McCain-Feingold amend- agreement. Sometimes you get into a great admirer of all that the C&D ment seeks to prevent that from hap- discussion on these things and it Canal does for my State would be an pening again. sounds as if everyone is in disagree- understatement. I have proposed, The McCain-Feingold independent re- ment. This isn’t like a climate change tongue-in-cheek, that we appropriate view amendment—which I have cospon- debate. This isn’t one where everybody shovels to the people of Delaware so we sored—requires an independent panel of gets all fired up. I know we are all try- can line up on either side of the C&D experts to be constituted to review ing to do the same thing. We know Canal and fill it in, and that we bring projects that will cost greater than $40 there is room for improvement in the in plants and trees from other parts of million.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.027 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7827 That panel will be fully independent nical information and science, not a re- level for first-grade compliance—is of the Corps and made up of anywhere view of policy decisions, which are ap- what the Feingold-McCain amendment from five to nine experts in engineer- propriately made in the executive would do. ing, hydrology, biology, and economics. branch and by this body. We don’t want Let’s be clear about it. We passed a This panel will be able to review every to outsource our policy decisions to bill 2 years ago that had all sorts of aspect of a proposed project, from the some other group, as the Feingold- regulatory redtape and delays. This data and assumptions that went into McCain amendment would do. We want was opposed by the House, which could the Corps’ analysis into the actual de- to continue an open, fair, and public re- not agree on a conference with us. That sign of the final project that is chosen. view of recommendations, and not cre- is why we lost this bill. Putting in a Having such a review of the New Or- ate a public review created by special batch of redtape and bureaucratic leans levee system likely would have interests designed to undo projects for delays is going to make possible nego- drawn attention to the flaws in the reasons other than policy reasons. tiations with the House extremely dif- Corps’ design, including the facts that We support stabilizing, not desta- ficult and could lead to no bill being they failed to account for the natural bilizing, Federal/ non-Federal interests passed again. subsidence of the city and that the in reliance on the Corps. We support So the 2002 Water Resources Develop- flood walls were not properly anchored Presidential oversight of independent ment Act that we are still trying to in the swampy southern Louisiana review, not handing government func- pass in 2006 would go into 2007 and 2008. ground. tions over to some unelected commis- The benefits that come from the au- We often talk about these proposals sion. thorized projects in this bill will be de- as ‘‘Corps reform.’’ But in a real sense, When you take a look at the past layed. I want the 80 Senators who want they are also congressional reforms. work of the Corps, you see that the to see this bill passed—because they That is because the findings of the Corps now currently provides 3 trillion have projects that are important—to independent panels merely provide gallons of water for use by local com- understand that the review that is nec- more information to us, the Congress. munities and businesses. The Corps essary is being incorporated in the They are not binding. It will still be up manages a supply of one-quarter of our Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is being in- to us in the Congress to decide how to Nation’s hydropower. The Corps oper- corporated in a sensible timeframe, re- proceed, and we will need to do a better ates 463 lake recreation areas. The viewing with representatives from the job ourselves in the future. But we can- Corps moves 630 million tons of cargo National Academy of Science, the not be expected to make good decisions valued at over $73 billion annually over American Society of Civil Engineers, if we don’t have good information. the inland water system. It manages and the Independent Research Council, Moreover, in these days of tighter over 12 million acres of land and water. as the project goes along. budgets, we are not going to be able to The levees that have been properly Everybody knows there needs to be gather support of our constituents for constructed have prevented an esti- review. The Corps has learned a lot of big navigation projects that they fear mated $76 billion in flood damage with- lessons from mistakes. We ought to will destroy wetlands that are needed in the past 25 years, with an invest- learn from our mistakes. One of the for flood protection or for a flood con- ment of one-seventh of that value. mistakes we have made is to try to trol project that people don’t believe These are the tremendous values that burden the process and make it so cum- will work. can be provided if we can pass this bill bersome it can’t work. As the New Orleans Times-Picayune If you don’t want to see the Corps and if we can make sensible Corps re- stated in a recent editorial: providing water supply, protecting form, without providing major hin- Taxpayers shouldn’t have to wonder if against floods and hurricanes, making drances and roadblocks. there’s a rational basis for spending billions sure we have the most efficient, eco- I hope that the 80 Senators who of dollars. nomical, environmentally friendly, en- joined with us in saying ‘‘bring this bill I am reminded of something that ergy-friendly means of transportation, to the floor’’ will realize that there is LTG Carl Strock, who commands the then support more bureaucracy, more such a thing as appropriate review and Army Corps of Engineers, said: redtape, and more delays. there is such a thing as unnecessary, Words alone will not restore trust in the If, on the other hand, you want to see Corps. late-stage second guessing, which can the Corps do the job and get the job be extremely expensive and can delay These amendments will provide some done right, then I ask my colleagues to the benefits that could come from the substantive change to back up the support the Inhofe-Bond amendment work of the Corps. claim that we will never let what hap- and let us get on about the business of The McCain-Feingold independent re- pened in New Orleans happen again. protecting people from floods, from view amendment has a tremendous po- I urge my colleagues to support the hurricanes, and making sure that our tential to delay project construction. McCain-Feingold independent review waterways continue to be an efficient They wait until the end of the process, amendment. I am pleased to be among energy-conserving means of trans- and any mistakes found at the end of its cosponsors. I urge its adoption. porting bulk commodities. I yield back my time. the process, as envisioned in the Fein- I thank the Chair, and I yield the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. gold-McCain amendment, would neces- floor. THUNE). Who yields time? sitate a repeat of the study to correct The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield my- the problems—beginning over again. ator from Wisconsin. self such time as I may consume. Clearly, this would delay project con- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- struction and drive up costs. pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Sen- ator from Missouri is recognized. Under our proposal, since reviews are ator from California in support of our Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have integrated into the process, any mis- amendment. had a lot of talk about all of the things takes made or improvements suggested The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- that the Corps has done wrong and the could be corrected and incorporated at ator from California. problems in the past. I don’t think any- the time. As I said earlier today, it is Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank body believes that there is not a need like waiting to test students in the Senator FEINGOLD for his leadership. I for reform, review, independent review eighth grade to see if they have first- also thank Senator MCCAIN. They have by experts who can comment on and grade reading capabilities. If a child two amendments before us, the next who can provide valuable input to the cannot read at the first-grade level one coming shortly. I enthusiastically Corps. The Corps has learned a lot of when he or she finishes the first grade, support this amendment. I think this lessons, and the Inhofe-Bond proposal give them remediation then, help pre- one is very much a reform. I strongly creates a mechanism for improving pare them for the second grade; don’t oppose the other one. But I am not technical quality of the projects that wait until they get to the eighth grade going to use my time now to talk move forward, not an incubator for and say we just wasted 8 years of this about the second amendment because I more lawsuits to delay needed projects. child’s education because they could do want to concentrate on what an im- The Inhofe-Bond amendment would not read at the first-grade level. This portant step forward this particular encourage independent review of tech- essentially—testing at the eighth grade amendment is.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.029 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7828 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 The 2005 hurricane season taught us perts, and that is what we are giving to storm even though the Army Corps had many valuable lessons—lessons that we the Congress and, therefore, to the been telling the city and the Nation for will never forget because we saw them American people. We are going to have years that the system offered com- with our very own eyes. And one of the additional scrutiny, and we are going prehensive category 3 level protection. most important lessons is that major to make sure that mistakes are rare. That the floodwalls along the 17th water resources projects and especially When we talk about mistakes, it is Street and London Avenue Canals col- flood control projects must be care- one thing to make a mistake on an lapsed because of foundation failures fully reviewed to be sure they will be issue that doesn’t put lives at risk, but caused by design and construction mis- effective. we are talking about the protection of takes. Those walls collapsed well be- What a disaster it is for our tax- life and limb for our people. fore the water reached the height the payers to spend millions and billions I think this amendment will help the walls were designed to protect against, on these projects, only to learn that Corps do its job better. It will improve causing a major portion of the flooding they were not designed well or they public faith in the work of the Corps in the city and the suffering at the Su- didn’t meet the real threat that was because, frankly, after Katrina, many perdome and Convention Center. The posed by Mother Nature or that there people are saying to me: Can we trust Army Corps considered those was cronyism dealing with putting to- these public works projects, these flood floodwalls complete, ready to defend gether the alternatives. control projects to really protect us? against a hurricane of Katrina’s I believe this amendment will put They have doubts, and they should strength. Unfortunately, it took independent and expert eyes on the have doubts, having seen what they Katrina and the subsequent IPET re- data, on the science, and on the engi- saw. port to learn that those floodwalls I, again, thank Senators FEINGOLD neering of our major public works were not designed, built, or con- and MCCAIN for their leadership on this projects. We need these independent structed to protect those who lived in particular amendment, and I urge a and expert eyes because so much is at nearby neighborhoods. ‘‘yes’’ vote. I know it is going to be a stake. And one of the most shocking discov- close vote, but I really do believe peo- I come from a State that has every eries, IPET found that, because of sub- ple listening to this debate will see kind of natural disaster imaginable. sidence in the area, parts of the levee that all we are saying in support of The people there are very good at system were anywhere from 2 to 3 feet this amendment is we are bringing in pointing out what the problems are, below their design height. What was outside experts to keep an eye on tax- and we have to be equally as good in even more shocking was that the Army payers’ dollars and keep an eye on responding to these needs and making Corps was aware of the subsidence be- these designs to make sure that when sure we give them quality, that we give fore Katrina but did nothing to address we fund a public works project, we them the protection they deserve. the obvious deficiency. have done everything in our power to In this amendment, we are giving the Mr. President, I am on the Senate make sure it is designed well, that it people what they deserve. When a re- floor today because while it is enor- will be cost-effective, and it will be view is triggered under this proposal, a mously important that we have learned safe. panel of experts, of engineers and hy- Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I of these failures after Katrina, it is drologists to biologists and economists, rise to speak in support of the McCain- even more important that we learn of must look at the underlying technical Feingold amendment on independent them before the next Katrina, before data and look at the project in its review. I do so because of the investiga- the next failure of a major flood con- whole and make sure that the project tion that the Senate Homeland Secu- trol project. And that is what this will meet and achieve its goals. rity and Governmental Affairs Com- amendment will do. It will require that There is little point in expending mittee recently completed into the major Corps projects, and especially hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars unless preparation for and response to Hurri- flood control projects that protect peo- we know it is being spent right. What cane Katrina. In that investigation, ple and property, be subject to the kind this particular amendment does is Senator COLLINS and I and the rest of of independent oversight that has prov- bring in those outside experts to kind the committee learned a great deal en so beneficial in the aftermath of of give a seal of approval on what we about the inadequacy of the levee sys- Katrina. are doing. tem that was supposed to protect New Why did the citizens of Louisiana not Again, I don’t go along with the next Orleans. And we were greatly aided by know any of these problems before amendment, and I will be back to talk the work of the three different inde- Katrina made landfall, and why did the about that, but this amendment does pendent forensic investigations carried Army Corps not feel compelled to fix what needs to be done. The panel will out by the State of Louisiana, the Na- the ones they knew about? make recommendations to improve the tional Science Foundation, and by the How different the preparation for and project. This particular amendment is Army Corps’ own Interagency Perform- response to the storm would have been common sense, pure and simple. ance Evaluation Task Force or IPET. had an independent review process like Complex and costly engineering The results of these reviews were IPET been initiated before the Army projects deserve the additional scru- truly shocking. In the words of the Corps designed and constructed the tiny. Mistakes do happen. You know Army Corps’ own IPET report, ‘‘The levee system rather than after a storm what. Mistakes will happen no matter System did not perform as a system: like Katrina left it and the city it was how many panels we have, but the idea the hurricane protection in New Orle- supposed to protect in tatters. is to cut down on those mistakes. We ans and Southeast Louisiana was a sys- We have learned valuable lessons are all human. We all make mistakes, tem in name only.’’ IPET found that from Katrina, and one of those lessons but how much better is it to get a very the system was only as strong as its is that we need an independent review seasoned pair of eyes to take a look at weakest links, and that there were process for our most critical projects what we are doing. many weak links. IPET found: before they are battle tested. We need I believe this amendment will make That the materials and designs used assurances that what the Army Corps these projects safer, and they will in the levees were inadequate and builds will function as planned. And make them more effective. failed faster than expected in fending unfortunately, we have also learned I support the Army Corps of Engi- off Katrina. that we cannot count on the Army neers’ mission. When I first got into That project designs failed to incor- Corps of Engineers to do this them- politics in local government, I worked porate redundancy and measures to re- selves. These reviews need to be inde- very closely with the Corps on many spond to a hurricane that was larger pendent, conducted by 3 outside ex- flood control projects. We have had our than expected. For instance, there was perts who can objectively evaluate arguments, we have had our debates, no shielding on the back of the flood what is being proposed, and in the case but over the years, we have managed to walls to prevent their collapse if they of major flood control projects, also work well together. But there were mo- were overtopped by the storm surge. how it is being designed and built. ments during those debates when I That some parts of the system were The Army Corps has already given us knew I could benefit from outside ex- not prepared to handle a category 3 an effective model to do that—IPET.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.030 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7829 This amendment, introduced by Sen- that has $68 billion in authorized If the Corps cannot do so, the court ators MCCAIN and FEINGOLD, would cre- projects that apparently would take 35 will give equal consideration to both ate within the Army Corps a Director years to build if everything was done in the panel and the Corps’s recommenda- of Independent Review. The Director’s a sort of rational manner. That is how tions. job will be to establish a panel of dis- long it would take. It is sort of the def- So just as the argument that we are tinguished experts to conduct a thor- inition of a bureaucracy that has gone creating somehow a new bureaucracy is ough review of the planning process for awry, where there are not priorities, just the opposite of the fact, there is no major projects, including engineering where there isn’t clarity, where there basis, no validity whatsoever to the no- analyses, and to issue a report and really isn’t any sense of what is more tion that this creates some new legal make recommendations to the Army important than something else or what cause of action that didn’t exist before. Corps. For major flood control situation is more dangerous than an- I have two more points with regard projects, where lives are at stake, the other situation, what is more threat- to independence. I have heard the man- Director would create an additional ening to people’s lives than another ager of the bill and the Senator from panel to review the detailed design and situation. Missouri indicate that they are for construction so that we do not find The notion that an independent peer some kind of independent review and ourselves in another Katrina situation review would not be binding, to have that their alternative provides for it. where we find, after the fact, that de- experts give us guidance as to what is But, of course, it is only in the most signs and construction were flawed. more important as opposed to what is narrow of circumstances, only in It is then up the Army Corps to im- less important to fix or change, to me, projects that are over $100 million. plement those recommendations. The is the opposite of bureaucracy. It is That is essentially wiping out inde- Army Corps will also be required to bringing rationality and a good govern- pendent review on almost every single make the independent panel’s report ment approach to what is currently a project. public so Congress and the American very troubled and in-need-of-reform bu- Our view is this probably involves, people will be aware of possible prob- reaucracy. maybe on average of less than one lems before the project is funded and I certainly expected the other side project a year that would receive that before the public relies on the project would try to raise the notion that kind of independent review. We com- for protection. somehow our amendment, our new sys- promised to make sure that our figure The Homeland Security and Govern- tem of independent review, would lead would be acceptable to the body. We mental Affairs Committee learned a to more litigation. Of course, that is a started with $25 million and went up as great deal in our investigation into standard argument against everything, high as $41 million. But $100 million es- Hurricane Katrina, and we made some and sometimes it is true, but here it is sentially makes a mockery of the recommendations in our report to ad- not. whole idea of independent review be- dress what we found. One of those rec- The judicial deference provision cause it would only apply in the most ommendations was to create an inde- makes it clear that the Corps must rare cases. pendent review process like IPET and give serious consideration and review Finally, of course, the argument is, the one established in this amendment to an independent panel’s findings. Un- apart from the notion that somehow to oversee the design and construction less that happens, independent review this creates new litigation, which is of critical flood control projects. These will just be another box to be checked not the case, somehow this will cause were joint, bipartisan recommenda- off in project planning and will not re- things to take longer in terms of ap- tions, and I am pleased that the chair- sult in better and safer projects. proving projects and reviewing man of our committee, Senator COL- The Corps, unfortunately, has a his- projects. LINS, is also joining as a cosponsor of tory of ignoring independent panel rec- That also is incorrect. The Senator this amendment. ommendations, even when those panels from Missouri is incorrect about our Catastrophes like Katrina will be re- have been hand picked by the Corps, amendment and the timing of review. peated unless we learn from our mis- and that is unacceptable. To quote from page 8: take, and this amendment is a tremen- To ensure the independent review Panels may be established as early in the dous opportunity to do just that. We process is meaningful and produces real planning process as deemed appropriate by already have a model for the proposed improvements for project planning, the the director of independent review. solution in the independent forensic amendment gives the recommenda- So this whole idea that he indicated teams that were created after Katrina tions of a panel equal deference with of somehow waiting until the eighth whose reports and recommendations the Corps’s recommendation in any ju- grade for somebody who needs help in have been applauded from all circles— dicial proceeding regarding the project the first grade—I heard that analogy— the Army Corps, independent profes- in question if the Corps rejects the ex- is not true. The Director has the power sional engineers, and local interests in pert panel’s finding without good to do this whenever he deems this ap- New Orleans. But those efforts need to cause. propriate. He has that discretion. He be in place before disaster strikes, and That is what it does, and that is all has that flexibility, so it is not some that is exactly what this amendment it does. It provides an alternative view kind of a locked-in delay at the end of would do. that the Corps can consider, but there the process review. I urge my colleagues to support this is the key point. The judicial deference I encourage my colleagues to read amendment. provision clearly does not—does not— the text of the bill on each of these The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- create any new cause of action. It does points which I think will bear out the ator from Wisconsin. not create a new basis for somebody to validity of the arguments I made. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish litigate. So it is false that somehow Mr. President, I retain the remainder to respond to a couple of arguments in this creates the opportunity for new of my time. the debate. How much time remains on litigation. It does not even anticipate I yield the floor. our side? that projects subject to independent re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is view will ever be involved in litigation yields time? 31 minutes remaining. at all. It simply notes that where there Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Pre- is judicial review of a project where the the absence of a quorum. siding Officer. Corps did not follow an independent The PRESIDING OFFICER. The I heard the comment from some of panel’s findings, the Corps will need to clerk will call the roll. my colleagues on the other side offer- explain that decision to the court. The legislative clerk proceeded to ing the alternative amendment that The Corps would then be given ample call the roll. somehow this independent peer review opportunity to demonstrate to the Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask will create a bureaucracy. I find that a court that it has rejected an expert unanimous consent that the order for little ironic because to me the defini- panel finding for a valid reason, good the quorum call be rescinded. tion of ‘‘bureaucracy’’ is an agency, cause—not a difficult judicial standard The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without such as the Army Corps of Engineers, to meet. objection, it is so ordered.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.009 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7830 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I GAO’s recent reviews of four Corps civil cial proceeding regarding the project in yield myself some additional time. works projects and actions found that the question if the Corps rejects the expert When you have worked on an issue as planning studies conducted by the Corps . . . panel’s findings without good cause. long as I have worked on Corps reform, were fraught with errors, mistakes, and mis- The judicial deference provision calculations, and used invalid assumptions sometimes people don’t always under- and outdated data. clearly does not create any new cause stand your intentions and maybe, in of action, and it does not even antici- some cases, mischaracterize them. GAO went on to note that the plan- pate that projects subject to inde- But I am astonished at the extent to ning studies: pendent review will ever be involved in which my opponents, those who like did not provide a reasonable basis for deci- litigation at all. It simply notes that the status quo, those who benefit from sion-making. where there is judicial review of a the status quo, are saying about the Later in its report, GAO even says: project where the Corps did not follow Feingold-McCain-Lieberman-Carper- The Corps’ track record for providing reli- an independent panel’s findings, the Jeffords-Collins Independent Peer Re- able information that can be used by deci- Corps will need to explain that decision view Amendment. If I may, I would sion makers . . . is spotty, at best. to the court. The Corps would then be like to take this opportunity to clarify This is simply unacceptable for a given ample opportunity to dem- some of the myths I have heard and set Federal agency and it should get the onstrate to the court that it has re- the record straight. attention of every Member of this jected an expert panel’s findings for a Myth No. 1: The Feingold-McCain body. valid reason. If the Corps cannot do so, independent peer review amendment Given the Corps’ track record, we the court will give equal consideration will delay project construction. really should be requiring reviews of to both the panel’s and the Corps’ rec- This just is not true. Our amendment all studies until the agency improves ommendations. will not delay projects. We agree, its record. The $40 million trigger, how- Myth No. 5: The Feingold-McCain projects do take some time. That’s why ever, is a reasonable and appropriate independent peer review will apply to we were very sensitive to ensure that compromise that will sweep in the all projects, even those that are al- independent peer review of Army Corps largest and costliest Corps projects. ready authorized. feasibility studies overlays with the ex- The other triggers will ensure that any The independent peer review of Corps isting process. Furthermore, our less costly projects that could be very studies applies to projects as they amendment includes strict deadlines problematic do not fall through the enter the feasibility stage, not after for the panel to report and, if they fail cracks in the study process. We must authorization, at which point the to report in the allotted time, the Chief be able to rely on the integrity of Chief’s report is already complete. of Engineers is directed to proceed with Corps project studies and their rec- However, my amendment will ensure planning. In fact, the Inhofe-Bond ommendations to Congress. And unfor- that flood control projects whose fail- amendment uses some of the same tim- tunately, right now we cannot. ure could endanger people and commu- ing criteria. Myth No. 3: The Feingold-McCain nities will be properly designed and Independent review will ensure that amendment will increase project costs. constructed with adequate review. If communities will actually get the Independenter peer review is a crit- such a project is in the post authoriza- projects they are being told they will ical taxpayer investment. The country tion design phase or construction phase get. The independent review can start cannot afford to have costly mistakes it will receive the benefit of the safety as early in the process as deemed ap- like the levee failures in the aftermath assurance review required by the propriate, and for projects costing of Katrina. The Corps, the American amendment. This comes directly from more than $40 million, must end within Society of Civil Engineers, the Na- the recommendations of the Senate 90 days after the close of the public tional Academy of Sciences have all Homeland Security Committee’s comment period. said that faulty design and construc- Katrina report, and I am sure my col- Under the most ideal circumstances tion by the Corps resulted in the levee leagues will agree that we need to the Corps takes 11 to 12 months from failures. We cannot afford any more ex- make sure key flood control projects the close of the public comment period amples like what we saw in New Orle- are designed and built properly. to the time it issues a Chief’s report for ans. We also cannot afford to build Myth No. 6: The Feingold-McCain a project. And under current law, the projects based on economic or engi- amendment will create a whole new Corps must take into account all the neering errors. We have tight water re- layer of bureaucracy. public and agency comment submitted source budgets, thus we must spend The amendment does not create a bu- during the public comment period. For every dime wisely and judiciously. I be- reaucracy; it establishes a workable large and controversial projects the lieve, and my cosponsors agree, inde- system to address a very real prob- time from draft feasibility study to pendent peer review will help us do lem—poorly planned and designed final Chief’s report takes much longer. that. projects that put people at risk, unnec- So the independent review of feasi- Myth No. 4: The Feingold-McCain essarily damage the environment and bility studies in our amendment, which amendment will open the door to more waste taxpayer dollars. balances the absolute need to allow for litigation. I would like to address one final a thorough review with the need to The Corps must give serious consid- myth, and that is that the Inhofe-Bond move forward in a timely fashion, fits eration and review to an independent amendment would create a system of well within the current timelines and peer review panel’s findings. Without true independent project review. will not delay project planning. The that hook, the concept is useless. We Their amendment makes the Chief of Nation will get better projects under do not want independent review to be Engineers the final arbiter of whether this amendment. just another box to be checked off in an independent review will happen at Myth No. 2: The Feingold-McCain project planning, for I think we can all all. This is like puttingy the fox in amendment will require reviews of too agree that doing so will not yield bet- charge of the henhouse. The Corps gets many projects. ter or safer projects. The Corps unfor- to select the reviewers, and there are Mr. President, the $40 million review tunately has a history of ignoring inde- no criteria at all for ensuring independ- trigger in our amendment will, on av- pendent panel recommendations, even ence of those reviewers. Review is not erage, subject about five projects a when those panels have been hand independent if the Corps has control year to independent review. This is a picked by the Corps. This can happen over whether, how, and who will review highly valuable use of resources. And, I no longer. projects. believe it will promote better and more To ensure that the independent re- As you can see, the naysayers want efficient studies for Corps projects view process is meaningful and pro- to keep saying no, but we need to move throughout all of the Corps’ 38 domes- duces real improvements to project beyond this game and start imple- tic districts. planning, the amendment gives the rec- menting policy that has a real chance Just this March, the GAO testified to ommendations of an independent peer of improving a broken system, pro- the House Committee on Government review panel equal deference with the tecting lives and property, and restor- Reform that: Corps’ recommendations in any judi- ing integrity to a Federal agency

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.031 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7831 charged with providing the first line of about whether a new Corps project will drain ical science and philosophy, for between its defense against storms, charged with money from other, more crucial projects, or lines it reveals a government authority in protecting and restoring some of our whether a design is adequate or cost-effec- which a region’s trust was misplaced, and a most precious natural resources and tive, the Corps has been slow to evaluate its hubris in the face of the inevitable that cost own decisions and glacial in course-correc- more than 1,200 lives and as-yet uncounted charged with providing efficient com- tion. A governance structure and an endless billions of dollars in damage. Congress must merce. river of federal money have allowed the read it, too, for it describes flaws in corps Let me say a bit about what edi- Corps to avoid accountability. management that demand fixing before the torials from across the country have The high water mark of those wrong-head- next levee fails. said. It has been just an overwhelming ed policies came last summer in the after- I reserve the remainder of my time response. They are from communities math of Hurricane Katrina. The strength- and I yield the floor. ening of levees and flood walls around New large and small, but they all have the EXHIBIT 1 same message: Congress must reform Orleans had been deferred for decades while money was spent on less urgent needs, like [From the Times-Picayune, July 16, 2006] the Corps. I don’t have every editorial planning new locks and dams along the COUNTING ON CORPS REFORM ever written about a need for a change Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. When Louisiana urgently needs hurricane protec- in the Corps. I do have a good number. Katrina struck, the levees broke and New Or- tion and coastal restoration projects con- I ask unanimous consent they be leans was underwater. tained in the Water Resources Development printed following my remarks. It’s time for a more rational approach. It Act, and for that reason alone it’s critical The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without could start today, when the U.S. Senate for Congress to move on this long-delayed objection, it is so ordered. votes on a bill called the Water Resources measure. But Louisiana’s fortunes are also tied, for (See exhibit 1.) Development Act of 2006 (H.R. 2864), a version of which the House passed last year. better or worse, to the U.S. Army Corps of Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me ask again, The bill’s primary purpose is to authorize Engineers. Efforts to reform the agency are how much time do I have remaining? a slew of big water projects with big price critical for this state, which—after the levee The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tags around the country. But it also contains failures during Hurricane Katrina—could ator has 151⁄2 minutes. some much-needed reforms. serve as the poster child for the corps’ short- Mr. FEINGOLD. In the Northeast, Several are included in an amendment co- comings. the New York Times and the Wash- sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Congress is four years overdue in adopting ington Post have been leaders in call- and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Their amendment a new water resources bill, in part because of would require that all Corps projects costing disagreements over corps reform. But the ing for reform. While some Members Senate is expected to vote on the measure will jokingly say they don’t read the more than $40 million be reviewed by inde- pendent experts. The bill also would estab- this week, and Sens. Mary Landrieu and New York Times or the Washington lish a transparent national system to set pri- David Vitter need to do more than push for Post, maybe they have heard of some orities for Corps projects. crucial Louisiana projects. They need to of the others—the Concord Monitor in Those are simple steps in the right direc- push for changes that will make the corps a New Hampshire, the Delaware News tion. better, more responsible agency in the fu- Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer. But a rival amendment has been sponsored ture. The best chance for changing the way the Moving to the South, in Florida by Sens. Christopher ‘‘Kit’’ Bond, R-Mo., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., long-time defenders corps operates is through reforms sought by alone, a State with numerous Corps Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. projects, including projects to help re- of the Corps. The Bond-Inhofe amendment also would require reviews and priority-set- They’re offering two amendments to the store the Everglades, five papers have ting. But reviews would be done only on water resources bill. One would establish called for enactment of the reforms the projects costing at least $100 million a year; independent review of corps projects from Senator from Arizona and I are offering only two or three such projects a year fall planning and design to construction. The today. In addition, the Winston-Salem into that big bucket. Priorities would be set other would require corps projects to be Journal, the Atlanta Journal and Con- by a process that would not be shared with ranked in importance based on three na- tional priorities: flood and storm damage re- stitution. Most importantly, in my re- the public, and Congress would have the final sign-off. duction, navigation and environmental res- gard, the New Orleans Times-Picayune toration. has called not only for passage of our The effect would be to reinforce the old, flawed ways of doing things, with the Corps’ While the McCain-Feingold amendments reform amendments but flatout rejec- influential champions like Mr. Bond over- won’t fix everything that’s wrong with the tion of the competing amendments seeing the doling out of pork projects with corps, Louisiana stands to benefit from both that will be offered today. inadequate attention to weeding out the in- proposed changes. The catastrophic failure during Katrina of In the Midwest, where I hail from, efficient and unrealistic. That approach canal floodwalls built by the corps is Exhibit wastes taxpayers’ money. the editorial boards for the Wisconsin A in the case for independent review. If such The Senate should chart a course to true State Journal, the Star Tribune in a process had been in place, surely subsid- reform by passing amendments proposed by Minnesota, the Chicago Tribune, the ence wouldn’t have been discounted when Sens. McCain and Feingold. St. Louis Post Dispatch. Let me repeat New Orleans’ levee system was being built, that: the St. Louis Post Dispatch has Mr. FEINGOLD. Winston-Salem and research on soil strength wouldn’t have editorialized on the need for mod- Journal: been ignored. ernization of the Corps of Engineers. After Hurricane Katrina, to vote with Louisiana also should fare better under a system that uses criteria other than polit- Those of us familiar with the players Inhofe and Bond to block reform of the Corps would be downright reckless. ical clout to decide which projects should be on this issue in the Senate will be in- done. The corps already has a $58 billion terested to note that in fact the St. The Miami Herald: project backlog—an amount that will grow Louis Post Dispatch ran an editorial A bipartisan Senate proposal to overhaul by another $10 billion if the water resources today, supporting the Feingold-McCain the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deserves bill is adopted. That means competition for amendment. approval to eliminate some of Congress’ the $2 billion per year that the corps gets for I ask unanimous consent that be most nefarious pork-barrel spending and im- projects is intense. prove the process that determines which Without a rational system for prioritizing printed in the RECORD. projects are worthwhile. that work, there’s no guarantee that Louisi- There being no objection, the mate- San Francisco Chronicle: ana’s critically needed flood control project rial was ordered to be printed in the will prevail even over less-needed or justified RECORD, as follows: This reform is not only about saving projects. While there’s a danger that a Lou- money, it’s about saving lives. [From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 19, isiana project could be pushed aside in a pri- 2006] The Commercial Appeal—Tennessee: ority-based system, this state is helped by At the very least, evaluations of proposed the fact that the McCain-Feingold approach COURSE CORRECTION corps projects, their environmental impact favors projects that reduce flood damage and The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a and especially their cost and benefits, should restore the environment. force nearly as inexorable as the mighty riv- be in independent and impartial hands. The effectiveness of the proposed changes ers it dams and dredges. will depend on details. If an independent re- From the moment it accepts an assign- The Cleveland Plain Dealer: view panel isn’t given adequate time to ment, the Corps moves slowly and relent- This singular study of failure no doubt will evaluate a project, for example, the benefit lessly forward in its course. In many cir- become a standard reference work in engi- of oversight could be lost. Conversely, a cumstances, that can-do attitude is a posi- neering school libraries. It should be cross- cumbersome review process could end up fur- tive attribute. But when questions arise referenced, as well, to those who study polit- ther delaying badly needed projects.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.032 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7832 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 But an independent review process that ments stick. As they should. These reforms lapsed, not because they weren’t high works, combined with a ranking policy that made sense when first offered in 2002. Post- enough. As the Corps’ own inquiry found, the makes sense, should result in a better-per- Katrina, they are essential. agency committed numerous mistakes of de- forming agency. sign: Its network of pumps, walls and levees Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is [From the Battle Creek (MI) Enquirer, July was ‘‘a system in name only’’; it failed to interested in changing the way the corps 19, 2006] take into account the gradual sinking of the does business. The McCain-Feingold amend- AMENDMENT WOULD REFORM ARMY CORPS local soil; it closed its ears when people ments face opposition and a rival set of PROJECT FUNDING pointed out these problems. The result was a measures by the main authors of the water national tragedy. The U.S. Senate this week is taking up leg- You might think that the Corps’ mea culpa resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe and Kit islation regarding authorization of project Bond. would fuel efforts to reform the agency. funds for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell What those senators offer as reform is It is a process that needs reform, and we meaningless, however. The Inhofe-Bond re- Feingold (D-Wis.) are pushing a measure that hope senators will approve a bipartisan pro- would do just that, requiring that future view process would be controlled by the posal which would ensure that national pri- corps and would only apply to projects that Corps proposals be subject to technical re- orities—and not pork-barrel spending—deter- view by an independent agency. But the exceed $100 million, compared to a $40 mil- mine which projects the Corps undertakes. lion threshold in the McCain-Feingold meas- stronger current in Congress goes in the op- For years, members of Congress have posite direction. A measure urged by Lou- ures. The Inhofe-Bond amendments also call pushed for Corps projects beneficial to little isiana senators and written by Sens. James for prioritization, but their system would but their own districts. The trend has grown M. Inhafe (R-Okla.) and Christopher S. Band simply measure projects against a set of na- to the point where the corps now has an esti- (R-Mo.) would loosen oversight of the tional priorities without actually ranking mated $70 billion in backlogged projects. Corps.Billions of dollars may be spent in them. Presidential budget plans have sought to ways that ignore the most basic lessons from Sham reform won’t do anything to restore eliminate such pork, but it consistently has Katrina. confidence in the corps, and Congress must been reinserted by Congress. Congress has already passed laws with lan- do better. The public should be able to rely Now Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John guage directing the Corps to design a new on the agency that builds levees and dams to McCain, R-Ariz., have introduced an amend- flood-protection plan for Louisiana. The lan- do work that will stand up to independent ment to the Water Resources Development guage encourages the construction of Cat- scrutiny. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to won- Act that would set up clear criteria to en- egory 5 protections for the whole state, a der if there’s a rational basis for spending sure that projects carried out by the Corps project that could cost tens of billions of dol- billions of dollars. reflect national priorities as they relate to lars; it advertises its own profligacy by lay- And Louisianians should be able to believe navigation, flood damage reduction and eco- ing down that the flood-protection plan that the corps, which is rebuilding our levee system restoration. The Corps currently uses should be exempt from cost-benefit analysis. system and restoring our coastline, is a a cost-benefits ratio to determine project The new measure, which is reportedly part of wiser, better managed and more reliable priority, which gives more weight to eco- a revised version of a water projects bill that agency than the one that failed us when Hur- nomic benefits—such as jobs in a certain will be unveiled shortly, would lower the bar ricane Katrina came to town. area—than to national needs, such as ensur- for congressional approval of whatever Lou- ing levees can hold back flood waters and isiana defenses the Corps sees fit to propose. [From the New York Times, July 19, 2006] rivers remain navigable. Rather than requiring full votes in both A CHANCE TO REFORM THE CORPS The Feingold-McCain amendment would chambers of Congress, the Corps’ plan could The Senate has a rare opportunity today to re-establish the Water Resource Council and be authorized by votes in two committees strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and envi- order it to provide Congress with a list of that tend to rubber-stamp such projects. In the wake of Katrina, this is almost be- ronmental stewardship. It will consider sev- which water-resources projects should get yond belief. The Corps’ admission of its own eral amendments that would bring a measure priority funding. Under the amendment, any technical shortcomings points to the need of discipline and independent oversight to project costing more than $40 million would for tougher oversight, not less. And the New the Army Corps of Engineers, a notoriously be subject to an independent review. A re- Orleans disaster has illustrated the folly of spendthrift agency with a history of answer- view also could be ordered if another federal building flood defenses for vulnerable low- ing to no one except a few members of Con- agency challenged the project or the sec- land: Some of the worst-hit areas would not gress who control its purse strings. retary of the Army found the project to be have been developed in the first place if the The reputation of the Corps is now at a low controversial. Corps hadn’t decided to build ‘‘protections’’ ebb because of levee failures in New Orleans. The proposed reforms would help eliminate wasteful projects such as Alaska’s infamous for them. Encouraging the Army Corps of But well before that debacle, studies by the Engineers to build Category 5 defenses for all National Academy of Sciences and others ‘‘Bridge to Nowhere,’’ which carried a price tag of more than $200 million. of Louisiana, including parts that are sparse- had found that the agency routinely inflated ly populated for good reason, would not the economic payoffs of its construction The Feingold-McCain plan is competing with another proposal by Sens. Kit Bond, R- merely cost billions that would be better projects to justify steadily greater budget spent on defending urban areas. It would en- outlays, while underestimating the environ- Mo., and James Inhofe, R-Okla. But the Bond-Inhofe plan would provide no ranking courage settlement of more flood-prone land mental damage of those projects. and set the stage for the next tragedy. The amendments’ main sponsors are the for Corps projects and would give the Corps the power to deny a request for an inde- Senate’s reformist duo of John McCain and [From the Wisconsin State Journal, June 28, pendent review—even if it came from a gov- Russ Feingold. One amendment would sub- 2006] ject any project costing more than $40 mil- ernor or the leader of a federal agency. PROTECT TAXPAYERS FROM BOONDOGGLES lion to an independent review of the project’s We think the Bond-Inhofe plan would do If the United States is to rein in the bil- design, feasibility, cost and environmental little to change the status quo. lions of dollars misspent on pork-barrel consequences. A second amendment would The devastation of Hurricane Katrina il- projects each year, a top priority should be require that projects be ranked in order of lustrated the need for the Corps of Engineers reforming the way the Army Corps of Engi- importance based on established national to carry out its vital mission with more co- ordination and funding. With federal tax dol- neers does business. priorities like flood control and environ- That’s why Congress should pass the Army mental restoration. This amendment is lars already being stretched, it is important that funds for the Corps are directed to those Corps reforms proposed by Sens. Russ Fein- aimed less at the Corps than its Congres- gold, D–Wis., and John McCain, R–Ariz. The sional paymasters, who have historically put projects that will produce the greatest bene- fits for the nation—not for a single congres- Feingold-McCain proposal would improve the their own local pork barrel projects ahead of public’s ability to make sure limited federal more urgent and generally accepted needs. sional district. We hope senators agree. resources are spent on cost-effective projects The sponsors will try to attach these for flood control, navigation, environmental amendments to the five-year $40 billion [From the Washington Post, June 7, 2006] protection and related goals, rather than on Water Resources Development bill, itself boondoggles. overdue even though it includes several im- KATRINIA’S UNLEARNED LESSONS At stake is how the Corps spends its $12- portant provisions. One authorizes $1.5 bil- Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- billion-a-year budget, which includes nearly lion for key elements of the Everglades res- neers admitted responsibility for much of $5 billion for civil works projects, from lev- toration project, which has suffered from the destruction of New Orleans. It was not ees to canals to coastal restoration. Congressional neglect. Another would jump- true, as the Carps initially had claimed, that Analyses of last year’s hurricane disaster start a major effort to reverse the erosion of its defenses failed because Congress had au- in New Orleans helped to expose costly even coastal wetlands that has left Louisiana vul- thorized only Category 3 protection, with the deadly flaws in how the Corps decides where nerable to flooding. result that Hurricane Katrina overtopped to spend the public’s money. For example, A bill this size inevitably has the usual ra- the city’s floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina tion of local pork. But some of this would stronger than a Category 2 storm by the breached the levee on the New Orleans Indus- now be subject to outside review and possible time it came ashore, and many of the trial Canal, the Corps had begun a $748 mil- rejection if the McCain-Feingold amend- floodwalls let water in because they col- lion project at that exact spot.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.014 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7833 The project, however, was not flood control ment of Environmental Protection denied a Louisiana and the Everglades, without re- but rather a new lock for the canal. The request to continue operations for the sake form it will maintain a process where they lock, favored by local politicians, was sup- of a few commercial interests and even may never be funded. posed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge though there has been a sharp decline in The current bill would add another $10 bil- traffic on the canal, however, was decreas- barge traffic in recent years. The river’s no lion to $12 billion to an already estimated $58 ing. longer on that endangered list, but it’s so billion in backlogged projects. Essential The New Orleans experience highlighted damaged that restoring it—while considering projects will have to compete with boon- the Corps’ long history of mutual back- the water needs of Florida, Alabama and doggles and earmarks in that $70 billion mix. scratching with members of Congress: The Georgia—is an almost untenable under- With the Corps receiving about $2 billion per Corps caters to pet projects, even if their taking. The dredging kept water out of thou- year for construction, it would take 35 years costs far outweigh the benefits, and Congress sands of acres of flood plains, changing ev- to clear the existing backlog—none of it in return makes sure the Corps gets a big fat erything—largely for the worse—by destroy- prioritized in the public interest or subject budget all at the expense of fiscal responsi- ing natural habitats, allowing construction to independent peer review. bility and long-term water resource strat- in areas that never should have been built Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John egy. on, and restricting the flow of that necessity McCain, D-Ariz., have proposed reforms to The Feingold-McCain proposal would mod- of life, fresh water. fix these problems. Corps projects will be prioritized based on clear standards that put ernize the Corps’ cost-benefit analysis to PUT A LOCK ON BOONDOGGLING make it more about project merit and less the public interest first. The Feingold- Which leads us full circle back to Hurri- about political influence. One provision McCain measures also provide for inde- cane Katrina and the Water Resources Devel- would require independent review of any pendent expert review of large or controver- opment Act. The hurricane disaster in New project estimated to cost more than $40 mil- sial projects, ensuring that economic as- Orleans exposed fatal flaws in how the Corps lion, requested by a governor, determined to sumptions, science and engineering stand up spends its $12 billion annual budget. It was have significant adverse impact, or judged to outside scrutiny. spending $748 million on a new lock for one by the secretary of the Army to be con- But not everyone takes issue with the sta- of the canals whose levee was breached by troversial. tus quo. Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and the hurricane, even though, once again, Another provision would require a cabinet- Christopher Bond, R-Mo., have proposed re- barge traffic was decreasing. Local politi- level committee to work with the secretary forms to give the appearance of responding cians had wanted the lock nonetheless. After of the Army to annually establish a list of to growing public unease over the Corps’ per- all, the nation’s taxpayers would be picking water resource project priorities to give Con- formance in New Orleans. For instance, the up the tab. gress guidance. Corps could appoint its own ‘‘independent’’ Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Con- The boondoggles will continue unless we review panel, and deny others’ requests for gress limits the influence of pork-barrel poli- get approval of bipartisan reforms proposed independent reviews. The Inhofe-Bond ap- tics in the Army Corps of Engineers. So by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John proach also lacks clear prioritization of would Corps projects affecting the state, McCain, R-Ariz., to modernize the cost-ben- Corps projects and will only encourage the from the modernization of the Mississippi efit analysis of Corps’ projects. back scratching and cronyism that has long Just now about $70 billion in backlogged River’s lock-and-dam system to efforts to plagued the system. projects are in line, though none has been keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. Without prioritization reform, crucial The state’s congressional delegation prioritized as being in the public interest. projects will fall through the cracks, while should support the Feingold-McCain reforms. The reforms would require what seems ut- outrageous boondoggles gobble up scarce fed- terly obvious: those promoting projects eral funds. If the New Orleans tragedy [From the Tallahassee Democrat, July 9, would have to demonstrate that they were taught anything, it’s that human safety is 2006] more about merit than political influence. compromised when professional standards Really big ones—those costing more than $40 and fundamental construction needs are ig- GET TO THE CORPS—FLORIDA SENATORS million, requested by a governor, determined nored. SHOULD BACK REFORMS to have major and detrimental impacts or The receding floodwaters of Hurricane Sometimes great, unexpected tragedies otherwise enormously controversial—would Katrina revealed preventable devastation such as Hurricane Katrina are sobering have to go to an independent expert review and the need to clean up a fiscal mess. The enough to lead to badly needed improve- panel. It would make sure that the econom- Feingold-McCain reforms will restore integ- ments in the way things are done. ics of a project, and the science and engi- rity and security in the wake of a Corps dis- With luck and some wise voting by Flor- neering, all work to make sure limited fed- aster. The Senate should pass them. ida’s U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Mar- eral resources are spent on the most essen- tinez, this might be the case with an ur- tial flood control, environmental protection [From the Concord Monitor, July 17, 2006] gently needed reformation of the Army and navigation projects. PUT A STOP TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS Corps of Engineers via the Water Resources We urge Mr. Nelson and Mr. Martinez to BOONDOGGLES Development Act now under consideration. modernize and restore integrity to the Army The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly last The Corps has long been famous for, above Corps of Engineers. week to replace FEMA, a federal agency all, fulfilling the aspirations of unenlight- whose name became inextricably linked to ened politicians who are dying to bring home [From the Buffalo News, July 17, 2006] failure in the days and months after Hurri- the bacon to their districts, usually not for ANOTHER VOICE/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: cane Katrina, with a new agency. The Emer- the good of the taxpayers but for well-fo- MAJOR REFORM NEEDED FOR NATION’S gency Management Authority will remain cused special interests. The Corps is the na- WATER PROJECTS under the umbrella of the Department of tion’s construction company for big water- (By Larry Schweiger) Homeland Security, but unlike FEMA, it management projects, but it has regrettably will report to both Homeland Security and become known for building wasteful, unnec- The U.S. Senate is set to decide in the next to the president. essary, even destructive projects. few days whether to reform or concede to a The reshuffling may or may not solve the Florida’s long-ago Cross Florida Barge fiscal outrage akin to the infamous ‘‘bridge agency’s many problems, but it’s a start. Canal, which was to cut a 150-foot-wide to nowhere.’’ Few taxpayers know about it, This week, however, the Senate will turn its swath across the upper neck of our peninsula though billions in public funds hang in the attention to the agency that bears the most (from Palatka to Yankeetown), is a great ex- balance. The Water Resources Development responsibility for the needless loss of life and ample. Act funds the Army Corps of Engineers, the property in New Orleans, the Army Corps of It would have furthered the shipping indus- nation’s chief flood protection builder, but Engineers. try’s interests, cutting off some 600 miles on with a troubled history of promoting waste- It was the Corps whose faulty design of the a voyage around the state’s southern tip. But ful and unnecessary projects. city’s levee system, whose refusal to heed it would have destroyed so many vital as- The water resources bill headed to the Sen- decades-old warnings that the levees would pects of Florida’s precious environment— ate floor this week is a public scandal. It is not hold and whose shoddy construction groundwater resources, wildlife areas and fiscally out of control, laden with law- practices caused the levees to collapse and other ecosystems—that President Richard makers’ pet projects that are often economi- drown the city. Nixon suspended work on it in 1971, after cally unjustifiable and environmentally de- The disaster was a symptom of a much millions had been invested and 25 ugly miles structive. The central decision senators will larger, longstanding problem with the Corps. of excavation (later filled in) had been com- have to make in voting on this legislation is It is one of the biggest barrels of pork in pleted. whether to support basic reforms or continue Washington, and no outside agency has over- Less dramatic, but more current, has been business as usual. sight over its planning and projects. It is an- the Corps’ dredging of the Apalachicola The reforms would apply the lessons swerable not to presidents or secretaries of River, which had been listed as the nation’s learned from Hurricane Katrina by putting defense, but only to the members of Congress ‘‘most endangered’’ rivers and one that feeds the public interest first and spending tax who use the Corps to funnel money to their directly into our Big Bend coastline. dollars where they are needed most. While home states. Last year, the Corps was forced to stop the bill includes important projects, notably Tomorrow the Senate will take up the years of dredging when the Florida Depart- protecting New Orleans and restoring coastal Water Resources and Development Act

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.021 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7834 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 passed earlier by the House. The measure position to the Feingold-McCain tion System, the Grain and Feed Asso- contains $12 billion worth of alleged flood amendment, such as the Wisconsin ciations of Illinois. control, water resources and environmental Corn Growers, the Wisconsin There is a long list from Illinois; al- protection projects. If it passes in its current AgriServices of Brunswick, the Farm most every agricultural organization form, that sum will be added to the $58 bil- up there is in support of the Inhofe- lion list of previously approved Corps Bureau, and others. projects. Sometimes you can evaluate some- Bond amendment—the Illinois Cham- That backlog is big enough, if nothing is thing, an amendment, by who is in sup- ber of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers ever added to it, to keep the Corps digging port of it. I think if you look at this, Association, the International Union of and dredging for the next 40 years; there are 288 groups. Virtually every- Operating Engineers. Everybody in Some Corps projects work beautifully, as one who has any interest in using a wa- Iowa is for this, too. The list goes on the elaborate flood control system it built in terway has said they strongly support and on. It gets into some of the labor central New Hampshire a half-century ago proved again this spring. But many are a the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is such unions; in fact, almost all of them are waste of money, and some do far more harm a varied and diverse group. All the in support of our amendment and op- than good. Chambers of Commerce, the labor posed to the Feingold-McCain amend- The bad projects get built—often while unions, they are all in there, including, ment, such as the Laborers’ Inter- worthy ones wait—because the priorities of of course, the U.S. Chamber, the Wis- national Union of North America, the the Corps are based not on need but politics. consin groups, Agribusiness Associa- International Union of Operating Engi- To justify a project, the Corps need only tion of Iowa, as I mentioned before, neers, the United Brotherhood of Car- show that its public or private economic ben- efit will be more than its cost to taxpayers. American Association of Port authori- penters and Joiners, International As- When, to please a congressional benefactor, ties, the American Farm Bureau Fed- sociation of Bridge, Structural, Orna- the Corps can’t make the numbers add up, it eration, American Shore and Beach mental and Reinforcing Iron Works of cooks the books, according to audits by the Preservation Association, Arkansas America, Operative Plasterers & Ce- General Accounting Office and others, The Basin Development Association. ment Mason International Association, agency’s priorities are so wrong that ‘‘beach That is an interesting one because as International Brotherhood of Team- rebuilding’’ has become its fastest-growing I sometimes remind my colleagues, sters, the International Brotherhood of activity. Many of the beaches it spends mil- people are not aware, maybe one of the Brickyard Layers and Allied lion re-sanding are off limits to the public. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Russ Fein- best kept secrets having to do with this Craftworkers. The list goes on. As I gold of Wisconsin and Joe Lieberman of Con- subject matter is that my home State say, the total number is 288 organiza- necticut are trying to reform the Corps by of Oklahoma is a navigable State. tions. I can’t think of any user—even creating an independent agency to assess its Much of that is due to activities of my recreational groups—who are in sup- projects and rank them in the order of their father-in-law, who is deceased now. port of this. priority. The rankings would not be binding Glade R. Kirkpatrick is the one who in- I have to repeat this. I don’t want it on the Corps, but they would be made public troduced legislation to provide for the to be implied by the Senator from Wis- so that taxpayers who pay for the projects Arkansas Development Association, consin or the Senator from Arizona would know which are boondoggles and which are justified. working with Senator McClellan from that I do not believe reform is nec- To counter the attempt to bring some fis- Arkansas, Senator Kerr, at that time essary. I talked at earlier times on this cal responsibility to the process, Oklahoma from Oklahoma. floor about the problems we have had Sen. James Inhofe has introduced a rival I can remember 47 years ago, when I with the Corps of Engineers. Some- amendment to keep the pork barrel open. married my wife, the first thing my fa- times they have done good work. New Hampshire benefits from Corps ther-in-law did was take me with him Sometimes the work has not been so projects, and perhaps a dozen are in the for the dedication of the Port of good. They need to have more over- works. But Sens. Judd Gregg arid John Catoosa. Lyndon B. Johnson came out. Sununu enjoy a reputation for frugality, fis- sight. They need to have some kind of cal responsibility and abhorrence of waste. I believe that was who came out to a system, which is built into the under- Their vote on the attempt to reform the dedicate it. lying amendment or the underlying Corps will say a lot about whether that rep- I remember also—I think my friend legislation. It means, to enhance that, utation is deserved. from Wisconsin will enjoy this—many either the Inhofe-Bond amendment or The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who years ago when I was in the State sen- the Feingold-McCain amendment yields time? The Senator from Okla- ate, I was trying to draw attention to would do that. I think that is a rec- homa is recognized. the fact that we have barge traffic ognition that the main thing we want Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con- coming into Oklahoma. I approached a here is to pass the WRDA bill. It is sent the stacked votes now occur at group called the Submarine Veterans long overdue. We have to do it. 2:45 and all other provisions of the of World War II. They decided what It is funny for me to stand up here as agreement remain in place. they would like to do. I said we have to a conservative, having been the author The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without do something to show the people of of the transportation reauthorization objection, it is so ordered. America that we can take barge traffic bill, which was perhaps the largest Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple up and down here. It was all done nondefense spending bill in the history of comments. I appreciate that there is through the private sector. We went to of this body, and now come along with some division of editorial policy Orange, TX, got a 300-foot-long sub- this one, yet I still have my 100 percent around the country. Different positions marine, the USS Batfish, and the idea rating with the American Conservative are taken. I would say this, though. was to bring it all the way up to my Union, I remind my friends. Probably the most impressive thing we home town of Tulsa, OK. This was Nonetheless, this is important. As I have added to the RECORD is from the quite an undertaking. We had to put say, we are now down to less than 50 National Waterways Alliance, which floatation on it to raise it up, then minutes until we have a chance to has been a very strong supporter, of bring it down to get it under the vote. course, of the bill, as are, I believe, bridges. Nobody thought it could be Several times they have talked about most of us on both sides of this issue done. All of my political adversaries in the Hurricane Katrina situation as the who do agree we want to have the the State of Oklahoma were saying we ultimate example for the Feingold- WRDA bill. We haven’t had a reauthor- will sink INHOFE with this submarine. McCain amendment. As outlined in the ization since the year 2000. It is there, one of the most attractive draft final report of the Interagency This organization says they want to tourist sites in the State of Oklahoma. Performance Evaluation Task Force accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment and Some publications had it coming issued on June 1, the Corps has made reject the Feingold amendments. It is across the Arkansas line into Okla- mistakes. We do not know why certain interesting. As the Senator mentioned homa. decisions were made during the design some of the editorials, perhaps the St. I mention that, that is one of the of the New Orleans levees, but in retro- Louis Dispatch would be of interest to many groups supporting this, the Ar- spect we know that they were the my colleague, Senator BOND. kansas Basin Development Associa- wrong decisions. Some or all of these This also has a number of groups tion. Also the California Coastal Coali- mistakes may have been noticed by an from Wisconsin who are strongly in op- tion, California Marine Affairs Naviga- independent peer review panel.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.018 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7835 It could have been a panel that would The Feingold-McCain proposal would mod- roots groups from across the country either be adopted under the Feingold- ernize the Corps’ cost-benefit analysis to that supports our stand-alone bill, McCain amendment or the Inhofe-Bond make it more about project merit and less from which today’s Feingold and amendment. about political influence. One provision McCain amendments come. The States would require independent review of any I agree this unfortunate disaster is project estimated to cost more than $40 mil- represented on the letter are Alabama, an example of the potential usefulness lion, requested by a governor, determined to Alaska, Arkansas, California, Con- of peer review, but it is not a mandate have significant adverse impact, or judged necticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, for their particular amendment. At the by the secretary of the Army to be con- Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Lou- time the New Orleans levees were being troversial. isiana, Maryland, Michigan, Min- designed, independent peer review was Another provision would require a cabinet- nesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, not a requirement. level committee to work with the secretary New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, I recall one case in particular. In of the Army to annually establish a list of Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsyl- water source project priorities to give Con- 1976, the Corps had actually done a re- gress guidance. vania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, view of the levee problems that might Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Con- South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vir- arise in the future. So they were talk- gress limits the influence of pork-barrel poli- ginia, Vermont, Washington, and, of ing about enhancing the strength of tics in the Army Corps of Engineers. So course, Wisconsin. the levee. However, there was an envi- would Corps projects affecting the state, I ask unanimous consent that several ronmentalist group called Save The from the modernization of the Mississippi of these letters be printed in the Wetlands that came along and enjoined River’s lock-and-dam system to efforts to RECORD. them in court and kept them from keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. There being no objection, the mate- The State’s congressional delegation doing this. should support the Feingold-McCain reforms. rial was ordered to be printed in the Either review is something that RECORD, as follows: would take care of problems like this I could go on. There are more editorials coming on- LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, that might come up in the future. Washington, DC, July 17, 2006. With that, I yield the floor. line every day. These editorials are Re Support Corps of Engineers moderniza- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- coming from States that have projects tion amendments to S. 728 (Water Re- ator from Wisconsin. in this bill, projects that would be sub- sources Development Act), oppose sham Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, con- ject to the prioritization amendment, amendments. tinuing the debate, I appreciate the projects that would be subject to the U.S. SENATE, Senator mentioning my home State of independent peer review amendment. Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR: The League of Conserva- Wisconsin. I think that is an oppor- These editorials are coming from small States and large cities. Yet they still tion Voters (LCV) is the independent polit- tunity to quote from one of the leading ical voice for the environment. Each year, newspapers in our State, the Wisconsin support reform. And I believe that is because any State that might be the LCV publishes the National Environmental State Journal. It in the past has not al- Scorecard, which details the voting records ways agreed with me on this issue. But non-Federal cosponsor of a project of Members of Congress on environmental they have come down strongly this should want these reforms to ensure legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to year, and I would like to read what that their investment is a wise one. LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, they said. As the Senator from Oklahoma men- and the press. The title of the editorial is ‘‘Protect tioned some of the groups that support LCV urges you to support amendments to his position, let me also briefly touch S. 728, the Water Resources Development taxpayers from boondoggles,’’ and I am Act, offered by Senators Feingold, McCain, going to read it in its entirety. on the amazing support for our inde- pendent review amendment. There are Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords, and oppose If the United States is to rein in the bil- amendments offered by Senators Inhofe and lions of dollars misspent on pork-barrel letters of support from all of the fol- Bond. The Feingold-McCain-Carper- projects each year, a top priority should be lowing groups and individuals: League Lieberman amendments will provide addi- reforming the way the Army Corps of Engi- of Conservation Voters; Taxpayers for tional transparency and accountability for neers does business. Common Sense; American Rivers; Na- the Army Corps of Engineers, while the That’s why Congress should pass the Army tional Taxpayers Union; National Wild- Inhofe-Bond amendments do little more than Corps reforms proposed by Senators Russ life Federation; Environmental De- codify current practices, which have failed Feingold, D–Wis., and John McCain, R–Ariz. fense; the Coalition to Restore Coastal to protect the public and the environment. The Feingold-McCain proposal would im- Louisiana; Association of State Flood- Hurricane Katrina offered a stark example of prove the public’s ability to make sure lim- these failures. ited federal resources are spent on cost-effec- plain Managers; Republicans for Envi- Corps of Engineers projects have all too tive projects for flood control, navigation, ronmental Protection; Defenders of often been plagued with inadequate or erro- environmental protection and related goals, Wildlife; Louisiana Wildlife Federa- neous environmental or economic studies. rather than on boondoggles. tion; Natural Resources Defense Coun- Recently, the American Society of Civil En- At stake is how the Corps spends its $12- cil; Sierra Club; the Garden Club of gineers called for mandatory independent billion-a-year budget, which includes nearly America; Council for Citizens Against peer review at all phases of major Corps $5 billion for civil works projects, from lev- Government Waste; Earthjustice; the projects. The Feingold-McCain-Carper- ees to canals to coastal restoration. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Lieberman-Jeffords amendment ensures that Analyses of last year’s hurricane disaster studies for significant projects receive an in New Orleans helped to expose costly, even the Isaak Walton League of America; independent, peer-reviewed assessment. This deadly flaws in how the Corps decides where World Wildlife Fund; Friends of the independent review is empowered to examine to spend the public’s money. For example, Earth; The John Muir Chapter of the all aspects of the Corps analysis it believes before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina Sierra Club; U.S. Public Interest Re- are flawed. By contrast, an Inhofe-Bond breached the levee on the New Orleans Indus- search Group; a letter from G. Paul amendment sharply limits which projects trial Canal, the Corps had begun a $748 mil- Kemp, a professor at Louisiana State must receive this review, fails to ensure lion project at that exact spot. University and a member of the Lou- independence, and narrows the scope of that The project, however, was not flood control isiana Forensics Team investigating review. but rather a new lock for the canal. The The Corps of Engineers has a multi-decade lock, favored by local politicians, was sup- the Corps’ engineering failures; more backlog of authorized projects. In an era of posed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge Great Lakes groups than I can describe limited resources, it is more important than traffic on the canal, however, was decreas- here, including Great Lakes United, Al- ever that funds are focused on those projects ing. liance for the Great Lakes, Lake Erie that are most important to protecting public The New Orleans experience highlighted Region Conservancy, the Ohio Environ- health and the environment. The McCain- the Corps’ long history of mutual back- mental Council, Environment Michi- Feingold-Lieberman amendment establishes scratching with members of Congress: The gan, and the Michigan Wildlife Conser- an independent body that will determine cri- Corps caters to pet projects, even if their vancy; Columbia River Fisherman’s teria for setting priorities, and then issue a costs far outweigh the benefits, and Congress prioritization report to Congress. In con- in return makes sure the Corps gets a big fat Protective Union and Columbia trast, the competing Inhofe-Bond amend- budget all at the expense of fiscal responsi- Riverkeeper; Environment Maine; Na- ment skews the prioritization process toward bility and long-term water resource strat- tional Audubon Society; and finally, a particular types of Corps projects, leaves the egy. letter that is signed by over 120 grass- Corps to determine, in vague terms, what the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.037 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7836 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

priorities should be, and provides Congress YES on the common sense reforms that will THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE with minimal information for decision-mak- be offered by Senators Feingold, McCain, OF AMERICA, ing. Carper, Lieberman and Jeffords when WRDA Gaithersburg, MD, July 17, 2006. We urge you to support the amendments to is brought to the Senate floor. DEAR SENATOR: The Izaak Walton League WRDA which increase accountability within Sincerely. of America requests that you oppose the cur- the Corps of Engineers and to oppose those Rebecca Wodder, President, American Riv- rent S. 728 Water Resources Development amendments which do not provide real re- ers. Act when it comes to the Senate floor. A form. The LCV Political Advisory Com- Buck Parker, Executive Director, Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) mittee will consider including these votes in Earthjustice. has not passed congress in six years because compiling LCV’s 2006 Scorecard. If you need Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of of bad provisions and resistance to necessary more information, please call Tiernan the Earth. revisions that would safeguard the environ- Sittenfeld or Nat Mund at my office at (202) Martha Marks, President, Republicans for ment. This legislation sets water policy for 785–8683. Environmental Protection. our nation and should never be approved Sincerely, Doug Phelps, Chairman, Board of Direc- without due consideration to the conserva- GENE KARPINSKI, tors, U.S. Public Interest Research Group. tion of our water resources. Specifically, President. Roger Schlickeisen, President and CEO, please vote against any WRDA bill that con- Defenders of Wildlife. tains the boondoggle scheme to build new AMERICAN RIVERS, DEFENDERS OF Fred Krupp, President, Environmental De- locks on the Upper Mississippi River. This WILDLIFE, EARTHJUSTICE, ENVI- fense. navigation expansion plan closely follows RONMENTAL DEFENSE, FRIENDS OF Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, Na- the Army Corps of Engineers proposal for THE EARTH, NATIONAL WILDLIFE tional Wildlife Federation. seven new locks that has been found to be FEDERATION, REPUBLICANS FOR Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club. unjustified in multiple examinations by the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SI- National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, ERRA CLUB, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST JUNE 9, 2006. President Bush, the Secretary of the Army RESEARCH GROUP, Hon. CARL LEVIN, for Civil Works and the Secretary of Agri- July 17, 2006. U.S. Senate, culture have all previously disputed the need DEAR SENATOR: On behalf of our organiza- Washington, DC. for the new locks. tions and our millions of members and sup- DEAR SENATOR LEVIN: On behalf of the Rather than spending billions on un-needed porters, we request your support for the true Michigan United Conservation Clubs and the construction projects, the Leagile reminds Army Corps of Engineers modernization National Wildlife Federation, we urge you to you that the Mississippi River corridor con- amendments that will be offered to the cosponsor the Independent Peer Review tains an ecosystem home to 260 fish species, Water Resources Development Act when it amendment proposed by Senators Feingold more than 300 varieties of birds, and serves comes to the floor. These amendments, of- and McCain, which will be offered to the as the migratory path to 40 percent of North fered by Senators Feingold, McCain. Carper, Water Resources Development Act when it America’s waterfowl. And the Army Corps of Lieberman, and Jeffords, pose our only comes to the Senate floor for consideration. Engineers itself has reported this ecosystem meaningful chance of reforming this embat- This provision would address fundamental is ‘‘significantly altered, is currently de- tled federal agency. flaws with the Corps of Engineers and our graded, and is expected to get worse.’’ There Hurricane Katrina confirmed the high cost nation’s water resources program that have is no need for the new locks; it is time for of the Corps’ flawed process for developing been brought to light by Hurricane Katrina. the Senate to instead discuss the critical ec- water projects. As such, our organizations It would improve the health, safety, and se- ological restoration needs of the Mississippi have made addressing the flaws exposed by curity of all Americans, while better pro- River. We encourage you to support amendments Katrina a top priority for the 109th Congress. tecting the environment and the taxpayers. to S. 728 offered by Sen. Feingold and Sen. Poorly conceived and engineered flood con- As a senior member of the Senate Home- land Security and Government Affairs Com- McCain. trol, and navigation projects led to the de- The Independent Peer Review amendment struction of coastal wetlands and caused mittee, you have done due diligence for both the residents of New Orleans and Americans will require the Corps to submit costly or most of New Orleans’ Katrina related flood- controversial projects to be reviewed by an nationwide who watched in horror the days ing. Billions of federal dollars flowed to low independent panel of experts in science and after Hurricane Katrina hit that historical priority Corps projects while acknowledged transportation. This amendment will ensure city. Your thorough investigation into all weaknesses in New Orleans levees went that Corps projects are based on solid engi- facets of the many failures that befell New unaddressed. neering, are technically and environ- To avoid repeating these preventable disas- Orleans exposed numerous flaws in the fed- mentally sound, and are fiscally responsible. ters, Congress must require to independent eral response system. One of the most star- The Prioritization amendment will require peer review of costly, controversial, and high tling flaws, in our regard, is the mismanage- an independent panel to identify the top pri- risk projects. With a 30-year backlog of au- ment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ority flood control, navigation, and restora- thorized projects, Congress should also es- Unchecked engineering flaws, poorly tion projects for our country. The panel will tablish a credible system for identifying planned water projects like the Mississippi share their findings with Congress to guide projects that deserve priority funding. If the River Gulf Outlet that destroy natural flood funding decisions. Water Resources Development Act comes to protection, and misplaced priorities can have Our country’s water resources are far too the floor, Senators Feingold, McCain, Car- disastrous consequences, and not just in a important to be altered without complete re- per, Lieberman and Jeffords will introduce vulnerable city like New Orleans. Senator view, and our federal funds are far too scarce well-crafted amendments to address these Levin, this is an historic moment for our na- to be spent on unjustified new locks. Thank two endemic problems with the Corps. tion. We must do a better job of managing you. However, to undercut true reforms, com- our water resources. Sincerely, peting amendments developed by and for the The amendments proposed by Senators BRADLEY REDLIN, Corps will be offered on the floor by Senators Feingold and McCain will steer the Corps in Director, Agricultural Programs. Inhofe and Bond. The purpose of these a new, more sustainable direction. Rec- amendments, which do no more than codify ommendation 82 in your report called for TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES existing Corps procedures that have proved independent peer review task forces to be AGENCY, ELLINGTON AGRICUL- inadequate, is to give the appearance of re- convened to oversee flood control projects TURAL CENTER, form without the substance. We strongly across the country. The Feingold-McCain Nashville, TN, July 17, 2006. urge you to reject these distracting alter- Independent Peer Review amendment will Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, natives, which would prohibit review of how subject all costly and controversial Corps Hart Senate Office Building, models and tools are applied to a particular projects to independent peer review. This Washington, DC. project; provide only a snap shot assessment will provide an important check to ensure DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: We are writing of design specifications, for even the most that projects proposed by the Corps are this letter in support of the Feingold- critical projects; and give sole control over based on sound science and economics. McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords spon- peer review and prioritization ‘‘evaluations’’ We urge you to cosponsor this critically sored amendment to the Water Resources to the Corps. The Chief of Engineers, not an needed amendment before WRDA is brought Development Act (WRDA) which is scheduled impartial officer or outside body, would se- to the Senate floor. to be on the floor of the Senate sometime lect project reviewers, decide which projects Sincerely, the week of July 17, 2006. The proposed should be reviewed, and recommend priority ANDY BUCHSBAUM, amendment allows for the formation of a projects. It would be absurd to vest this addi- Director, Great Lakes Water Resources Coordinating Committee tional authority in the Corps in light of the Natural Resource (WRCC) which will provide review and over- dramatic problems at the agency revealed by Center. sight to water resources projects by the U.S. Katrina and more than a decade of govern- SAM WASHINGTON, Army Corps of Engineers. This interagency ment and independent studies. Executive Director, task force will prioritize Corps ’projects; es- We urge you to oppose the amendments of- Michigan United tablish a transparent system of ongoing re- fered by Senators Inhofe and Bond and VOTE Conservation Clubs. view; and issue recommendations set upon

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.027 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7837 strict timelines that will not delay the plan- Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank to work together in laying out what ning process. The amendment provides the chairman. needs to be done to address long-term WRCC review for all projects exceeding $40 I congratulate the chairman of the recovery and mitigation activities. million; when a state Governor requests it; committee and Senator JEFFORDS and I rise today to again congratulate when a federal agency finds the project will have a significant adverse impact, or when Senator BOND and others who have and give due credit to the leadership of the Secretary of the Army determines that worked so hard to get this measure to Environment and Public Works Com- the project is controversial. We urge you to the floor. mittee on both sides of the aisle, and support the Feingold-McCain-Carper- Congress is long overdue in reauthor- our leadership here in the Senate in Lieberman-Jeffords amendment to the izing this important measure. As a getting this legislation to the floor. WRDA which ensures a meaningful, inde- member of the Environment and Public This is a bill, as I said, which I had pendent review mechanism to review Corps projects. Works Committee, I am pleased to be some experience working on as a Mem- A competing amendment to the WRDA is part of efforts to improve the ber of the House of Representatives being sponsored by Senators Inhofe and Bond functionality of the Army Corps of En- back in 2004. It is something that we that imposes little change on how the Corps gineers. reauthorize on a fairly regular basis. does business. It continues to foster a system While my home State of South Da- But this one in particular is long over- without clear water resource priorities and kota doesn’t have any new specific due. allows the Corps to ignore requests from fed- projects in this bill, I appreciate the There are many needs that have been eral agencies and state Governors. Further- more, reviews will only cover scientific, en- hard work that has been put in on the raised for why we need a reauthoriza- gineering or technical bases of the decision part of Chairman INHOFE, Sub- tion of the Water Resources Develop- or recommendation, but not recommenda- committee Chairman BOND, and Sen- ment Act, and I also add in terms of tions resulting from the data. Environ- ators JEFFORDS and BOXER in getting the direct benefits to South Dakota mental reviews accompanying a feasibility this long overdue legislation to the and our issues with regard to the Mis- study would not be subject to the overall re- floor for consideration and hopefully a souri River which are many and have view. Review will be one-time instead of on- favorable vote. been going on for a very long time. going during the life of each Corps project, I express my appreciation to the bill I also add that the agricultural and will not be independent; allowing the Corps Chief of Engineers to select the review managers for their willingness to ex- groups in South Dakota have all panel. Only projects exceeding $100 million tend the provisions having to do with weighed in in favor of getting this bill will be subject to mandatory review, allow- the Missouri River Restoration Act to the floor, voted on and on the Presi- ing the Corps discretion to avoid review for that was authorized in the 2000 Water dent’s desk because of the important most projects. We urge you to vote to defeat Resources Development Act bill. projects that are included that will the Inhofe-Bond amendment which allows This particular provision will allow make it more possible for them to get the Corps to continue to ignore priorities for the State of South Dakota to move for- their agricultural products to the mar- politics. The current lack of clear water resources ward with a task force report from ketplace. priorities is damaging the nation’s economic State, tribal, and Federal entities con- It is widely supported by a lot of development, transportation systems, and cerning siltation, erosion, and the sta- groups in my State—agricultural ability to protect its citizens and property tus of Native American historical and groups, the Governor of South Dakota, from flooding and natural disasters. The cultural sites along the Missouri River. and obviously the tribes of South Da- Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords My colleagues will be interested to kota, who have been impacted as well amendment moves the nation toward a know that my home State of South Da- when the Missouri River was dammed transparent system that establishes water resource priorities through independent, ex- kota has four dams along the Missouri up and lands were taken to help in ternal peer review. The review system pro- River which resulted in the flooding of flood control issues downstream. There posed by this amendment ensures that Con- hundreds of thousands of acres of have been ongoing disputes over the gress has the information it needs to direct State, tribal, and private lands. This years with respect to this river and limited federal resources to meet the na- particular provision will assist in ad- how it is managed by the Corps of En- tion’s most urgent needs. dressing some of the consequences of gineers. Sincerely, the construction of those dams. This bill moves us a long way toward TIM CHURCHILL, Additionally, I appreciate the inclu- addressing some of those issues and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. sion of clarifying language in section making sure that we have good policies Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the 5010 that will assist the U.S. Treasury and a good process in place for the need for change could not be more in managing the assets within the needs of the States that are impacted clear, and I hope that today the Senate Habitat Restoration Trust Fund for the by the Missouri River—my State right will adopt the Feingold-McCain-Car- Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the down the center—which, as I said, has per-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins inde- Lower Brule Sioux Tribe that was cre- provided a number of benefits, con- pendent peer review amendment and ated in the 1999 WRDA bill. These trust struction of the dams and the area of reject the Inhofe-Bond counter amend- funds are close to being fully capital- recreation but also has created a num- ment. ized and will greatly assist mitigation I reserve the remainder of my time. I ber of challenges for landowners, and of the terrestrial impacts that resulted yield the floor. for many of the benefits that were The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who with the construction of the Oahe and promised when the dams were put in. yields time? Sharpe reservoirs. This language was People in my State don’t believe they Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have requested by the U.S. Treasury and have been fully realized. It seems we several times addressed both sides of will assure the trust fund’s assets are have been fighting ever since between the agreement we have in terms of how properly invested. the up- and downstream States over Katrina would have been affected with I also would highlight that the Gov- getting policies in place that will effec- the various different types of ap- ernor of South Dakota is very sup- tively manage in a fair way the Mis- proaches of peer review. I was ap- portive of a provision I advocated in souri River. proached by the junior Senator from section 3126 which ensures that Mis- The WRDA bill doesn’t address all Louisiana who said that in Louisiana souri River recovery funds are avail- those legal issues, but it certainly does they are very strongly in support of the able to upper basin States—States in- address many of the ongoing challenges Inhofe-Bond amendment. He says those cluding Montana, North Dakota, and we face in making sure that the Mis- in support are the City of New Orleans, South Dakota—that would be covered souri River is a river that provides for Jefferson Parish, St. Tammany Parish, by that provision. all the various users. the State of Louisiana, the Terrebonne While there have been some previous There are many stakeholders, as I Levee and Conservation District, and disagreements among the upper basin mentioned earlier, who have a vested the Red River Valley Association. States and lower basin States regard- interest in seeing this bill get passed. I I yield as much time to the Senator ing the management of the Missouri am pleased today to be able to rise in from South Dakota as he desires. River, I am pleased to see that section support, and I urge us to get a vote on The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- 5008 has been included to allow all the it, pass it, and get it on the President’s ator from South Dakota is recognized. stakeholders along the Missouri River desk and signed into law so this long

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.031 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7838 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 overdue legislation can be put into ef- would agree—that on the next amend- cated meaning today than it did in fect and begin to provide the benefits ment we could get it dispensed with years past. and the intended results for those who pretty quickly. We do not intend to In 2000, Congress authorized the land- have been waiting for its passage. propose the other two amendments mark Comprehensive Everglades Res- I yield my time to the chairman of which we had pending. So as far as the toration Plan to repair and restore the the Environment and Public Works Senator from Wisconsin and I are con- natural sheet flow of water across the Committee, and again give him due cerned, we would only have one addi- Everglades National Park into Florida credit for getting this bill to the floor tional amendment, and if it is agree- Bay. CERP projects will capture and today. I hope we get a very favorable able to the managers of the bill, that store a great deal of the nearly 1.7 bil- vote. would be for an hour equally divided. lion gallons of fresh water a day which Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Mr. President, I yield the floor and are currently released into the Atlan- the Senator from South Dakota. He suggest the absence of a quorum. tic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This has been a huge help on the committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The water will be restored in above- and un- He is always very active. clerk will call the roll. derground reservoirs. And when need- I agree with him, the WRDA bill has The assistant legislative clerk pro- ed, it will be directed to the wetlands, been pretty heavy lifting. We were both ceeded to call the roll. lakes, rivers, and estuaries of south around in 2004 when we had our last re- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask Florida—providing abundant, clean, authorization. It was not an easy ac- unanimous consent that the order for fresh water, while also ensuring future complishment. It was one that was al- the quorum call be rescinded. urban and agricultural water supplies. most the magnitude of the Transpor- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there This incredible undertaking is the tation reauthorization bill. objection? largest environmental restoration We have these amendments, and we Without objection, it is so ordered. project in the world. I am proud to say are coming down to the wire where we Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 the State of Florida has made an his- are going to be able to see final passage minutes to the junior Senator from toric and prolific financial investment before too long. I thank my friend from Florida. of over $3 billion to honor its commit- South Dakota for all of his help. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ment to the Everglades restoration. I yield the floor. ator from Florida is recognized for 5 And now, with the expected passage of Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask minutes. WRDA, new major CERP projects such unanimous consent the time be equally Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise as the Indian River Lagoon and the divided during the quorum. today to offer my strong support for S. Picayune Strand will finally be feder- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 728, the Water Resources Development ally authorized so this important res- objection, it is so ordered. Act. This is truly a momentous and im- toration effort can start to take shape. Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the ab- portant day for Florida. My State is The Indian River Lagoon’s South sence of a quorum. home to beautiful beaches, coastal es- Restoration Project in WRDA is crit- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The tuaries, numerous ports, and the Ever- ical to the success of CERP and return- clerk will call the roll. glades. No piece of legislation moving ing the Saint Lucie estuary to a The assistant legislative clerk pro- through Congress could have as much healthy status. Approximately 2,200 ceeded to call the roll. lasting improvement on Florida’s frag- species have been identified in the la- Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con- ile ecosystem as the WRDA bill. goon system, with 35 of these species sent that the order for the quorum call I express my sincere thanks to the listed as threatened or endangered. be rescinded. EPW chairman, Senator JIM INHOFE, Implementation of the South Res- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without and Senator BOND for their diligent toration Project will feature more than objection, it is so ordered. leadership in crafting this legislation. I 12,000 acres of aboveground water res- Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con- also thank Majority Leader FRIST and ervoirs; 9,000 acres of manmade wet- sent Senators CORNYN and HUTCHISON Senators REID and Jeffords for reach- lands; and 90,000 acres of natural stor- both be added as cosponsors to the ing time agreements and allowing this age and water quality areas, including Inhofe-Bond amendment. historic legislation to come to the 53,000 acres of restored wetlands. We The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without floor. So often the media depicts Con- will also be pleased to restore a great objection, it is so ordered. gress in such an acrimonious light, and deal of the Saint Lucie River, with a Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of I believe this bill is a testament to the corresponding restoration of 2,600 acres a quorum. fact that bipartisanship still exists in of habitat. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the Senate and that we can also roll up Another very important Everglades clerk will call the roll. our sleeves and act for the betterment restoration project included in WRDA The assistant legislative clerk pro- of our Nation. is the authorization of the Picayune ceeded to call the roll. For too long in our Nation’s past, the Strand project. This area was origi- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask Federal Government’s water resources nally planned as the largest subdivi- unanimous consent that the order for policies seemed to be in conflict with sion in the United States called Golden the quorum call be rescinded. nature. In the not-so-distant past, the Gate Estates. In the early 1960s, the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Corps and even the elected congres- Gulf American Corporation dredged 48 objection, it is so ordered. sional and State leadership of Florida miles of canals, built over 290 miles of Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was determined to drain the Ever- roads, and sold thousands of lots before yield 3 minutes to the Senator from glades. One of our most colorful former going bankrupt. At that time, there Iowa. He is going to speak as in morn- Governors, Napoleon Bonaparte were no Federal or State laws setting ing business, but I understand it will be Broward, famously proclaimed: ‘‘Water drainage standards. So now today we charged against my time. will run downhill!’’ At that time, will be moving that area back into The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without draining and improving ‘‘useless somewhat of its natural state and nat- objection, the Senator is recognized for swampland’’ was the epitome of true ural habitat, and it will join with the 3 minutes. conservation because opening the wet- Big Cypress National Preserve and the (The remarks of Mr. HARKIN and Mr. lands and marshes of Florida to farm- 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge. MCCAIN are printed in today’s RECORD ing and development was considered a It will also provide additional grounds under ‘‘Morning Business.’’) better use of land because it could feed for the Florida Panther Wildlife Ref- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who and employ people. The idea that uge. yields time? places should be protected for their in- These are great things for our State. The Senator from Arizona. trinsic beauty and public enjoyment They are great things for restoring Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, while we was a foreign concept. Fortunately for back to a lot of its original beauty have a minute or two here, the Senator our Nation and Florida, the idea of Florida’s ecosystem; not just the beau- from Oklahoma and I have agreed—and conservation and restoration has an ty but also the functionality of pro- I hope the Senator from Vermont entirely different and more sophisti- viding for wetlands as a renourishment

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.040 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7839 of Florida’s aquifer, which also is so NAYS—46 ing of that amendment, Senator important to maintaining the urban Allen Dorgan Nelson (NE) INHOFE be recognized to offer an lifestyle of south Florida. Bennett Enzi Pryor amendment on fiscal transparency; The need to pass a comprehensive Bond Frist Roberts provided further that there be 1 hour Bunning Grassley Santorum water resources bill in Florida is over- Burns Hagel Sessions total for both amendments, to be di- whelming. Florida will benefit tremen- Burr Harkin Shelby vided equally between Senators INHOFE dously from it. I want to use this op- Chambliss Hatch Smith and MCCAIN; further, that following the Cochran Hutchison Specter portunity to thank Chairman INHOFE Coleman Inhofe use or yielding of time, the Senate pro- Stevens and Senator BOND for including these Conrad Isakson ceed to a vote in relation to the Talent Cornyn Lincoln vital restoration and economic devel- Thomas McCain-Feingold amendment, to be fol- Craig Lott opment projects in WRDA. This legisla- Crapo Lugar Thune lowed by a vote in relation to the tion is long overdue. It is time for us to Dayton Martinez Vitter Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no inter- pass S. 728. I urge my colleagues to Dole McConnell Warner vening time or extra debate; and that support final passage of this very im- Domenici Murkowski following the votes, there will be 30 portant piece of legislation to Florida. The amendment (No. 4681), as modi- minutes equally divided, followed by a Mr. President, I yield the floor. fied, was agreed to. vote on final passage. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to reconsider Mr. President, let me restate this. We ator’s time has expired. the vote, and I move to lay that mo- have too many things going on, so let The Senator from Wisconsin has 30 tion on the table. me be sure we get it right. seconds remaining. All other time has The motion to lay on the table was The unanimous consent request is expired. agreed to. that Senator MCCAIN be recognized to Who yields time? VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 4682 offer an amendment regarding The Senator from Wisconsin. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The prioritization report; further, that fol- Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the question is on agreeing to amendment lowing the reporting of that amend- amendment cosponsored by Senators No. 4682. ment, Senator INHOFE be recognized to MCCAIN, CARPER, LIEBERMAN, JEFFORDS Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and offer an amendment on fiscal trans- and COLLINS will ensure independent nays. parency; provided further that there be review of Army Corps projects that are The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 1 hour total for both amendments to be costly, controversial or critical to pub- sufficient second? There appears to be divided between Senators INHOFE and lic safety. The amendment responds to a sufficient second. MCCAIN; further, that there be 30 min- over 10 years of studies, including anal- The clerk will call the roll. utes equally divided for general debate ysis of the Katrina disaster, docu- The legislative clerk called the roll. on the bill, and that following the use menting serious problems with plan- The result was announced—yeas 49, or yielding of time, the Senate proceed ning and design of Army Corps nays 51, as follows: to a vote in relation to the McCain- projects. We owe it to the people of [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.] Feingold amendment, to be followed by New Orleans, and to all of our constitu- YEAS—49 a vote in relation to the Inhofe amend- ents, to ensure close scrutiny of crit- Alexander Domenici Murray ment, to be followed by a vote on final ical flood control projects, as rec- Allen Dorgan Nelson (NE) passage, all with no intervening action ommended by the Homeland Security Bennett Enzi Pryor or debate. Bond Frist Committee. That is what our amend- Roberts The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Bunning Grassley Santorum ment does. Burns Hagel Sessions objection? Despite any outcome on my amend- Burr Harkin Shelby The Senator from Missouri is recog- Byrd Hatch Smith nized. ment, I urge my colleagues to vote Chambliss Hutchison Specter ‘‘nay’’ on the Inhofe-Bond amendment Cochran Inhofe Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, reserv- Stevens Coleman Isakson ing the right to object, could I ask my which maintains the unacceptable sta- Talent Conrad Lincoln tus quo. Thomas friend if I could have just a few min- Cornyn Lott utes? It sounds like the unanimous The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Craig Lugar Thune having expired, the question is on Crapo Martinez Vitter consent takes up all the time, and I agreeing to amendment No. 4681, as DeMint McConnell Warner just wanted to speak for 4 or 5 minutes modified. Dole Murkowski on the bill, which I would want to do Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas NAYS—51 before we got into that. and nays. Akaka Durbin Lieberman Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a Allard Ensign McCain friend from Missouri that we do have in Baucus Feingold Menendez this unanimous consent request 30 min- sufficient second? Bayh Feinstein Mikulski There appears to be a sufficient sec- Biden Graham Nelson (FL) utes equally divided before final pas- ond. Bingaman Gregg Obama sage, and I would be glad to yield to The clerk will call the roll. Boxer Inouye Reed the Senator at that time. Brownback Jeffords Reid Mr. TALENT. That will be fine. The assistant legislative clerk called Cantwell Johnson Rockefeller the roll. Carper Kennedy Salazar Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, re- The result was announced—yeas 54, Chafee Kerry Sarbanes serving the right to object, I would like nays 46, as follows: Clinton Kohl Schumer to ask the Chair if there is any possible Coburn Kyl Snowe way we could take the opportunity to [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.] Collins Landrieu Stabenow give myself and my colleague from Ar- YEAS—54 Dayton Lautenberg Sununu DeWine Leahy Voinovich kansas and Senator ROCKEFELLER just Akaka Dodd Lieberman Dodd Levin Wyden a few moments to speak in morning Alexander Durbin McCain Allard Ensign Menendez The amendment (No. 4682) was re- business in behalf of paying tribute to Baucus Feingold Mikulski jected. our Lieutenant Governor from Arkan- Bayh Feinstein Murray Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move sas. Biden Graham Nelson (FL) Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Let me respond to Bingaman Gregg Obama to reconsider the vote. Boxer Inouye Reed Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I the Senators from Arkansas. I have Brownback Jeffords Reid move to lay that motion on the table. talked to Senator ROCKEFELLER and we Byrd Johnson Rockefeller The motion to lay on the table was have agreed that as soon as this UC Cantwell Kennedy Salazar Carper Kerry Sarbanes agreed to. goes through, we will recognize him Chafee Kohl Schumer Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask and the Senator from Arkansas for up Clinton Kyl Snowe unanimous consent that Senator to 15 minutes for that purpose. Coburn Landrieu Stabenow MCCAIN be recognized to offer an Mrs. LINCOLN. We are so grateful. Collins Lautenberg Sununu DeMint Leahy Voinovich amendment regarding prioritization re- We appreciate that from our colleague DeWine Levin Wyden port; further, that following the report- from Oklahoma.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.055 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7840 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there as other staff members, and of course (3) PRIORITIZATION REQUIREMENTS.— objection? my staff. Angie, here, has been the pri- (A) IN GENERAL.—Each project described in Without objection, it is so ordered. mary driver with Steve Aaron and Blu a report under paragraph (1) shall— (i) be categorized by project type; and (The remarks of Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. Hulsey, David Lungren, our staff direc- (ii) be classified into a tier system of de- PRYOR, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER are print- tor, and Ruth Van Mark, who has done scending priority, to be established by the ed in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Morning so much work on the transportation Coordinating Committee, in cooperation Business’’.) end. with the Secretary, in a manner that reflects Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the On Senator BOND’s staff, Letmon Lee; the extent to which the project achieves na- chairman of the committee and rank- of course, JoEllen Darcey with Senator tional priority criteria established under ing member. I yield the floor. JEFFORDS, Catharine Ransom, Alison subsection (b). Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest Taylor, and I guess I would have to (B) MULTIPURPOSE PROJECTS.—Each multi- purpose project described in a report under the absence of a quorum. mention Ken Connolly, too, as someone paragraph (1) shall— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The who hangs around and gets things (i) be classified by the project type that clerk will call the roll. done, and Paul Wilkins with Senator best represents the primary project purpose, The legislative clerk proceeded to BAUCUS. as determined by the Coordinating Com- call the roll. There is a lot of truth to this. This is mittee; and Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask more of a nonpartisan committee. We (ii) be classified into the tier system de- unanimous consent the order for the have a lot of issues on which we dis- scribed in subparagraph (A)(ii) within that quorum call be rescinded. agree, but when it gets down to the big project type. (C) TIER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.—In estab- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. authorization we recognize that what lishing a tier system under subparagraph COBURN). Without objection, it is so or- we deal with are some of the most sig- (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that— dered. nificant aspects of government—those (i) each tier is limited to $5,000,000,000 in Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while that have to get done. total authorized project costs; and we have a moment I would like to take It is the only way to do that when we (ii) includes not more than 100 projects. some time to thank the staff from the are dealing with many areas—is co- (4) REQUIREMENT.—In preparing reports Environment and Public Works Com- operate. I appreciate all the staff work- under paragraph (1), the Coordinating Com- mittee. ing together. mittee shall balance, to the maximum ex- tent practicable— Senator INHOFE’s staff is first class, I yield the floor. (A) stability in project prioritization be- including Ruth Van Mark, Andrew AMENDMENT NO. 4684 tween reports; and Wheeler, Angie Giancarlo, Stephen Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I call up (B) recognition of newly-authorized con- Aaron, and many others. my amendment which is at the desk. struction projects and changing needs of the Senator BOND’s lead staffer Letmon The PRESIDING OFFICER. The United States. Lee has done excellent work on this clerk will report. (b) NATIONAL PRIORITY CRITERIA.— bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: (1) IN GENERAL.—In preparing a report under subsection (a), the Coordinating Com- Paul Wilkins and Sara Roberts from The Senator from Arizona [Mr. MCCAIN], mittee shall prioritize water resources con- Senator BAUCUS’ staff also contributed for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, struction projects within the applicable cat- extensively to this product. and Mrs. FEINSTEIN, proposes an amendment egory based on an assessment by the Coordi- From my staff, Ken Connolly, Alison numbered 4684. nating Committee of the following criteria: Taylor, Margaret Weatherald, and Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I ask (A) For flood and storm damage reduction Caroline Ahearn have been tremen- unanimous consent that reading of the projects, the extent to which the project— dous. amendment be dispensed with. (i) addresses critical flood damage reduc- tion needs of the United States, including by But most importantly I wanted to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. reducing the risks to loss of life by consid- recognize two staff people who have ering current protection levels; and worked for years and years on Army The amendment is as follows: (ii) avoids increasing risks to human life or Corps issues and specifically this bill. (Purpose: To provide for a water resources damages to property in the case of large First, Catharine Cyr Ransom. Cath- construction project prioritization report) flood events, avoids adverse environmental arine is an exceptional Senate staffer. On page 76 between lines 20 and 21, insert impacts, or produces environmental benefits. She works hard, is fair, and a joy to the following: (B) For navigation projects, the extent to work with. She also is very persistent SEC. 2007. WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION which the project— PROJECT PRIORITIZATION REPORT. (i) addresses priority navigation needs of and has made sure that my little State (a) PRIORITIZATION REPORT.— the United States, including by having a of Vermont has been looked after in (1) IN GENERAL.—On the third Tuesday of high probability of producing the economic this legislation. January of each year beginning January benefits projected with respect to the project Finally, JoEllen Darcy, who has been 2007, the Water Resources Planning Coordi- and reflecting regional planning needs, as with the Committee 12 years, and has nating Committee established under section applicable; and lived through this WRDA process for 2006(a) (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Co- (ii) avoids adverse environmental impacts. her entire tenure, is a true gem. ordinating Committee’’) shall submit to the (C) For environmental restoration JoEllen has an incredible record of leg- Committees on Environment and Public projects, the extent to which the project— Works and Appropriations of the Senate, the (i) addresses priority environmental res- islative success on the Environment Committees on Transportation and Infra- toration needs of the United States, includ- and Public Works Committee due to structure and Appropriations of the House of ing by restoring the natural hydrologic proc- her depth of knowledge, kind manner, Representatives, and the Office of Manage- esses and spatial extent of an aquatic habi- and strong negotiating skills. She is ment and Budget, and make available to the tat while being, to the maximum extent also an avid Red Sox fan, which says a public on the Internet, a prioritization re- practicable, self-sustaining; and lot about her character and why I like port describing Corps of Engineers water re- (ii) is cost-effective or produces economic her so much. sources projects authorized for construction. benefits. I thank all the staff for their work (2) INCLUSIONS.—Each report under para- (2) BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIOS.—In graph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a de- prioritizing water resources projects under and for all their work through the Au- scription of— subsection (a)(3) that require benefit-to-cost gust recess on this legislation. (A) each water resources project included ratios for inclusion in a report under sub- I yield the floor. in the fiscal transparency report under sec- section (a)(1), the Coordinating Committee The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tion 2004(b)(1); shall assess and take into consideration the ator from Oklahoma. (B) each water resources project authorized benefit-to-cost ratio and the remaining ben- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right for construction— efit-to-cost ratio of each project. now we are waiting for Senator MCCAIN (i) on or after the date of enactment of this (3) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In pre- to return and call up his legislation in Act; or paring reports under subsection (a)(1), the conjunction with the unanimous con- (ii) during the 10-year period ending on the Coordinating Committee may take into con- date of enactment of this Act; and sideration any additional criteria or subcri- sent agreement. (C) other water resources projects author- teria, if the criteria or subcriteria are fully I would like also to say the same ized for construction, as the Coordinating explained in the report. thing. It has been great working with Committee and the Secretary determine to (4) STATE PRIORITIZATION DETERMINA- Senator JEFFORDS and his staff, as well be appropriate. TIONS.—The Coordinating Committee shall

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.058 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7841 establish a process by which each State may bill. The time has come to finally pass I tried to get this kind of amendment submit to the Coordinating Committee for this legislation. back 5 or 6 years ago, but it was consideration in carrying out this subsection America’s infrastructure and water- rebuffed. We don’t want to do that. We any prioritization determination of the ways system is the foundation of our don’t want to prioritize anything. It State with respect to a water resources project in the State. economy. For too long, we have been might be someone’s special project, (c) RECOMMENDATIONS.— ignoring our infrastructure, but and it may not get on the list where (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years Katrina was a wake-up call for all of they would like it to be. So let’s not do after the date of enactment of this Act, the us. In the wake of this disaster, we saw that. Coordinating Committee shall submit to firsthand the devastating impact of a Unfortunately, appropriations for the Congress proposed recommendations with re- weak infrastructure on our people and Corps program have not been adequate spect to— our economy. The more we continue to to meet the needs that have been iden- (A) a process to prioritize water resources fail to fund our water infrastructure, tified in our Nation. We have also been projects across project type; (B) a process to prioritize ongoing oper- the more we are putting our Nation’s asking the Corps to do more with less. ational activities carried out by the Corps of competitiveness at risk in this global I am all for trimming fat from the Fed- Engineers; marketplace. eral budget and practicing fiscal dis- (C) a process to address in the It has a new dimension to it because cipline, but the Corps of Engineers prioritization process recreation and other if we are going to compete in the global budget is not fat—it is the bread and ancillary benefits resulting from the con- marketplace, we need to build the in- butter of our economy and our infra- struction of Corps of Engineers projects; and frastructure for competitiveness, and structure. (D) potential improvements to the we have had our heads in the sand in I believe this amendment will reduce prioritization process established under this this backlog. This amendment would section. terms of the condition of that infra- (2) CONTRACTS WITH OTHER ENTITIES.—The structure. It is a critical piece of Amer- allow the Water Resources Coordi- Coordinating Committee may offer to enter ica’s competitiveness. nating Committee, an interagency task into a contract with the National Academy Our infinite needs are overwhelming force that has been established in the of Public Administration or any similar enti- and being squeezed. We should be re- underlying bill, to establish trans- ty to assist in developing recommendations building an infrastructure so that the parent, project-specific national pri- under this subsection. new generation has at least the same ority criteria, classify projects either Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, if I may opportunity to enjoy our standard of currently under construction or au- ask the distinguished chairman, have living and quality of life. thorized into a tier system based on we entered into a time agreement on Right now, our infrastructure is col- that criteria, and then issue a non- this amendment? lapsing due to insufficient funding. binding prioritization report to the au- Mr. INHOFE. Yes, we have. In fact, I Congress desperately needs to provide thorizing and appropriations commit- will be bringing up mine, and we will increased funding for the Army Corps tees. consider them jointly. There will be 1 of Engineers, including funding for lev- I will bet you that a lot of what they hour equally divided. ees and funding for additional engi- have against this is because they do Mr. MCCAIN. I thank my colleague. neers. not want anyone to tinker with what Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- I have been concerned about the they do. The fact is, I think we owe it sent that the Senator from Ohio be rec- backlog of unfunded Corps projects to them to make sure they have some ognized for however much time he may since I was chairman of the Sub- priority list as to the importance of take in support of the amendment. committee on Transportation and In- these projects as well as the Office of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- frastructure in 1999. When I arrived in Management and Budget to help guild ator from Ohio. the Senate in 1999, the backlog of un- them in their funding decisions. This Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I funded Corps operation and mainte- report would also be made available to would like to second the remarks of nance projects was $250 million. Today, the public. Senator INHOFE about Senator JEF- it is $1.2 billion. At that time, there I believe this report would ensure FORDS. I have had an opportunity to was a backlog of $38 billion active that the most critical projects in the work with Senator JEFFORDS now for 8 water resource projects waiting for Nation are receiving adequate funding. years. We have had our good days and Federal funding. I want to emphasize Katrina showed us the importance of bad days, but we never had good days that. prioritization. and bad days between us. I consider Today, according to the administra- We need a comprehensive prioriti- him to be an outstanding Senator and tion, there are about $50 billion in zation system to ensure that Congress a gentleman. I appreciate the cour- Army Corps construction projects that has the information it needs to direct tesies which he has extended me over are in need of Federal funding. limited Federal resources to the most the years of his distinguished career. Despite these needs, the Corps is cur- urgent projects. Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator rently able to function only at 50-per- When I was Governor of the State of for his remarks. It has been a privilege cent capacity at the rate of funding Ohio, the State had hundreds of high- to work with him. We got some things proposed by the budget. It is hard to way projects that every preceding Gov- done. believe when you consider what we ernor had promised each municipality Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have had with Katrina. would be built. It is whatever you rise in support of the Water Resources Annual appropriations for the Corps’ want, you got it. The list was unbeliev- Development Act of 2006. construction accounts has fallen from able. The projects would have cost the I commend Senators INHOFE, JEF- a $4 billion average in the mid-1960s to State of Ohio between $5 billion and $6 FORDS, and BOND—and their staffs—for a $1.5 billion average for 1996 through billion to build, whereas the State their hard work and strong leadership 2005. typically only received between $100 in putting together a bipartisan bill. The stark reality is at the current million and $300 million a year. At the As a member of the Environment and levels of construction appropriations, time, it would have taken decades to Public Works Committee, I am pleased the Corps’ water resource projects, we build all the projects my constituents to have been a part of this effort. But already have more water resource asked for, even if another new project I want to make it clear that Senator projects authorized for construction was not added to the list for years. INHOFE is the driving force and Senator than we can complete. At the current In order to deal with the imbalance BOND kept pushing us. If it wasn’t for low levels of construction, it would between demand and available revenue, their unbelievable commitment to this, take 25 years to complete the active I created an objective, criteria-driven we wouldn’t be here today. projects in the backlog without even project selection process called the It has been 6 years since the Congress considering additional project author- Transportation Review Advisory Coun- last passed a Water Resources and De- izations that are in this bill. cil, or TRAC. This process gives para- velopment reauthorization bill. I re- That is why I am supporting the mount consideration to effective man- member it because I was chairman of prioritization amendment offered by agement of the backlog to assure that the subcommittee that handled the Senator MCCAIN and Senator FEINGOLD. it only includes needed projects that

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.033 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 are economically justified, environ- SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND (iii) for evaluating the extent to which a mentally acceptable, and supported by PRIORITIZATION REPORT. project protects or enhances the environ- willing and financially capable, non- (a) IN GENERAL.—On the third Tuesday of ment— January of each year beginning January (I) for ecosystem restoration projects and federal sponsors. The State is required mitigation plans associated with other 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to to balance this project list with the project purposes— State’s revenue projections. the Committee on Environment and Public (aa) the extent to which the project or plan The TRAC also is required to issue a Works of the Senate and the Committee on restores the natural hydrologic processes of 4-year fiscal forecast after Congress Transportation and Infrastructure of the an aquatic habitat; passes each highway bill to get an idea House of Representatives a report describ- (bb) the significance of the resource to be of how much money we are going to ing— protected or restored by the project or plan; get. It made no sense for the State of (1) the expenditures of the Corps of Engi- (cc) the extent to which the project or plan neers for the preceding fiscal year and esti- is self-sustaining; and Ohio to continue project development mated expenditures for the current fiscal (dd) the cost-effectiveness of the project or on projects worth millions of dollars year; and plan; and that had no realistic hope of ever being (2) the extent to which each authorized (II) the pollution reduction benefits associ- built. I think my constituents are project of the Corps of Engineers meets the ated with using water as a method of trans- much better served by this system be- national priorities described in subsection portation of goods; and cause the State is investing its re- (b). (iv) for evaluating the extent to which a project promotes the national defense— sources in projects that will become a (b) NATIONAL PRIORITIES.— (I) the effect of the project relating to a (1) IN GENERAL.—The national priorities re- reality in the near future. strategic port designation; and ferred to in subsection (a)(2) are— I am sure the President would under- (II) the reduction of dependence on foreign (A) to reduce the risk of loss of human life stand this. When you have a highway oil associated with using water as a method and risk to public safety; bill, a lot of the Congressmen would of transportation of goods. (B) to benefit the national economy; put in earmarks on projects. And today (c) CONTENTS.—In addition to the informa- (C) to protect and enhance the environ- tion described in subsections (a) and (b), the when they are earmarking, they ear- ment; and mark it for projects that are on that report shall contain a detailed accounting of (D) to promote the national defense. the following information: list because they know that the money (2) EVALUATION OF PROJECTS.— (1) With respect to general construction, will be spent for the project. (A) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating the extent information on— We need to take similar steps in the to which a project of the Corps of Engineers (A) projects currently under construction, Senate in addressing our water re- meets the national priorities under para- including— source needs. It is long overdue with graph (1), the Chief of Engineers— (i) allocations to date; the limited resources that we have. (i) shall develop a relative rating system (ii) the number of years remaining to com- that is appropriate for— Hopefully, one day we will face up to plete construction; (I) each project purpose; and (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to those limited resources in terms of our (II) if applicable, multipurpose projects; maintain that construction schedule; and infrastructure. We need a prioriti- and (iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engi- zation. (ii) may include an evaluation of projects neers expects to complete during the current I think Senator MCCAIN and Senator using additional criteria or subcriteria, if fiscal year; and FEINGOLD have put together a very the additional criteria or subcriteria are— (B) projects for which there is a signed good amendment. (I) clearly explained; and cost-sharing agreement and completed plan- Again, I know it may be controver- (II) consistent with the method of evalu- ning, engineering, and design, including— sial for some of the authorizers, but it ating the extent to which a project meets (i) the number of years the project is ex- the national priorities under this paragraph. pected to require for completion; and is time that we do this. (B) FACTORS.—The Chief of Engineers shall (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to main- The passage of another WRDA bill establish such factors, and assign to the fac- tain that construction schedule. cannot be delayed any further. It is tors such priority, as the Chief of Engineers (2) With respect to operation and mainte- simply too important to our Nation in determines to be appropriate to evaluate the nance of the inland and intracoastal water- terms of its benefits to our economy extent to which a project meets the national ways under section 206 of Public Law 95–502 and environment and for the speedy re- priorities. (33 U.S.C. 1804)— covery for the areas affected by Hurri- (C) CONSIDERATION.—In establishing factors (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain cane Katrina. under subparagraph (B), the Chief of Engi- each waterway for the authorized reach and I call on President Bush and my col- neers may consider— at the authorized depth; and (i) for evaluating the reduction in the risk (B) the estimated annual cost of operation leagues in both the House and the Sen- of loss of human life and risk to public safety and maintenance of locks and dams to en- ate to work expeditiously to get this of a project— sure navigation without interruption. bill enacted into law as soon as pos- (I) the human population protected by the (3) With respect to general investigations sible. project; and reconnaissance and feasibility studies— Really from the bottom of my heart, (II) current levels of protection of human (A) the number of active studies; I urge my colleagues to support this life under the project; and (B) the number of completed studies not bill and this amendment. (III) the risk of loss of human life and risk yet authorized for construction; Thank you, Mr. President. to public safety if the project is not com- (C) the number of initiated studies; and pleted, taking into consideration the exist- (D) the number of studies expected to be AMENDMENT NO. 4683 ence and probability of success of evacuation completed during the fiscal year. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask plans relating to the project, as determined (4) Funding received and estimates of funds that the Inhofe-Bond amendment be by the Director of the Federal Emergency to be received for interagency and inter- brought up for immediate consider- Management Agency; national support activities under section ation. (ii) for evaluating the benefit of a project 318(a) of the Water Resources Development The PRESIDING OFFICER. The to the national economy— Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)). clerk will report. (I) the benefit-cost ratio, and the remain- (5) Recreation fees and lease payments. The legislative clerk read as follows: ing benefit-remaining cost ratio, of the (6) Hydropower and water storage fees. project; (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. INHOFE], (II) the availability and cost of alternate Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance for himself and Mr. BOND, proposes an transportation methods relating to the Trust Fund. amendment numbered 4683. project; (8) Other revenues and fees collected. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask (III) any applicable financial risk to a non- (9) With respect to permit applications and unanimous consent that reading of the Federal sponsor of the project; notifications, a list of individual permit ap- amendment be dispensed with. (IV) the costs to State, regional, and local plications and nationwide permit notifica- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without entities of project termination; tions, including— objection, it is so ordered. (V) any contribution of the project with re- (A) the date on which each permit applica- spect to international competitiveness; and tion is filed; The amendment is as follows: (VI) the extent to which the project is inte- (B) the date on which each permit applica- (Purpose: To modify a section relating to a grated with, and complementary to, other tion is determined to be complete; and fiscal transparency and prioritization report) Federal, State, and local government pro- (C) the date on which the Corps of Engi- Strike section 2004 and insert the fol- grams, projects, and objectives within the neers grants, withdraws, or denies each per- lowing: project area; mit.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.063 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7843 (10) With respect to the project backlog, a more worthy and we will sit and talk We all know about their priority list. list of authorized projects for which no funds about it and we will argue about it. At We just took a look at their priority have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal the end of the day, there will be a deci- list. Petting zoos should be protected years, including, for each project— sion. Why should the two of us toss before bridges and highways. They (A) the authorization date; that all over to the executive branch, (B) the last allocation date; have included Old McDonald’s Petting (C) the percentage of construction com- no matter who is President? What does Zoo, a bourbon festival, a bean festival, pleted; it have to do with them? It is our bill. the Kangaroo Conservation Center. (D) the estimated cost remaining until The President has the right to veto it This is what the Department of Home- completion of the project; and if he doesn’t like it or sign it. But land Security said ought to be (E) a brief explanation of the reasons for thrashing out what ought to be in it prioritized. the delay. and what is good, we have done that. Do we want to invite them into a new Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 That is part of our job. prioritization game for the WRDA minutes to the Senator from Cali- There is another problem with this projects? I hope not. What could come fornia. amendment. It sets up a nightmare of a out of this is not good. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- tier system. You have to fight your In discussing this with my col- ator from California is recognized for way into a tier in order to be funded. leagues, they say: But, Senator BOXER, 15 minutes. The administration—this one and the they are just going to recommend. We Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank next one and the one thereafter—will have the ability to sit down among my chairman, Chairman INHOFE, for be able to recommend which tier your ourselves—Democrats and Repub- granting me this time. State projects ought to be in. When the licans—as we have done in this bill, I feel so strongly against this amend- first tier reaches $5 billion, or when and come to some decisions on what ment. I really need the time to explain there are 100 projects in it, that tier is the priorities are. I believe the Com- to my good colleagues why I think it finished. So if you have a very impor- mittee on Appropriations, working tant project, a large project, but let’s ought to be voted down. with all of us, has a second bite at that say we all know we have to move to We have amendments before us from apple. time to time and they come to us as re- help the folks who are impacted by I don’t believe we need to ask this Hurricane Katrina, and they have pri- form. I totally understand that we need President or any future President to ority—we all agree that it has a very reform in this whole area of the way we get into this issue and convene meet- high priority—if you represent a large prioritize projects that come before us. ings, have studies, and waste money State, you have a large project, you But I don’t believe this is reform at all. just to put together a list that they say will never make it into the first tier. It In my view, I think this is a delegation is their priorities. What makes their of the responsibility of the Senate and is bad for my State. Frankly, it is bad for any project priorities better than our priorities? the House over to the executive that is large enough and can’t get into They are not even elected. This is not branch. I believe it is going to be put the first tier—it gets knocked down. even their job. How do you come for- into the hands of people who won’t You get stuck in a lower tier simply ward—I ask my friend from Arizona, know a thing about this subject mat- because the project may protect more rhetorically, because he is not here— ter, and it is going to bring politics people. How does that make any sense giving people who have no idea what right into this Chamber. We were elect- whatsoever? It is an arbitrary system. this is about the power over the ed by the people. The cities and coun- It can label a project as second tier de- projects? They say it is just a rec- ties count on us to do our homework, spite critical local public safety needs. ommendation, but we know they will to do our due diligence and understand It will undermine a project’s chances of take that seriously. what the needs are of our people, what We remember the whole tizzy when receiving appropriations. our flood control needs are in our We already know what a fight we they said they thought it was fine for States, what our other needs are in our have to convince our colleagues in the the country of Dubai to run our ports. States, the studies that need to be per- Committee on Appropriations that the There was a big debate in the Senate. formed, and all of that. That is our job. projects in our State have merit. We Most Members believed that was a mis- The McCain amendment just simply subject these projects to tremendous take. That also came out of some com- wraps it all up and tosses it over to the scrutiny, first in this particular WRDA mittee. executive branch. It sets up a whole bill. As we struggle to get appropria- We all fight to get here. We all work new bureaucracy that I think is abso- tions funds, we have to make the case. hard to get here. At a minimum, we are lutely unnecessary and, frankly, I Then we have to go to conference and in touch with our States and we know think it is disastrous for this WRDA continue to make the case. the needs of our States. The Congress, bill. Unlike the other amendment Under this amendment, I am sorry to not a political appointee, not some bu- which we supported, which is peer re- say this is no reform. I ask rhetorically reaucrat, but Members of the Senate view, that looked forward, this amend- if this makes any sense. There is a very should retain the central responsibility ment looks back into this bill where we important committee that has been set for establishing the border resource have sat for years and years. up in the underlying bill. The com- priorities for their States. Instead, this Again, I thank Senators INHOFE, JEF- mittee has some very important func- amendment leaves the recommenda- FORDS, BOND, and BAUCUS and the lead- tions, but now the McCain amendment tion of priorities up to a committee ers of this committee who have worked adds this next function on to this com- made up of Cabinet and other political with us to ferret out the projects that mittee, this coordinating committee appointees. didn’t have merit. I can attest to the which, by the way, is going to hire an We are inviting politics into this de- fact that I had an amendment that I executive director. bate. As Senator INHOFE said, this is wanted to move forward. If anyone wants to learn how projects one of those rare moments in history, I was persuaded by my colleagues on and laws get bogged down, here is an this bill, where politics is left at the both sides of the aisle that there was a example. This committee that is going committee door. We worked together. better way to move forward. to be set up includes the following peo- We worked hard together. Now, with We have done our work. This amend- ple: The Secretary of the Interior, the this McCain amendment, we are inject- ment is well intended. I know that. I Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary ing partisan politics. In this case it is know the people who have put it for- of Health and Human Services, the Sec- a Republican President. In future years ward to us have good intentions. But I retary of Housing and Development, it could be a Democratic President. It think it is going to make it more dif- the Secretary of Transportation, the does not make any difference. ficult for worthy projects to get needed Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of We should do our job. We should not funding. That includes projects that Commerce, the Administrator of the punt the ball elsewhere. What are we have an impact on public health and EPA, the chairperson of the Council on here for? Anyone who votes for this, safety. Environmental Quality, and here is my and I am sure there will be a few—I I may have a debate with Senator favorite, the Secretary of Homeland hope not too many—the message they BOND over which project I think is the Security. are basically sending is that they do

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.038 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 not feel comfortable enough, they do probably want to do the same thing, reason such a council does not exist in not feel knowledgeable enough, they do that our time not be segregated as to any other forum. In the rare event a not feel strong enough to stand up for the amendments versus final passage consensus would emerge, the 50 percent what needs to be done in their States. so we could have 45 minutes for either local cost share would increase to the Again, I ask, do we really want to as we desire. point where communities could no have the Department of Homeland Se- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without longer afford to make their contribu- curity deciding the critical water re- objection, it is so ordered. tions for essential projects. source projects? They have enough to Mr. INHOFE. With that, I yield 10 It sounds like a time-consuming, ex- do to get their own priorities in order. minutes to the Senator from Missouri pensive, headache-producing bureauc- With all due respect to members of who has been very helpful and con- racy to me, and I have seen them be- the Cabinet, we as individual Senators structive in this legislation. fore. I can tell one when I see it. This know our States’ needs. We know our The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- is one area where trained experts who States’ priorities. This is not reform; ator from Missouri is recognized for 10 understand the process, from planning this is injecting, in my view, partisan- minutes. to construction, should be running our ship into a very bipartisan approach. Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the water project formulation process. I trust my colleagues, whether Re- Senator for the time and also for the There is a reason we rely upon those publican or Democrat, in this bill be- kind remarks. I appreciate the excel- with appropriate training and expertise cause they have to explain why their lent leadership he has provided and the to develop and construct our infra- projects are worthy. This is not like an bipartisan nature with which he and structure and safety needs. These deci- earmark where something is stuck in Senator JEFFORDS brought this bill to sions should be based on sound science, the bill in the middle of the night. This the Senate. not on political judgment of people is a major reauthorization bill where It is important to take a look at the with no expertise in the area. every project is looked at very care- substance of what is going on in these With thousands of projects and costs fully. I don’t believe any Cabinet is prioritization amendments now before that change annually, prioritization of going to be more effective at telling us the Senate which deal with fiscal dead- the projects and the process directed what projects should be funded. lines and requirements and, in turn, by Feingold-McCain would be ex- As Members of Congress, let us not how projects should be prioritized. I tremely cumbersome. Achieving sta- surrender our responsibility to an exec- hope our colleagues will listen care- bility and prioritization would be near- utive branch that, in my view, will not fully to the context of the WRDA legis- ly impossible. The amendment Senator INHOFE and reflect the real needs of our people. I lation and the Corps reform. I have proposed would categorize and urge my colleagues to vote no, a very Worthwhile projects of the Corps of prioritize projects on scientifically sus- sound no, on this amendment. Let’s Engineers should be funded. The inad- tainable reports. These reports will send a message today that this Senate equate funding of the levees in New Or- provide Congress with the necessary in- knows what it is doing in this bill. leans was a bad mistake. We need to formation to make tough values-re- I feel very comfortable with the lead- fund worthwhile levees, but the best lated decisions. Our proposed approach ership of Senators INHOFE and JEF- route is not the total overhaul of the supports and encourages a holistic ap- FORDS, that we do know what we are Corps and passage of the Feingold- proach to water resource management doing in this bill. If you are for this McCain amendments, in this case, spe- by considering a wide range of impor- bill, I hope you will vote no on the cifically, the prioritization amend- ment. tant factors. McCain amendment. Feingold-McCain fails to address I give the remainder of my time to The Feingold-McCain amendment proposes a complete overhaul by estab- multipurpose projects and thus results the good Senator, Mr. INHOFE. I thank in inadequate cost-benefit ratios. Mod- him so much for the chance to speak lishing a new bureaucracy, the Water Resources Planning Coordinating Com- ernizing our locks and dams and im- against this amendment. proving our levees contribute to the mittee. We need another bureaucracy Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator entire way of American life: enhancing in the Federal Government like a bear from California for bringing up some flood control, transportation, hydro- needs tennis shoes. This idea is essen- very good points. power, water supply, and recreation. tially a reprise of the Water Resources How much time is remaining? Each purpose of the project served de- Council that existed during the Carter The PRESIDING OFFICER. The total termines demands prioritization, administration which was discredited time remaining is 17 minutes 45 sec- weighing all benefits in the analysis. due to its inability to get anything onds. And even then, how do you truly value done. That is not surprising when you Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry safety and the health of human life? because there is some confusion, with- have members ranging from the Sec- Media reports and editorials have out using our time to make the par- retary of Health and Human Services, criticized and played the blame game. liamentary inquiry: It is my under- the Secretary of Housing and Urban As a result, the Corps has received standing that while we have an hour Development, the Secretary of Home- more than its share of public ridicule. equally divided on the two amend- land Security. These are just a few of What is not well publicized is the good ments that are going to be voted back the Cabinet members, along with oth- work that the Civil Works Program of to back, there is also 30 minutes equal- ers, proposed to provide review under the United States Army Corps of Engi- ly divided on final passage. All of this the Feingold-McCain amendment. The neers has already done in its exhaus- time would be used prior to the three Secretary of the Army is on there, not tive inhouse budget prioritization. The votes that come consecutively; is that even a Cabinet position. I look forward Civil Works Program has the only in- correct? to the Secretary of the Army, for ex- frastructure project analysis that is re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ample, providing input and review to quired to have cost-benefit ratios ator is correct. the Department of Education on No grounded in economic theory and ex- Mr. INHOFE. If that is the case, Child Left Behind. That is essentially tensive ongoing economic analysis. there would be more like 30 minutes re- the same thing as having the proposed From its inception, each economic maining because each side would have Feingold-McCain council consisting of water resource infrastructure project 45 minutes. noninterested, nontrained Cabinet goes through multiple ‘‘winnowing’’ The PRESIDING OFFICER. The members with other heavy responsibil- processes. In recent years, only 16 per- agreement contemplated that the final ities involved in the Corps of Engi- cent of the proposed projects generally 30 minutes would be used after the ini- neers’ very complicated 103-step proc- pass on a ‘‘national benefit,’’ a positive tial hour so that the Senator’s assump- ess to come up with priorities and ap- benefit to cost ratio. Unless a project tion is correct that he will have 15 min- proval of projects. meets this threshold, the process will utes after the 17 minutes and 35 min- Beyond a lack of interest in exper- not allow for a favorable report of the utes is expired. tise, this council is structured for chief of engineers. Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous con- projects to fail. A meeting of the minds The second winnowing is cost-share sent on our side, and I suggest they is very difficult. This is probably the requirements where both studies and

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.065 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7845 construction require percentages of The Feingold-McCain amendment The Administration looks forward to work- local moneys to match the amounts proposes a council that lacks the nec- ing with the Senate to revise this legislation from the Federal Government as well essary expertise and adds redtape. We so that it will accomplish our shared goals as other contributions such as lands, believe the Bond-Inhofe amendment and objectives. easements, and rights-of-way. makes sense, and it will add to what THE NEED FOR BASIC REFORMS Unless exempted by Congress, if a the WRDA legislation already includes: The civil works program has played an im- local cost-sharing agreement does not reasonable Corps reform amendments portant role in developing the Nation’s water come forward, a project is not eligible that would strike a balance, that dis- resources; however, it faces several inter- related problems: (1) the Corps has a large for Federal funds. ciplines new projects to criteria fairly Next is the actual budget appropria- backlog of unfinished construction work, re- applied, while addressing a greater sulting in more projects facing delays and a tions process, which begins at the 38 number of water resources multipur- $50 billion cost to complete the backlog of districts of the Corps of Engineers 18 pose priorities. already-authorized projects; (2) the Corps is months before a President’s budget is I urge my colleagues to support the providing funding to construct projects out- delivered. Inhofe-Bond amendment and to oppose side of its three main missions, which re- Performance-based budgeting re- the Feingold-McCain amendment. duces the funding available for higher pri- quires a highly detailed process, sort- I yield the floor. ority needs; and (3) the Federal government ing the projects by benefits and costs The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who pays a substantial share of project costs, and rated in a variety of categories, in- yields time? which can lead to an over-allocation of re- cluding risk factors for the environ- The Senator from Arizona. sources to build new projects and upgrade ex- isting ones. The bill does not address, and in ment, safety, security, and operations. Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. some cases would exacerbate, these prob- Each of the ‘‘economic’’ Corps lems. projects is then subject to ‘‘dimin- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- The President’s last four Budgets have out- ishing returns’’ analysis that defines ator from Arizona is recognized. lined the direction of the reforms needed to specific measurable performance bene- Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I would address these and other concerns. The Ad- fits that may be gained through a num- like to thank my friends from Okla- ministration has proposed five principles to ber of levels of incremental funding. homa and Missouri for their courtesy guide Corps authorizations and appropria- In addition, unique elements or cir- in the way we have been addressing tions, which focus on: (1) improving how the cumstances, such as judicial findings these two amendments. Corps formulates its water resources and orders, are taken into account. The Mr. President, I begin by asking projects, such as through changes to the 1983 principles and guidelines for proposed Fed- recommendation is then sent to the unanimous consent that the Statement of Administration Policy be printed in eral water resources projects; (2) limiting Corps Division office that merges all new construction starts to projects with a district inputs into a division rec- the RECORD. There being no objection, the mate- very high net economic or environmental re- ommendation which goes to the Corps turn per dollar invested; (3) setting priorities headquarters in Washington. rial was ordered to be printed in the for allocating funding among the projects Once at headquarters, they are re- RECORD, as follows: with ongoing construction work in the three viewed, merged, cross-walked, racked, STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY, JULY main Corps mission areas; (4) de-authorizing stacked, jacked, and tacked, and fi- 18, 2006 commercial navigation projects with ex- nally nationally ranked on a benefit S. 728—WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT tremely low levels of commercial use, and scale, to deliver a list to OMB. OF 2006 projects whose main purpose falls outside I am exhausted—and I know my lis- The Administration has strong concerns the three main mission areas; and (5) ad- dressing cost-sharing. teners are exhausted, those who are with the significant overall cost of S. 728. The Congressional Budget Office has esti- The FY 2007 Budget proposes specific eco- still listening—merely summarizing mated that the bill as reported by the Com- nomic, environmental, and public safety per- the current standards and the process mittee would authorize nearly $12 billion in formance criteria for use in establishing pri- that has to be followed—and we did not discretionary spending, and a preliminary orities among ongoing construction projects. go into the 103 steps currently existing Administration review indicates that the The Administration supports efforts to before the request even reaches Con- cost of the manager’s amendment would be prioritize water resources construction gress for appropriations. greater. The Administration believes the bill projects consistent with this approach, and But the Bond-Inhofe amendment goes should establish priorities among these ac- looks forward to working with Congress to further and categorizes and prioritizes tivities and limit new authorizations to accomplish this objective. projects scientifically and makes a those projects that represent the highest pri- PLANNING FUTURE PROIECTS orities for Federal funding within the three supportable report to make it easier The bill’s proposals regarding the formula- main Corps mission areas: commercial navi- tion of projects would undermine efforts to for us to make the important judg- gation, flood and storm damage reduction, ments. It is a time-consuming and ex- improve the economic and environmental and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Ad- performance of future projects. Subsection tensive process already. The last thing ministration is committed to maintaining 2005(e)(1)(A)(ii) would increase the ability of the process needs is additional bureau- fiscal discipline in order to protect the local project sponsors to direct the project cratic steps and redtape from those American taxpayer and sustain a strong alternatives that the Corps may consider and who have already skewed priorities and economy. recommend, and could preclude consider- The Administration supports the intent of ation of other reasonable alternatives. Sub- lack the expertise to make decisions. the manager’s amendment in the nature of a section 2005(e)(I)(B) would prohibit the use of OMB has its own criteria and prior- substitute to S. 728 with regard to provisions budgetary and other policy considerations in ities, with recent trend analysis show- that: (1) address high-return nationally sig- the formulation of proposed projects. Both of ing they favor environmental restora- nificant water resource infrastructure efforts these changes would erode the ability of the tion projects. For example, within the and aquatic ecosystem restoration opportu- Executive Branch and Congress to ensure nities in coastal Louisiana and along the fiscal year 2007 construction account, that the projects proposed for authorization Upper Mississippi River; (2) protect the only 90 out of the approximately 655 are well-justified and in the national inter- Great Lakes from invasive fish species; and projects were accorded ‘‘priority sta- est. (3) improve the Corps of Engineers recreation tus’’ that would allow for some level of The Administration supports the inde- services by providing a financing authority pendent peer review of proposed projects. funding. similar to that proposed in the President’s Section 2007 would restrict such reviews to 90 The Feingold-McCain amendment Budget. days from the start of the public comment would only add additional steps, The Administration is committed to re- period, which may not provide enough time lengthen the timetable, with fewer storing the Everglades in partnership with to fully consider the public comments and the State of Florida. S. 728 would authorize funded projects, the loss of jobs, and would preclude using these panels to assess construction of the Indian River Lagoon the inability to provide safety and the substantial changes to the project proposed project, a significant South Florida aquatic transportation we need. by the Corps in response to the public com- ecosystem restoration project. It would also Finally, of course, there is a congres- ments. The Administration looks forward to authorize construction of the Picayune sional process where we must authorize working with Congress on this process. Strand project, which has not completed its and fund the projects. We establish our review by the Administration. We look for- RESTRICTING THE POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE priorities, and they are contained in ward to working with Congress on these and BRANCH the amendment, the Bond-Inhofe future authorizations for this priority res- The Administration strongly objects to amendment. toration effort. section 2006(f)(1)(C), which would limit the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.066 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7846 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 ability of the Executive Branch to properly mentation while providing greater flexibility in decades. Almost a year later, the supervise the civil works program by prohib- in setting future priorities. Subsection gulf coast region is still trying to re- iting anyone from giving direction to the 1003(j) should also be revised to provide for build and there is a long road ahead. Chief of Engineers, including Senate-con- only a science program, which should be run We learned many lessons from this firmed Presidential appointees in the De- by the U.S. Geological Survey and be funded partment of Defense, regarding any Corps re- on a cost-sharing basis and through appro- tragedy, and, as our Nation continues port on a proposed project or any related rec- priations from the Corps. Moreover, section to dedicate significant resources to the ommendations for changes in law or policy. 1003(i), and several other provisions in the reconstruction effort, we must ensure Such a provision would hinder the Presi- bill, should be revised to avoid microman- that those resources are being used in dent’s ability to fulfill his Constitutional du- aging the internal deliberations of the execu- the most effective and efficient manner ties. The bill would also require the Sec- tive branch, and thereby interfering with the as possible. It is time the Congress retary to provide his recommendations to President’s constitutional duty to execute takes a hard look at how our scarce Congress on a proposed project within 90 the law. Army Corps dollars are being spent days of the Chiefs report, which is not ade- OTHER CONCERNS quate time for a proper review and a deter- overall and whether they are actually The Administration also opposes certain going to the most necessary projects. mination of the Administration’s position. other provisions in the bill, including: In addition, this language should be revised Section 2001, which could significantly di- Our current system for funding Corps to request rather than require the rec- minish accountability, nationwide consist- projects is not working. Currently, ommendation, in keeping with the Presi- ency, and oversight of Corps projects by lim- projects are submitted by Members of dent’s constitutional authority to make rec- iting the ability of Corps headquarters and Congress for funding without having a ommendations he determines to be necessary the Secretary of the Army to review pro- clear picture of how that project af- and expedient. posed agreements with local project spon- fects the overall infrastructure of our The Administration strongly objects to sors, and could expose the Federal govern- Section 1003(o) which conditionally Nation’s waterways or where it fits ment to liquidated damages in the event within our national waterways prior- preauthorizes the construction of all projects that Congress terminates funding for a identified in a future Corps report on options project; ities. for improving storm damage reduction along Section 2014, which would establish a bind- Too often, it is a Member’s seniority the Louisiana coast. Congress should not ing 50-year Federal commitment to the peri- and party position that dictates which preauthorize these yet-to-be-identified odic nourishment of sandy beaches and projects are funded and which ones will projects, whose total cost is likely to be which could be construed as promoting join the $58 billion backlog. Mr. Presi- measured in the tens of billions of dollars ‘‘shore protection’’ instead of storm damage dent, I repeat, we have a $58 billion and is not included in Congressional Budget reduction as the program’s objective; and backlog of projects. And the bill before Office estimate, before the Executive Section 3067, which would lead to the use us is going to add another $12 billion in Branch, Congress, and the public have had a of the Bonnet Carre Spillway in ways that full opportunity to review them. could be harmful to the ecosystem of Lake projects to the backlog. Do you know The Administration objects to Section Pontchartrain. how much funding the Corps receives 1003(n) which creates a new agency—the Lou- The Administration looks forward to work- annually? Two billion dollars. So if you isiana Water Resources Council—to manage ing with Congress on these and other con- have $70 billion, and we are annually and oversee a system-wide comprehensive cerns as the legislation proceeds. allocating $2 billion, that is 35 years. It plan of unspecified future projects in Lou- Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I would is 35 years before any project that is on isiana. This provision would circumvent the just like to quote from the first para- normal chain of command within the Execu- this list is funded. tive Branch and thereby reduce account- graph of the Statement of Administra- Clearly, without a prioritization, ability for the costs to build these projects. tion Policy: that opens itself up to no way that we The provision also raises constitutional con- The Administration has strong concerns would have a way of determining which cerns with regard to the Appointments with the significant overall cost of S. 728. project is most important and which is Clause. The Congressional Budget Office has esti- not. There is no way to know which ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE COST-SHARING mated that the bill as reported by the Com- projects warrant these limited re- mittee would authorize nearly $12 billion in The Administration objects to the author- sources because the Corps refuses to discretionary spending, and a preliminary izations in the bill that would have the effect Administration review indicates that the give Congress its views on which of providing unwarranted waivers or reduc- cost of the manager’s amendment would be projects are necessary. In fact, even tions in non-Federal cost-sharing require- greater. The Administration believes the bill when Congress specifically requests a ments. The Administration strongly opposes should establish priorities— list of the Corps’ top priorities, it is section 2039(a), which could be read as au- thorizing a major shift in future project I repeat: ‘‘The Administration be- unable to provide it. Remarkable. Re- costs—potentially costing billions of dollars lieves the bill should establish prior- markable. Unfortunately, the under- to the general taxpayer. In addition, for the ities’’— lying bill does not address this prob- aquatic ecosystem restoration work along among these activities and limit new author- lem. the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Wa- izations to those projects that represent the To help my colleagues fully under- terway and in the wetlands of coastal Lou- highest priorities for Federal funding within stand the extent of this problem, let isiana, the cost-share paid by the general the three main Corps mission areas: commer- me quote Representative HOBSON, taxpayer should be no more than 50 percent, cial navigation, flood and storm damage re- chairman of the House Energy and as it is for the Everglades restoration effort. duction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. Water Appropriations Committee, from UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS The first paragraph of the adminis- his statement on the House floor on WATERWAY NAVIGATION tration’s Statement of Administration May 24, 2006: The Mississippi River is a major artery for Policy emphasizes their belief that this Last fall, we asked the Corps to provide transporting America’s bulk agricultural legislation should establish priorities Congress with a ‘‘top 10’’ list of the flood products, and the Administration is working control and navigation infrastructure needs to keep it that way. The Administration has amongst these activities. That is what in the country. The Corps was surprisingly identified work on the Upper Mississippi this amendment is about. It is exactly unable or not allowed to respond to this sim- River and Illinois Waterway as one of the that. The amendment is designed to ple request, and that tells me the Corps has most important Corps operations and main- help Congress make clear and educated lost sight of its national mission and has no tenance projects. The Administration would decisions on which Army Corps clear vision for projects it ought to be doing like to work with Congress to appropriately projects should be funded based on our in the future . . . . frankly, what is still address the navigation and ecosystem needs Nation’s priorities. lacking is a long-term vision of what the Na- of this part of the inland waterway. I am pleased to be joined by Senators tion’s water resources infrastructure should COASTAL LOUISIANA FEINGOLD, LIEBERMAN, and FEINSTEIN look like in the future. ‘‘More of the same’’ The Administration recommends that the in offering this important amendment is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a respon- Senate revise section 1003 to provide a single to the Water Resources Development sible answer in times of constrained budgets. generic authorization covering all studies, Act. This amendment is designed to ad- construction, and science work needed to Last August, this Nation witnessed a dress this problem and shed light on support the effort to restore coastal Lou- isiana wetlands, including but not limited to devastating national disaster. When the funding process. It allows both the work envisioned in the near-term res- Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with Congress and the American people to toration plan. This would expedite the ap- it destruction and tragedy beyond com- have a clear understanding of where proval process for projects and their imple- pare; more so than our Nation has seen our limited resources should be spent.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.040 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7847 The amendment will tap a multiagency Some may believe that under this Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, committee created in the underlying amendment smaller projects will lose Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, bill. It will direct that committee to out. However, the size of the project Republicans for Environmental Protec- review Corps projects that are cur- has no impact on the prioritization tion, Sierra Club, and the World Wild- rently under construction or have been system. In fact, this objective system life Fund. And it has been positively authorized during the last 10 years. will help find the hidden gems in the commented on by the Heritage Founda- These projects would be evaluated by Corps project list and highlight their tion. The vote on this amendment will several commonsense, transparent cri- strengths to Congress. be key voted by the Taxpayers for teria. They would also be divided and It is time we end this process of blind Common Sense Action, National Tax- judged within their own project cat- spending, throwing money at projects payers Union, Council for Citizens egory, such as navigation, flood and that may or may not benefit the larger Against Government Waste, and the storm damage reduction, and environ- good. It is time for us to take a post- League of Conservation Voters. mental restoration. Each project cat- Katrina look at the world and decide We are also considering side by side egory would be broken into broad, whether we will learn from our experi- the Inhofe-Bond amendment. As I have roughly equal-sized tiers, with the ences over the last year or whether we mentioned before, their version would highest tiers including the highest pri- are content to continue business as be prepared by the Corps, controlled by ority projects, and on down the ladder. usual. the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and This advisory report would then be Shouldn’t we be doing all we can to reported by the Corps, locking out sent to Congress and be made available reform the Corps and ensure that most input from other relevant water re- to the public. urgent projects are being funded and Some have said this amendment re- sources agencies such as the Depart- constructed or are we more content ment of Homeland Security. That linquishes congressional authority to with needless earmarks—too often at the executive branch. That is a false al- amendment, unlike my amendment, the expense of projects that are of most only looks at likely construction legation. The prioritization report is need? an effort to inform Congress, but it projects, forces the Corps to review As stated in a letter signed by the every single project in its $58 billion does not dictate spending decisions— heads of the Taxpayers for Common just as the Department of Defense backlog, soon to be $70 billion with the Sense Action, the National Taxpayers passing of this bill. It would also create sends our authorizing committee, the Union, and the Council for Citizens Armed Services Committee, their pri- a vague need to fund a relative rating Against Government Waste, in support system that does not require any final orities. Without knowing their prior- of our amendment: ities, how in the world can we know analysis or ranking. This would lead to how to spend the dollars? Enough is enough . . . we need a system- an argument over semantics rather To more fully understand the need atic method for ensuring the most vital than quality of a project. Members projects move to the front of the line so lim- would come to the floor to argue that for a prioritization system, let’s con- ited taxpayer funds are spent more pru- sider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal dently. the criteria that their project scored well in is the most important criteria, year 2006 budget. The administration’s The Corps procedures for planning whereas another Member would be ar- budget request included 41 line items and approving projects, as well as the guing for another criteria because their or projects solely for Louisiana that congressional system for funding project scored well in that area. This totaled $268 million. That works out to projects, are broken. But they can be system would only lead to further con- $6.5 million per project, on average. fixed. The reforms in this amendment The House Energy and Water appro- fusion over the worth of individual are based on thorough program anal- priations bill included 39 line items or projects and distract Congress from the ysis and common sense. And let me be projects totaling $254 million—again, job at hand. Further, this system clear: A vote against this amendment in the neighborhood of $6.5 million per would use criteria clearly devised to is a vote against Government trans- project. The Senate bill included 71 skew ratings toward particular types of parency and accountability. This line items or projects, to the tune of Corps projects. How would an environ- amendment is a step toward a more in- $375 million—averaging out to $5.3 mil- mental restoration project ever score formed public and a more informed lion per project. well on a criteria designed to weigh a Congress. We owe the American public So while even more money was pro- project’s ability to lessen our depend- accountability in how their tax dollars posed for Louisiana under the Senate ence on foreign oil? How would a flood are spent. version, individual projects would re- and storm damage reduction project do ceive less money, and, inevitably, this I commend Senator FEINGOLD for his efforts to build and improve upon the being judged by this criteria that is in would result in delays in completing the amendment, pollution reduction larger projects. So this really does Corps reforms we have explained be- fore. Corps modernization has been a benefits associated with using water as come down, once again, to real-world a method of transportation of goods? priority that Senator FEINGOLD and I consequences of earmarking. Commu- Additionally, the Inhofe-Bond nities actually lose under this ear- have shared for years, but never before has there been such an appropriate at- amendment would require the rating marking practice. report to be delivered only to the au- Can we really afford long, drawn-out mosphere and urgent need to move for- thorizing committee, thus sending the delays on flood control projects that ward. signal that this information is not in- people’s lives depend on simply because I also thank Senators INHOFE and tended to help set funding priorities too many Members are fighting for a BOND for working with us throughout small pool of money with no real direc- this process and helping us to incor- and not intended to be transparent for tion? We need some kind of direction, porate many commonsense changes the public. I urge my colleagues to op- clear understanding and guidance for into the larger bill. While I still have pose the amendment. funding Corps projects. While more concerns with the underlying bill, and I point out again the problem we money may ultimately be going to a particularly the number of projects have here: $70 billion, $2 billion spent State, if it is being parsed via ear- that would be authorized, I hope that every year. That makes for $70 billion marking in an appropriations bill, we by adopting this amendment we can worth of authorized projects, $2 billion will not be able to make significant move this bill in a direction that will can be spent each year. That makes for progress on any project. truly benefit the Nation. some pretty ferocious competition. I Ultimately, without guidance, Con- I want to share with my colleagues think it is very important that we put gress is able to cram as many projects not only the administration’s support some kind of prioritization into this as possible into appropriations bills for this important prioritization kind of process; otherwise, it will be while contending that each project is amendment, it also has been endorsed very hard for us to understand what is as important as the next. Drawing out by many outside groups, including Tax- being done. But more importantly, it is completion on all of these projects puts payers for Common Sense Action, Na- certainly not clear that the projects people’s lives in danger and is unac- tional Taxpayers Union, Citizens that need the priority will receive ceptable. Against Government Waste, American them.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.069 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 I ask unanimous consent that a vestments that benefit ordinary Americans, The construction of new 1200-foot memo published by the Heritage Foun- not just lobbyists and special interests, the locks and lock extensions will provide dation on this issue be printed in the Corps will continue on the same ineffective more than 48 million man-hours of em- course that contributed to last year’s dis- RECORD. ployment over the next 10 to 15 years. aster in New Orleans. And with the Corps al- There being no objection, the mate- ready working under a 35-year backlog of We can also move the country’s goods rial was ordered to be printed in the projects totaling $58 billion, these manage- more efficiently. Sixty percent of the RECORD, as follows: ment deficiencies will persist for decades. country’s corn exports, 45 percent of [From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, I hope my colleagues on this side of soybean exports go on the Mississippi 2006] the aisle who almost always pay close River to their destination. It is abso- IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE U.S. attention to the Heritage Foundation lutely important to the transportation ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS and their findings will pay attention to of coal, steel, and concrete. We have a (By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.) this one as well. new concrete facility going into Sainte The extensive flooding of New Orleans I again thank my friend from Okla- Genevieve, MO. It was a number of caused by several breaks in the levee system homa for his courtesy in consideration years before they were able to begin during Hurricane Katrina led to an extensive of this amendment. building it, but they have. The reason debate about the performance of the Army I reserve the remainder of the time. that plant is going in there is because Corps of Engineers in protecting Americans The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the river is there, because they can from natural disasters. In the months fol- ator from Oklahoma. bring products in and they can move lowing Katrina’s assault on the Gulf Coast, Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it fur- products out. It is vitally important many public officials, civil engineers, and that we do this. We have been waiting policy analysts began to question both the ther demonstrates that people can have quality of the Corps’ work and the spending honest disagreements. I look forward a number of years. We are at least priorities Congress imposes on it. In par- to responding to some of the comments going to be able to authorize doing it ticular, there is considerable evidence that that were made by the Senator from in this bill. We then have to fund it. lobbyists and Members of Congress system- Arizona. I want to say a few words about what atically redirect Corps’ spending for the ben- I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from I think is the most important issue re- efit of influential private interests at the ex- Missouri, Mr. TALENT. garding our Nation’s transportation in- pense of essential flood control and protec- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- frastructure, and that is less about how tion. An amendment proposed by Senators ator from Missouri is recognized for 7 we prioritize than whether we are John McCain (R–AZ) and Russ Feingold (D– going to build it at all. Transportation WI) would create an independent commission minutes. to review select Corps projects. This would Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman infrastructure is absolutely crucial to be a major step towards reform of the Corps. for yielding and compliment him and the competitiveness and future of any As a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Senator BOND for their work in getting economy. Other nations know that. and the Washington Post have recently re- the Water Resources Development Act That is why they are building it. ported, a substantial portion of Corps spend- on the Senate floor finally. It has been Brazil, for example, which is certainly ing supports harbor and channel mainte- literally years getting it here. I think not a country with an economy as pros- nance that benefit specific shipping compa- it is a very important measure. Trans- perous as ours, is building water trans- nies, new irrigation projects that benefit crops like rice that already receive extensive portation infrastructure is very impor- portation infrastructure. I know people federal subsidies from the Department of Ag- tant. If we are going to maintain our are concerned about the revenues of riculture, recreational boating facilities, and global competitiveness, our economic the Federal Government and about the beach replenishment programs to enhance growth, we have to be able to get goods deficit. I certainly am as well. But that the value of seaside vacation homes. As a re- from one place to another. We have to is not a reason to avoid investments in sult of these diversions to low-priority pur- be able to protect people from natural capital infrastructure. If you are a poses, Corps’ spending on flood and storm disasters. We have to control and use homeowner and you have a hole in protection have accounted for only about 12 the water resources this Nation is your roof, you have to fix the hole in percent of its budget in recent years. Absent any formal mechanism to rate blessed with, and we cannot do it with- the roof. You have to fix it somehow Corps projects and establish priorities for in- out this bill. because it doesn’t go away if you don’t vestments that benefit ordinary Americans, I want to address specifically the pro- fix it. It gets worse. Then it costs more not just lobbyists and special interests, the visions in the bill that authorize the when you finally do decide to fix it. Corps will continue on the same ineffective modernization of locks and dams on We have been talking about prior- course that contributed to last year’s dis- the upper Mississippi River—locks and ities. It is certainly reasonable to dis- aster in New Orleans. And with the Corps al- dams which, if they were people, would cuss how we are going to prioritize the ready working under a 35-year backlog of be old enough to collect Social Secu- projects that we have backlogged. But projects totaling $58 billion, these manage- rity; locks and dams which are so small I note with interest that both sides ment deficiencies will persist for decades. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold relative to the needs of modern trans- seem to agree that after this bill propose to remedy this deadly deficiency portation that barges must routinely passes, if it passes, we will have $70 bil- with an amendment to the Water Resources be broken down into two halfs, in es- lion in backlogged projects and evi- Development Act that would require inde- sence, before they can go through the dently $2 billion a year to spend on pendent peer review if a project costs more locks and dams; locks and dams which them. I wonder if anybody else noted than $40 million, the Governor of an affected are in such need of maintenance that the irony of that. We are arguing about state requests a review, a federal agency you can take a picture of one and then how to prioritize $2 billion, when we with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will have a significant adverse come back and take a picture of the have $70 billion in backlog. Perhaps we impact, or the Secretary of the Army deter- same lock a month later and you will ought to be arguing about how we can mines that a project is controversial. Their find that concrete has literally fallen reduce the backlogs faster by finding amendment would also require an inde- off it. more money. Unless somebody is aware pendent safety review for flood control The case for river transportation is of some technology that is going to projects involving issues of public safety. so strong, it is a matter of common allow us to transport goods across the While the McCain-Feingold proposal is a big sense. It is a cheap, environmentally country other than through rivers or step in the right direction, the independent sound method of moving goods. I say rail or trucks, we had better figure out review commission should also be encour- inexpensive because it costs roughly a aged to comment on the Corps’ broad re- how we are going to fix this, and we source allocations to ensure that priority third of the cost of shipping by rail; en- had better figure it out fast. projects involving issues of public safety are vironmentally friendly because one A lot of people who are concerned—I not delayed because of diversions to beach medium barge tow can carry the same don’t mean here in the Senate so much resorts, environmental remediation, and irri- freight as 870 traffic trail trucks. So but over in the Office of Management gation crops already in substantial surplus. obviously, by fixing locks and dams, we and Budget—about passing trade agree- Mr. MCCAIN. The Heritage Founda- can relieve highway congestion, reduce ments will reassure us that it is OK to tion memo says: shipping costs, reduce fuel consump- have trade agreements with other Absent any formal mechanism to rate tion, and we can reduce air emissions. countries, even though they have lower Corps projects and establish priorities for in- We will also create jobs. wage levels, because they say we are

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7849 competitive anyway because we have a River, which is not a river, it is a la- protection of our rivers, streams and better financial system, a better tele- goon. It is a bay. This Senator grew up lakes. communications systems, and we have on the banks of the Indian River. And it also maintains our commit- a better transportation system. Then Where I grew up, there are the peli- ment to protect our aquatic eco- the same people begrudge every at- cans diving for fish because there are systems, which are so delicate and yet tempt to invest in the transportation plenty of fish. There is Mr. Osprey up so vital to critical species. system. The reality is that however we there swooping down and getting his I am proud that the Senate will pass prioritize the money, we are falling be- dinner. You look up in that dead pine a good, comprehensive bill that also in- hind every year. In 10 or 15 years from tree and there is old Mr. Eagle. He is cludes key coastal restoration and hur- now, maybe sooner, we are going to up there waiting for Mr. Osprey to go ricane projects to further assist the re- have fallen so far behind, we will never down and scoop up and get his dinner. building efforts in the State of Lou- be able to catch up. When the next gen- Then Mr. Eagle is going to take off isiana following Hurricanes Katrina eration does not have the transpor- after Mr. Osprey, and Mr. Osprey is and Rita. tation infrastructure they need to be going to drop that fish and Mr. Eagle is I am also very proud that my State competitive, as we had because the ear- going to swoop it up. That is going to of Vermont will receive important lier generation gave it to us, I don’t be his dinner. Yet there is nothing out project authorizations, including res- think we will be able to explain it away there in a river that has water like toration programs for the upper Con- by saying we were arguing over how to this—no pelicans, no bird life. You can- necticut River; the repair, remediation prioritize it. I think they will want to not even see it. You can see the density and removal of small dams throughout know how we are going to build it. Be- of this water. You cannot even see the State; and the construction of a cause right now, however you prioritize below the surface of the water. Thank dispersal barrier to protect Lake it, we have a heck of a lot more prior- goodness we have up this WRDA bill. Champlain from invasive species. ities than we have money to spend. I This bill also is going to authorize the As we stand on the verge of passing hope we can put a little bit of the en- Fakahatchee Strand and the waters the Water Resources Development Act, ergy that we are now putting into that dump into the St. Lucie, like this I would once again like to thank Chair- prioritization—and I don’t begrudge to the east of Lake Okeechobee, man INHOFE for his leadership. We anybody the debate over this—into how dumped into the Caloosahatchee River would not be at this point without his we are going to fund the transportation to the west, and a similar kind of water persistence and hard work. infrastructure that this generation and goes out to tidewater in the Gulf of I would also like to thank Senators the next generation needs before the Mexico to the Caloosahatchee River. BAUCUS and BOND for their hard work Chinese fund theirs and the Third This is what we are going to correct in advancing this bill. World countries fund theirs, and our with this WRDA bill. Mr. President, it may have taken us people are out in the cold. And, also, we are going to—in the six long years to get here, but the im- I thank the Senator from Oklahoma managers’ package they have accepted pact of this bill will be felt for decades for his efforts and for yielding. an amendment that the two Senators to come. I yield the floor. from Florida have offered, which is to I urge my colleagues to support this The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who get an examination of this report that bill as it moves through conference. yields time? came out about a 70-year-old dike that Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rings Lake Okeechobee; 40,000 people the Senator from Louisiana. yield 5 minutes to the Senator from live in the vicinity of the perimeter of The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Florida. Lake Okeechobee, and the report pre- ator from Louisiana is recognized for 3 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- dicts there is a one-in-six chance of minutes. ator from Florida is recognized for 5 dike failure with each year that passes. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I had minutes. So we are getting an emergency exam- to come to the floor and speak briefly Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Presi- ination and report in this bill of the and thank the ranking member and the dent, under Senate rules, I ask unani- sanctity and security of that dike, with chairman for their extraordinary help mous consent that I be allowed to show all of those lives that are at stake. in crafting this bill to help meet the a prompt on the Senate floor, a bottle Overall, all of this is so important for needs of Louisiana’s vanishing coast. of water. us. This is the greater part of a 20-year This coastline just doesn’t belong to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without project of the restoration of the Ever- Louisiana, it belongs to the Nation. It objection, it is so ordered. glades, the river of grass, which for is America’s last coastal zone, with Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Presi- over a half century we have messed up millions of acres of wetlands that serve dent, this is the bottle. This is a glass by diking and draining and sending as hosts of the oil and gas industry and of clean water that is put on our desk this water of Mother Nature out to that cradle, if you will, the great Mis- to drink. This is the bottle of water tidewater, instead of preserving it for sissippi River, which is the greatest that I scooped up out of the Saint what it was intended by Mother Na- river system on the North American Lucie River which is one of the estu- ture—to keep flowing south through Continent. It provides for the extensive aries that will be dealt with in this the Everglades and ultimately out into fisheries industry. Water Resources Development Act that the Florida Bay. This is a picture of southeast Lou- I am so grateful that the leadership we are now considering. You can see isiana. But if you head southwest, it is on both sides of the aisle has brought the dramatic difference between the also host to major river systems, the this bill to the floor. It is with great two. This one is laden with algae and Calcasieu Ship Channel, et cetera. This joy that I will be voting for this legis- with all kinds of particulates. This is coast is threatened. This is a pretty ex- lation. the kind of clean water that we would I yield the floor. traordinary graph that we found re- like our rivers and estuaries to be. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who cently, which shows the track of every Thank goodness we have this bill and yields time? major hurricane since 1955. The blue we are going to pass it. It is going to Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I line is the track of Hurricane Rita, a address these kinds of problems. Spe- yield myself such time as I may con- category 4 to 5 hurricane. Katrina is cifically in this bill is the Everglades sume. the yellow line that went through the restoration and two important Mr. President, the Water Resources eastern part of our State, and then, of projects, the Indian River Lagoon, Development Act is critically impor- course, Rita on the western part on the from which this water came. It is the tant for our nation because it provides Texas-Louisiana line. Saint Lucie River estuary that leads our States and local jurisdictions with This gulf coast is America’s only en- into the Indian River. You can see why the support they need to manage their ergy coast. All of the oil and gas off- that estuary is messed up. When I went water resources, and improve flood and shore is produced right here. Most of out there and scooped up this bottle of storm control damage protection. the refineries, platforms, et cetera, are water, it was a dead river. That river, The Senate’s passage of this legisla- beside these great wetlands. This bill is the Saint Lucie, flows into the Indian tion maintains our commitment to the going to make substantial investments

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 along this coastline to keep our river also point out that I have been work- were unimaginable. We have a backlog open, to keep our ports operating, to ing, with his help and the help of many of $58 billion in projects that are au- protect these wetlands, and to help cre- others, on a Louisiana water resources thorized but not built, and that number ate a stronger barrier. council to ensure proper oversight, vet- will be closer to $70 billion when this Obviously, we need to be doing this ting, review, and ongoing outside inde- bill passes. Clearly, we need some way all over the country, this Atlantic pendent expert review of all of the of identifying projects that are most coast. There is money for that as well. projects in the Louisiana hurricane needed. Of course, I am not as familiar with area. Right now, Congress does not have those projects. I can tell you that this That concept was first embodied in a any information about the relative pri- WRDA bill—of course, my partner and separate stand-alone bill that I intro- ority of the current massive backlog of colleague, Senator VITTER, is on the duced on March 15 as S. 2421. I am unauthorized projects, and we don’t authorizing committee, and he de- happy to say that through a managers’ have any way of evaluating the rel- serves a tremendous amount of credit amendment it will be included in all ative priority of the new projects. for his work. substantial and major ways in this What we do have is individual Members I wanted to say that the ecosystem WRDA bill. It is very important to arguing for projects in their States or project of Louisiana’s coastal area is bring outside expertise to bear to re- districts but no information about funded, as well as significant naviga- view on an ongoing basis, to do that which projects are most important to tion and hurricane protection and wet- peer review for those projects and to the country’s economic development or lands restoration projects. In addition, integrate those projects into an overall transportation systems or our ability there are some innovations important plan for our Louisiana coast. to protect our citizens and our prop- to America. There are some new tech- There are other important needs that erty from natural disasters. nologies that will allow us to protect the bill meets. The comprehensive hur- Our current prioritization process is these areas, to build stronger levees, to ricane, flood, and coastal protection not serving the public good. The protect this coast with better mate- program is fully authorized in this bill. McCain amendment would make sure rials that cost less—way less—and we Immediately, it authorizes 5-year near- Congress has the tools to more wisely can stretch the dollars in this bill far term coastal restoration projects and invest limited resources while also in- more than we have been able to do in will exceed $1.2 billion, establishes a creasing public transparency in deci- the past because although this is a science and technology program of at sionmaking. It does so by utilizing an very large bill with a $10 billion au- least $500 million, requires consistency interagency task force set up in the un- thorization, it is not enough, as some and integration in all of the programs, derlying bill, the Water Resources Co- of our colleagues have said. and makes sure they work together. ordinating Committee, to evaluate Mr. President, the technology—and Other crucial Louisiana needs ad- likely Corps projects in three different we will soon send to the RECORD an ex- dressed in the bill are hurricane protec- categories: flood damage reduction, ample of the technologies—will help us tion for Terrebonne and Lafourche. The navigation, and ecosystem restoration. to make these projects stretch. I thank bill authorizes the Morganza to the The committee will establish broad na- the ranking member for his courtesy gulf hurricane protection project that tional priorities to apply to those and the chairman for all of his help. has been ready for 3 years now. This is projects. Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 long overdue and it finally comes in The amendment sets out minimum minutes to the junior Senator from this important WRDA bill, addressing requirements that projects in each cat- Louisiana. the travesty of the Mississippi River egory have to meet, so that, for exam- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Gulf Outlet, MRGO, fixing that envi- ple, flood reduction projects must be ator from Louisiana is recognized. ronmental disaster and making sure evaluated in part whether they reduce Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise, that the negative impacts of it, as we the risk of loss of life. But the com- too, in strong support of this WRDA saw through Katrina, never happen mittee is free to consider other factors bill with my Louisiana colleague and again. And other crucial needs are ad- as long as it is clear about which fac- many others because of the enormously dressed, such as the Port of Iberia, tors it is considering. important work it will do for the coun- Vermillion hurricane protection, east Projects in each of these project try, including the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Red-Ouachita River types will be placed in tiers based on particularly after the devastating hur- Basin, Atchafalaya Basin, Calcasieu how great a priority they represent, ricanes of Katrina and Rita. River and Pass, Larose to Golden and this information will be provided I, too, thank the chairman of the En- Meadow, Vidalia Port, and St. Charles. to Congress and the public in a non- vironment and Public Works Com- They are all directly met in this bill. binding annual report. That is it. Con- mittee, Chairman INHOFE, and the Again, I thank the chairman, the gress and the public get information to ranking member, Senator JEFFORDS, ranking member, and others on the help them make decisions involving and Senators BOND and BAUCUS, and ev- committee for their leadership to meet millions—or even billions—of dollars. erybody who has made this very impor- these crucial Louisiana needs and cer- Surely that isn’t too much to ask. tant bill possible, including our great tainly these crucial national needs. I staff, including Angie Johncarlo, Ruth strongly and fully support the bill. Modernizing all aspects of our water VanMark, Letmon Lee, Stephen Aaron, I yield back the remainder of my resources policy will help restore credi- Catharine Ransom, and Jo-Ellen time. bility to a Federal agency that is Darcy. I thank them all for their hard The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who plagued by public skepticism in the and, in so many cases, their ongoing yields time. The Senator from Wis- wake of Katrina. The Corps has admit- work. consin. ted serious design flaws in the levees it This bill is vitally important to the Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself time built in New Orleans, and it is clear country and is vitally important to off of the McCain-Feingold prioritiza- that the Corps’ mistakes contributed Louisiana, and it was before 2005. It tion amendment. significantly to the damage New Orle- was important before Hurricanes I rise in strong support of the ans suffered. Katrina and Rita, but it is 10 times McCain-Feingold prioritization amend- I can tell you, when I was down in more important after those dev- ment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. New Orleans just last week, even more astating storms and in light of our con- As Senator MCCAIN points out, it rec- than complaints about FEMA, I heard tinuing and increasing needs following ognizes we must respond to the tragedy complaints about the Corps. And just those storms. of Katrina and to our current flawed as we have worked as a body to im- I want to highlight some very impor- planning process by making sure that prove FEMA, we need to work to im- tant aspects. One is fundamental Corps limited taxpayer dollars go to the most prove the Corps. Our constituents and reform, which is important, which will worthy water resources projects. the people of New Orleans deserve no get done one way or another in this That doesn’t sound like a lot to ask. less. bill. Now, in terms of Corps reform, I As we all know, our Nation is staring The Corps does important work. The favor the model of Chairman INHOFE. I down deficits that just a few years ago real problem, as the senior Senator

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7851 from Arizona points out, that this The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The Inhofe-Bond amendment requires amendment seeks to get at is us in amount of time combined is 10 minutes the Corps of Engineers to provide crit- Congress. Congress has long used the 58 seconds under the control of Senator ical and easy-to-understand informa- Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate INHOFE and 2 minutes 41 seconds under tion to Congress that can then be used favored pork-barrel projects, while pe- the control of the Senator from to make tough budgetary decisions riodically expressing a desire to change Vermont. that we have to make when the funds its ways. If we want to change our Mr. INHOFE. No objection. are so limited. ways, we can start by passing the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who The amendment sets out four na- McCain prioritization amendment yields time? Does the Senator from tional priorities—I mention this be- which will help us make sure the Corps Vermont or the Senator from Okla- cause this contradicts something said continues to contribute to our safety, homa yield? Does the Senator from by the Senator from Wisconsin: No. 1, environment, and economy, without Vermont yield time? to reduce the risk of loss of human life wasting taxpayer dollars. Mr. INHOFE. That is correct, I do not and risk to public safety; No. 2, to ben- The Inhofe-Bond so-called yield time. I just don’t object to his efit the national economy; No. 3, to prioritization amendment does not ac- using some of the time on the bill. protect and enhance the environment; The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- complish that. In fact, that competing and No. 4, to promote the national de- amendment would do nothing more ator from Vermont yields time. Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my col- fense. than create a bureaucratic nightmare. Let me just say in closing that no It would require every project in the leagues. The Mississippi River is a critical ar- one can vote either for their amend- $58 billion backlog to be rated. Even ment or against our amendment saying the Corps admits there are many tery for Wisconsin and national com- merce, and many other rivers serve the that one of them is going to be spend- projects in the backlog that will never ing more money or there is pork. It is be built. Some of the projects being de- same role. However, I do take issue with the process that uses broadly ap- a wash. They are both the same. Voting authorized in this WRDA bill were first for the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not authorized in the 19th century. So why plied criteria that will obviously only be met by a small subset of projects at going to reduce the amount of money would we expend such time and re- that is going to be spent on projects or sources evaluating projects that have the expense of other valuable project types that fall within the mission area voting for the other amendment is not no chance of being built? We can going to do that, either. Not one of prioritize in a smarter, more manage- of the Corps of Engineers. Lastly, if any of my colleagues are these is a large spending bill or a small able way. spending bill. I would like to get that Their amendment creates an ill-de- tempted to vote for the Inhofe-Bond al- out of the way. fined relative rating system for cri- ternative, I encourage them to take a teria but doesn’t require any final close look at it. It is clearly designed Our amendment sets out our national analysis or ranking. How is that going to look more substantial than it really goals. The Corps is directed to develop to help us decide where to allocate tax- is because in a nine-page amendment, a relative ranking system to report payer dollars? It won’t. The relative four pages are dedicated to simply re- how well each project meets these four rating system is nothing more than a inserting the same language on a fiscal priorities. throwaway single line with no sub- transparency report that the amend- I really think enough has been said stance. ment initially deleted. on this issue. I am prepared at this What is most telling is that there is Unfortunately, the existing inad- point, if the other side is, to yield back no provision to allow for the informa- equate, opaque funding process is bet- and accommodate some of our col- tion to be made available to the public ter than the prioritization process cre- leagues. I do so at this time. so they can look over our shoulders ated by the Inhofe-Bond amendment. A Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, and make sense of whether our deci- deliberately flawed and skewed I commend my partner for the coopera- sions about national water resource prioritization system would be more tion we have had on this bill. priorities make sense. harmful than the current ineffective I yield back the remainder of my Furthermore, their amendment, one. As such, whatever one’s position time. rather than using impartial criteria on may be on the McCain-Feingold- The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time which to weigh projects, would use cri- Lieberman-Feinstein amendment, I has been yielded back. teria which would be applied across strongly encourage my colleagues to The question is on agreeing to project types and which appear to be oppose the Inhofe-Bond prioritization amendment No. 4684, the McCain reverse-engineered to elevate inland amendment. amendment. navigation projects: for example, cri- I certainly thank my colleagues for Mr. MCCAIN. I ask for the yeas and teria such as ‘‘availability cost alter- the additional time, and I yield the nays. nate transportation methods relating floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a to the project’’; ‘‘[R]eduction of de- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who sufficient second? There appears to be pendence on foreign oil associated with yields time? a sufficient second. using water as a method of transpor- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield The clerk will call the roll. tation of goods’’; ‘‘pollution reduction myself such time as I may consume. It The legislative clerk called the roll. benefits associated with using water as is my intention to yield back some Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the time. We have some colleagues we a method of transportation of goods.’’ Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KEN- want to accommodate. I think if I do These criteria serve to elevate ge- NEDY) is necessarily absent. that, time will also be yielded back nerically inland navigation projects at The result was announced—yeas 19, from the other side. the expense of flood and storm damage nays 80, as follows: While I don’t agree with those who reduction projects and environmental [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.] restoration projects. tried to argue that there are currently Obviously, I do not have an issue no prioritization projects, I do ac- YEAS—19 with inland navigation projects. knowledge that we can do a better job. Alexander DeWine Lieberman That is exactly what the Inhofe-Bond Bingaman Dodd McCain The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time Brownback Ensign Nelson (FL) on the amendment has now expired. amendment will do. Burr Feingold Sununu Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask The administration has priorities Chafee Gregg Voinovich unanimous consent that I may con- right now. They can set priorities. It is Coburn Kyl DeMint Landrieu tinue under the remaining time on the called the budget. The administration bill. sets its funding priorities through the NAYS—80 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there President’s budget request. For the Akaka Biden Cantwell objection? last couple of fiscal years, President Allard Bond Carper Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to Bush has relied on a measure called the Allen Boxer Chambliss Baucus Bunning Clinton object, I inquire as to how much time remaining benefit-remaining cost Bayh Burns Cochran remains. ratio. Bennett Byrd Coleman

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7852 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 Collins Isakson Reid Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the fense to undertake environmental res- Conrad Jeffords Roberts vote. toration. Cornyn Johnson Rockefeller Craig Kerry Salazar Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that mo- Mr. INHOFE. My colleague on both Crapo Kohl Santorum tion on the table. the Armed Services and Environment Dayton Lautenberg Sarbanes The motion to lay on the table was and Public Works Committees is cor- Dole Leahy Schumer agreed to. rect. This Water Resources Develop- Domenici Levin Sessions Dorgan Lincoln The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ment Act provision is simply to clarify Shelby Durbin Lott OBURN existing authority. The other bill man- Smith C ). The Senator from Missouri is Enzi Lugar Snowe recognized. agers and I were informed that there Feinstein Martinez was some confusion as to whether Frist McConnell Specter Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unan- Graham Menendez Stabenow imous consent that the managers’ funds from the Department of Defense Grassley Mikulski Stevens amendment at the desk be agreed to environmental remediation account for Hagel Murkowski Talent and the motion to reconsider be laid formerly used Defense sites could be Harkin Murray Thomas Hatch Nelson (NE) Thune upon the table. used to remove abandoned marine cam- Hutchison Obama Vitter Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment els located in the waters of formerly Inhofe Pryor Warner has been cleared on our side. used Defense sites in Narragansett Inouye Reed Wyden The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Bay. It was our intent to clarify that NOT VOTING—1 an objection? the Department could in fact use these Kennedy Mr. MCCAIN. I object. funds to remove debris linked to a for- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ob- merly used Defense site even if that de- The amendment (No. 4684) was re- jection is heard. bris has drifted off land and into the jected. water. Of course, any debris in the Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move REMOVAL OF MARINE CAMELS water not linked to a formerly used De- to reconsider the vote and I move to Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek fense site could not be cleaned up using lay that motion on the table. recognition to engage in a colloquy funds from this account, and I believe The motion to lay on the table was with the distinguished manager of this the language in the bill reflects that agreed to. bill, Senator INHOFE, and the distin- guished Senator from Rhode Island, distinction. VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 4683 Mr. REED, pertaining to a provision Mr. WARNER. Further, it is also my The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SES- that would clarify that funds from the understanding and I wish to make clear SIONS). The question now is on agreeing Department of Defense account for en- as part of our discussion that this pro- to the amendment of the Senator from vironmental remediation at formerly vision is not intended to give a priority Oklahoma, Mr. INHOFE. used Defense sites may be used for the to clean up sites in Narragansett Bay Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and removal of abandoned marine camels over other formerly used Defense sites nays. at any formerly used Defense site that present a greater risk to public The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a under the jurisdiction of the Depart- health and safety. sufficient second? There is a sufficient ment of Defense. The Department of Defense estab- second. The clerk will call the roll. First, perhaps for those who are not lishes the priority for cleanup of for- The bill clerk called the roll. familiar with marine and naval termi- merly used Defense sites on the basis of Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the nology, it would be useful to point out risk to the public. The Senate Armed Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KEN- that a ‘‘marine camel’’ is nothing more Services Committee has long supported NEDY) is necessarily absent. than a large timber fender. These the Department’s policy of prioritizing The result was announced—yeas 43, environmental cleanup based on risk. wooden fenders, or bumpers, are of the nays 56, as follows: We stand committed to that principle type that have been used since the days today. I ask my distinguished col- [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.] of sail to cushion a ship as it lays league to confirm that he shares my YEAS—43 alongside a pier, or to act as a buffer understanding on these fundamental Alexander DeMint Nelson (NE) between two or more ships when they points. Allard Dole Roberts are tied up alongside each other, either Allen Domenici Mr. INHOFE. Again, I agree com- Santorum at a pier, a mooring, or at anchor. The Bennett Enzi Sessions pletely with my colleague. There is ab- Bond Frist Shelby purpose of the camel is to prevent dam- Bunning Grassley solutely no intent to change the De- Smith age to a ship or a pier that would oth- partment’s current policy of Burns Hagel Specter erwise occur when a ship rocks against Burr Hatch Talent prioritization through this provision. Chambliss Hutchison a pier or against another ship due to Thomas Those sites presenting the greatest Coburn Inhofe Thune shifting tides, currents, wakes from Cochran Isakson risk to the public should be cleaned up Vitter passing ships, and so forth. Coleman Lott first. This provision is silent with re- Cornyn Lugar Voinovich The problem this provision seeks to gard to where on that priority list sites Warner Craig Martinez solve is that over the many years these in Narragansett Bay may fall. Crapo McConnell marine camels have been in use at Mr. WARNER. With that under- NAYS—56 naval facilities, marine terminals, and standing, I support this provision and I Akaka Ensign Menendez moorings controlled and operated by believe it may be helpful in ensuring Baucus Feingold Mikulski the Department of Defense, they have that this cleanup in the Narragansett Bayh Feinstein Murkowski been lost, sunk, or otherwise have be- Bay takes place, as it should. Biden Graham Murray come hazardous debris, often con- Bingaman Gregg Nelson (FL) Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my Boxer Harkin Obama taining hazardous substances, in the colleagues for including this provision Brownback Inouye Pryor waters and on the shores of formerly in the Water Resources Development Byrd Jeffords Reed used Defense sites in Narragansett Cantwell Johnson Act. More than 100 abandoned camels Reid Carper Kerry Bay. litter Narragansett Bay, creating a Rockefeller Chafee Kohl The purpose of this colloquy is to es- Salazar safety hazard for boaters and divers Clinton Kyl tablish that the provision that has and contaminating the bay’s water Collins Landrieu Sarbanes Conrad Lautenberg Schumer been included in the Water Resources with creosote, which has been listed by Dayton Leahy Snowe Development Act is not an expansion the Environmental Protection Agency DeWine Levin Stabenow of existing authority. This provision is as a probable human carcinogen. Cam- Dodd Lieberman Stevens clear that use of Department of De- els were commonly used as fendering Dorgan Lincoln Sununu Durbin McCain Wyden fense funds is linked to formerly used systems at the Newport Navy Base, the Defense sites that are under the juris- Quonset Point Naval Air Station car- NOT VOTING—1 diction of the Department of Defense. rier pier, Davisville Naval Construction Kennedy Therefore, this provision clarifies but Battalion Center, and the Melville Fuel The amendment (No. 4683) was re- does not expand the authority or re- Depot. As my colleagues from Virginia jected. sponsibility of the Department of De- and Oklahoma pointed out, this

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.043 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7853 language claries that funding from the Mr. INHOFE. Senator MARTINEZ, I view that expensive controversial formerly used Defense sites’ account am aware of the CERP review process Corps of Engineers projects should be could be used to remove abandoned ma- established in WRDA 2000, and during subject to independent peer review. In rine camels located in the waters of conference we will examine its estab- case there is any possible need for clar- formerly used Defense sites in Narra- lished independent review process to ification of this issue, would the Sen- gansett Bay, including removal of de- ensure that Everglades restoration is ator from Wisconsin be willing to work bris that is linked to a formerly used not unduly impeded. with me during the conference on this Defense site even if that debris has Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Senator bill? drifted off land and into the water. The INHOFE. I appreciate your leadership Mr. FEINGOLD. Absolutely. ecological health and water quality of and diligence on this important issue. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I Narragansett Bay is vital to the econ- SECTION 2019 rise to speak in support of S. 728, the omy of Rhode Island, and I believe that Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that section bill to reauthorize the Water Resources this language will aid in the cleanup of 2019 of the WRDA bill before us has Development Act, WRDA. this precious natural resource. some problems with how we have at- I want to join my colleagues in ex- AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES tempted to deal with balancing the pressing my sincere appreciation to Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the needs of municipal water suppliers and Environment and Public Works Com- leaders of this bill know, aquatic nui- hydroelectric power generation. Com- mittee Chairman INHOFE and Ranking sance species cause unwanted and po- plicating the issue is how CBO has Member JEFFORDS, and to Senator tentially harmful environmental scored our proposals to achieve bal- BOND, who chairs the Subcommittee on changes in the Nation’s waters. Aquat- ance. I fully intend to resolve this issue Transportation and Infrastructure, and ic nuisance species are introduced and do not intend to preempt existing Senator BAUCUS, who serves as the through various pathways, with ballast statutory authorities that govern the ranking member of the Subcommittee. water on ships being the most predomi- Corps’ ability to reallocate storage and I also want to commend their dedicated nant. Having a strong program to ad- provide municipal and industrial water staff for their hard work and consider- dress the challenges presented by new supply. I ask my colleague, the senior ation on this important legislation. introductions, allow rapid response ac- Senator from New Mexico, to accept The leaders in our committee and their staff have literally worked for years to tions, screen imports of aquatic orga- my assurances that I will work towards bring this bill to the floor for consider- nisms, and conduct research in all of a compromise that treats all parties ation, and they deserve credit for their these areas is extremely important and fairly. patience and perseverance. something this Congress needs to ad- Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague I particularly thank Senator INHOFE dress. for his efforts on these difficult issues and Senator BOND for the New Jersey In an attempt to develop a system to and appreciate his consideration of the project authorizations they have in- confront the challenges presented by importance of hydroelectric generation cluded in this bill. As do other States, these species, Senator COLLINS and I to the nation’s power supply. I also ap- New Jersey depends on the Army Corps have sponsored comprehensive legisla- preciate his working with me to ensure to carry out projects that are vital to tion to address this issue. While the that this has no unintended impact on our economy. This bill contains au- Water Resources Development Act ad- existing authorities that govern the thorizations for three important dresses protecting our Nation’s waters, Corps’ ability to reallocate storage. I projects in New Jersey. The first is a my colleague from Maine and I have look forward to working with the sen- South River storm damage and eco- decided not to address the need for ior Senator from Oklahoma on these system restoration project. The second comprehensive aquatic nuisance spe- issues. is a Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay cies legislation in this bill because the COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION project at Union Beach which will ad- Environment and Public Works Com- PLAN dress hurricane and storm damage and mittee leadership has committed to try Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senator provide for beach nourishment over the to move a comprehensive bill forward FEINGOLD, as you know, the legislation 50-year life of the project. The third is this year. establishing the Everglades Restora- a Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets Mr. INHOFE. I do understand the tion Comprehensive Plan creates a per- project to address hurricane and storm concerns about the impacts of aquatic manent, independent peer review panel damage and provide for beach nourish- nuisance species. I want to assure the with extensive responsibilities for re- ment over the 50-year life of the Senate that it is my intention to re- viewing the Everglades restoration project. sume discussions on a bill and try to plan in detail. The Corps of Engineers The bill also contains a contingent bring a comprehensive bill to the Sen- has contracted with the National Acad- authorization for a Great Egg Harbor ate floor this year. emy of Sciences to establish that Inlet to Townsends Inlet project for Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman panel, and it has been working produc- hurricane and storm damage reduction and ranking member for their commit- tively for years, issuing a number of and periodic nourishment over the 50- ment to continue the process and look major reports. Would this legislation year life of the project. I also appre- forward to working with you and con- create duplication with that panel? ciate the bill managers’ willingness to tinuing the discussion on this issue. Mr. FEINGOLD. Senator NELSON, I accept my language on the shore pro- COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION am familiar with the excellent peer re- tection demonstration program. This PLAN view system that has been established program will help us learn how to Mr. MARTINEZ. Senator INHOFE, as for the comprehensive Everglades nourish our shore in smarter and you know, the 2000 WRDA bill author- project. In many ways, that peer re- cheaper ways. ized the Comprehensive Everglades view system is a model for this amend- While I supported the Feingold- Restoration Plan. CERP created a per- ment. There is nothing in this amend- McCain amendment regarding inde- manent and independent peer review ment that would keep the Director of pendent peer review, I hope this won’t panel. The process used to develop Independent Peer Review from deter- be construed to take anything away CERP had broad public and technical mining that the Everglades peer review from the underlying bill or the hard review and participation. Therefore, all is the functional equivalent of the peer work of its managers. The underlying CERP projects have already gone review or substitute for the peer review bill is one that I am pleased to support, through an initial planning stage. How- required by this amendment and satis- and I will vote for its final passage. ever, there are approximately 50 CERP fies this requirement. In many ways, Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I want to projects that still need additional au- the Everglades peer review goes beyond express my support of S. 728, the Water thorization from Congress. During con- that required by this amendment, and Resources Development Act, WRDA, of ference negotiations with the House, works smoothly with the requirements 2006. S. 728 authorizes the U.S. Army would you be willing to examine the of this amendment. Corps of Engineers to study water re- impact of additional peer review on Mr. NELSON of Florida. I appreciate source problems, undertake construc- CERP projects and its current inde- and agree with your understanding of tion projects, and make major modi- pendent review process? this amendment. I fully support the fications to existing projects. It has

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.045 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7854 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 been 5 years since the last WRDA was minder of the responsibility held by provements. Unfortunately, American enacted into law and I thank my col- the State and local governments, but farmers still rely on pre-World War II- league, the Senior Senator from Mis- also of the leadership role of the Fed- era infrastructure when transporting souri, for his leadership in bringing eral Government in supplementing their goods to market. When we talk this bill to the floor. This is a bipar- State resources and developing na- about the responsibility of Congress tisan piece of legislation that must be tional guidelines for dam safety. and the U.S. Government to create jobs passed to address our Nation’s critical I urge my colleagues to join me in and economic development, upgrading navigation, flood control, and environ- supporting S. 728. Again, I express my these locks and dams is part of that re- mental restoration needs. appreciation to my colleagues Senators sponsibility. I am a cosponsor of S. 728 because I BOND, INHOFE, JEFFORDS, FEINGOLD, This bill provides $1.8 billion for lock recognize the need to authorize essen- BOXER, SPECTER and MCCAIN for their and dam upgrades along these water- tial flood control, shore protection, leadership in bringing this bill to the ways to replace transportation infra- dam safety, storm damage reduction, floor. This bill is essential in improv- structure almost 70 years old. This is and environmental restoration ing economic growth, safety, and the an important provision to Illinois projects. These projects carried out by quality of life of all Americans. farmers and to everyone around the the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pro- Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise world who uses the products that we tect communities across the country today in strong support of the Water grow in Illinois. from destruction caused by severe Resources Development Act. First, let The bill also provides an unprece- weather and flooding, and also promote me commend my colleague from across dented $1.6 billion in Federal funds for protection and restoration of our Na- the Mississippi River, Senator BOND, ecosystem restoration along the Illi- tion’s ecosystems. In addition, the leg- for his efforts in bringing this bill to nois and Mississippi Rivers to improve islation establishes standards that bal- the floor. I was pleased to support his fish and wildlife habitat as well as land ance the safety and interest of the pub- efforts in the Environment and Public and water management. lic with the economic and environ- Works Committee and to be an original Finally, there is a small, but impor- mental feasibility of projects. cosponsor of this bill. tant, provision to authorize continued I am pleased that provisions from S. Last year, Senator BOND and I funding for the electric barriers that 2735, the Dam Safety Act of 2006, which worked together on a letter, signed by prevent the Asian carp from entering I introduced with Senator BOND, are in- 40 of our colleagues, saying it was time into the Great Lakes. The Asian carp is cluded in the managers’ amendment to for this bill to be considered on the an invasive species with a voracious S. 728. This will advance dam safety in floor of the Senate. When we were told appetite that, if left unchecked, would the United States and prevent loss of that 40 was not enough, that we needed disrupt the natural ecosystem in the life and property damage from dam 60 signatures, we came back and got 81. Great Lakes and crowd out the native failures at both the Federal and State That was 7 months ago, and I am fish. Senator VOINOVICH and I were able programmatic levels. Specifically, the pleased that the Senate is now on the to get a temporary fix put into the sup- reauthorization of the National Dam verge of passing this bill because this is plemental appropriations bill, but we Safety Program Act will provide much an important bill both to my State of need a more permanent guarantee of needed assistance to State dam safety Illinois and to the entire country. It funding, and WRDA will provide just programs that regulate 95 percent of authorizes and revises the policies and that. the 80,000 dams in the United States. Of practices of the U.S. Army Corps of En- the approximately $13 million author- gineers in waterway navigation, in- I will also take a minute to discuss ized annually through 2011, $8 million cluding the construction of locks and the subject of reforming the Army will be divided among the States to im- dams, the construction of levees and Corps of Engineers. Serious questions prove safety programs and $2 million wetlands restoration to promote flood have been raised as to how the Corps will be dedicated for research to iden- control, and other ecosystem and envi- develops its calculations and analyses tify more effective techniques to as- ronmental mitigation activities. for projects. I believe that subjecting sess, construct, and monitor dams. In For two decades, Congress has en- some projects to an independent review addition, $700,000 will be available for acted revisions and updates to WRDA process is necessary to ensure that tax- training assistance for State engineers, roughly every 2 years. It is now been 6 payer dollars are used in the most ef- $1 million for the employment of new years since the last WRDA bill and, in fective manner. staff and personnel for Federal Emer- light of the devastation wrought by In closing, I commend Chairman gency Management Agency, and $1 mil- Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year, INHOFE and Ranking Member JEFFORDS lion for the National Inventory of this bill is long overdue. for their leadership, and I thank the Dams. Recently, the American Society of EPW Committee staff for their fine ef- An additional provision that mirrors Civil Engineers conducted a report card forts in preparing this bill. I am S. 2444, the National Dam Safety Pro- of the Nation’s infrastructure and gave pleased to cosponsor this bill and urge gram Act, which I introduced with Sen- a D-minus to our navigable waterways. my colleagues to support it as well. ator INOUYE, is included in S. 728. This More than 50 percent of our lock and Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, our authorizes appropriations of $25 million dam systems in the United States are Nation’s waterways, harbors, and ports for small dam removals and dam reha- functionally obsolete, and that figure are vital to our economic prosperity, bilitation projects. Although the will rise to 80 percent in the next 10 the safety of those who navigate our amount included in S. 728 is not as years. waters, and to our quality of life. It is large as in S. 2444, this is still an im- Now, if you are not from a farm estimated that one out of every five portant first step in ensuring the safe- State, you might not understand why jobs in the United States is dependent, ty of the public. I will continue to navigable waterways are important to to some extent, on commercial activi- work with my colleagues to ensure all of us. But a major component of the ties handled by our ports and harbors. that both public and private dams re- cost of farm commodities is the cost of In many instances, ship and barge ceive the maintenance they need. transportation. That affects both the transport is the safest, cheapest, and The cost of failing to maintain our price of food that we buy in grocery cleanest transportation mode. Like- Nation’s dam infrastructure is ex- stores and the price of homegrown wise, our waterways provide critical tremely high. There have been at least fuels that fuel our cars. If U.S. agri- habitat for fish and wildlife, rec- 29 dam failures in the United States culture is to remain competitive in the reational opportunities for boaters, and during the past 2 years causing more worldwide market during the 21st cen- contribute to the health and well-being than $200 million in property damage. tury, we need to improve our transpor- of millions of people through their di- In my home State in March, the Ka tation infrastructure. versity, beauty, history, and natural Loko Dam, a 116-year earthen dam, on Countries such as Brazil and China environment. This legislation author- the island of Kauai breached during understand the importance of efficient izes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers heavy rains killing seven people. This commerce for their farmers and have to undertake water resource projects of tragic event serves as an important re- made significant investments in im- great importance to our Nation’s and

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.047 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7855 our states’ economy and maritime in- for the Port of Baltimore and addi- Restoration and Protection Program, dustry, public safety and to our envi- tional habitat for the Chesapeake raising the authorized funding from the ronment. Bay’s wildlife. Initially authorized by current level of $10 million to $30 mil- I am particularly pleased that the section 537 of the Water Resources De- lion. It increases the funding for Chesa- measure includes a number of provi- velopment Act, WRDA, of 1996, the peake Bay native oyster restoration to sions for which I have fought to help Poplar Island project has proved to be $50 million—a $20 million increase over ensure the future health of the Port of a tremendous success and a model for current levels. And it authorizes the Baltimore, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Nation on how to dispose of Smith Island ecosystem restoration Maryland’s waterfront communities. dredged material. project to reverse the tremendous loss With more than 4,000 miles of shoreline Instead of the traditional practice of of wetlands and submerged aquatic around the Chesapeake Bay and Atlan- treating the dredged material as a vegetation around Smith Island, MD. tic Ocean, 126 miles of deepwater ship- waste and dumping it overboard, we In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- ping channels leading to the Port of are putting approximately 40 million neers completed a comprehensive Baltimore, some 70 small navigation cubic yards of clean dredged material study—the first such study ever under- projects critical to commercial and from the shipping channels leading to taken—of the present and future uses recreational fisherman and to local and the Port of Baltimore into a productive and problems of Chesapeake Bay’s regional economies, Maryland is a use, restoring 1,140 acres of remote is- water and related land resources. Since State which relies heavily on the navi- land habitat in the Chesapeake Bay, then the Corps has undertaken or par- gation, flood control, and environ- creating a haven for fish and wildlife, ticipated in a variety of projects to mental restoration programs of the and helping reduce sediment degrada- help restore the Chesapeake Bay’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Over the tion of the Bay’s water quality. This water quality and living resources, in- years, I and other members of the represents a win-win situation for two cluding sewage treatment plant up- Maryland congressional delegation of Maryland’s most important assets— grades, making beneficial use of have worked hard to maintain and im- the Port of Baltimore and the Chesa- dredged materials, removing impedi- prove the Federal channel system— peake Bay. ments to fish passage, mitigating the serving the Port of Baltimore and Last year, the Army Corps of Engi- impacts of shoreline erosion, and re- other communities throughout Mary- neers completed two studies—a Balti- storing wetlands, habitat and oyster land, to address the severe shoreline more Harbor and Channels Dredged reefs. But despite these efforts, the erosion problems on Maryland’s Atlan- Material Plan, DMMP, and an inte- Chesapeake Bay’s health continues to languish. tic Coast, and to bring the Army Corps grated General Reevaluation Report, GRR/Supplemental Environmental Im- To restore the integrity of the eco- of Engineers’ expertise to bear in the system and to meet the goals estab- pact Statement, SEIS, on the Poplar restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and lished in the Chesapeake 2000 Agree- Island Environmental Restoration Maryland’s rivers and streams. While ment, nutrient and sediment loads Project—which identified a critical other ports are just now beginning to must be significantly reduced, oyster need for new dredged material place- deepen their channels to 45 or 50 feet, populations must be increased, SAV ment capacity for the Port of Balti- we succeeded in deepening the port’s and wetlands must be protected and re- more by 2009 in order to meet Federal main shipping channel to 50 feet 16 stored, and remaining blockages to fish years ago making navigation safer, and State of Maryland requirements passage must be removed, among other easier, and cheaper for ships using the and recommended the expansion of actions. As the lead Federal agency in channel and assuring that the route Poplar Island as a preferred alter- water resource management, the Corps can handle the deep draft bulk cargo natives for addressing the dredged ma- has a vital role to play in this endeav- carriers in use today. terial capacity gap in an economically or, and the programs authorized in this We recently completed two critical and environmentally sound manner. A measure will enable the Corps to con- safety improvements to the Port’s subsequent Chief’s Report submitted to tinue to participate in this effort. The channel system—the straightening of Congress on March 31, 2006, rec- funding increase provided for the the Tolchester ‘‘S’’ turn and the wid- ommended a 575-acre expansion of the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Res- ening and deepening of the Brewerton existing Poplar Island and the raising toration and Protection Program will channel eastern extension—as well as of the island’s existing upland cells to allow the Corps to expand design and some long-needed improvements to add approximately 28 million cubic construction assistance to State and Baltimore harbor’s anchorages and yards of dredged material placement local authorities for a variety of envi- branch channels. We constructed a hur- capacity and extend the project life by ronmental restoration projects in the ricane protection project at Ocean approximately 7 years. This measure bay. The additional funds provided for City, MD to help protect the citizens authorizes the expansion of the exist- native oyster restoration will help sup- and the billions of dollars in public and ing Poplar Island project as rec- port the Chesapeake 2000’s goal of in- private infrastructure in the area and ommended in the Chief’s Report. It au- creasing oyster populations by tenfold restored the beach at the north end of thorizes $256.1 million for the expan- by the year 2010. And the new author- Assateague Island National Seashore. sion project, bringing the total cost of ity to construct the Smith Island envi- We also completed numerous environ- the existing project and the expansion ronmental restoration projects will mental restoration projects throughout project to $643.4 million, with an esti- help stem the alarming loss of SAV and the Chesapeake Bay watershed from mated Federal cost of $482.4 million wetlands along the coastline of Martin Jennings Randolph Lake in western and an estimated non-Federal cost of National Wildlife Refuge and Smith Is- Maryland to the Poplar Island Environ- $161 million. The Poplar Island envi- land, protecting approximately 720 mental Restoration Project—the larg- ronmental restoration project has been acres and restoring about 1,400 acres of est and most environmentally signifi- a top priority of mine, of the Maryland valuable habitat. cant island habitat restoration project Port Administration and of the ship- Third, the measure provides the fund- ever undertaken in the Chesapeake ping and environmental communities ing necessary to complete the C&O Bay. These projects would not have for many years, and I am delighted Canal rewatering project in Cum- taken place without the authorities that this legislation will enable us to berland, MD. In 1952 a 1.2-mile section and funding provided in previous Water move forward with the expansion of of the historic C&O Canal and turning Resources Development Acts. The this project. basin at its Cumberland terminus was measure before us will enable several, Second, the bill contains three addi- filled in by the Corps of Engineers dur- much-needed water resource infra- tional provisions authorizing a total of ing construction of the Cumberland, structure projects in Maryland to move nearly $100 million which are critical MD, and Ridgely, WV, flood protection forward. to our continuing efforts to restore the project. The National Park Service and First, the bill authorizes a 50-percent Chesapeake Bay. It reauthorizes and State and local authorities have long expansion of the Poplar Island environ- expands a program that we established sought to rebuild and rewater the C&O mental restoration project, to provide in section 510 of WRDA 1996 known as Canal in this area to restore the integ- additional dredged material capacity the Chesapeake Bay Environmental rity of the historic canal and assist in

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.079 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 revitalizing the area as a major hub for pleted before the Congress recesses in ica’s river transportation system in tourism and environmentally sound early October. This is a good bill, pro- smooth running order. We must remain economic development. The Corps in- viding for flood control, improvements competitive. We cannot wait any vestigated the feasibility of recon- to navigation, and considerable im- longer to authorize construction for structing and rewatering the turning provements to the environment. The 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move basin and canal near its terminus and bill also provides some real improve- through the upper Mississippi and Illi- determined that it is feasible to ments to the way the Corps works. nois without being split. rewater the canal successfully without I am very pleased that the bill in- Of course, navigation needs cannot be compromising the flood protection for cludes improvements for navigation our sole concern. Over the years, I have the city of Cumberland. and environmental improvements for heard time and time again from con- Subsequently, Senator MIKULSKI and the Upper Mississippi River. It includes stituents and national leaders con- I secured a provision in WRDA 1999 au- five expanded locks, a number of long- cerned about the environment, about thorizing the Corps to construct this overdue efficiency improvements, and the need to maintain a balance among project at a then-estimated total a major boost to the Corps of Engi- navigation, flood control and the envi- project cost of $15 million. Those esti- neers’ environmental programs. I was ronment. Habitat for many species—in- mates were based on a 50-percent de- pleased to work with Senator BOND to deed, the Mississippi River ecosystem sign document completed in 1998. Since develop this important and very bal- as a whole—has deteriorated since the that time, the estimated cost of the anced proposal. The unfortunate thing construction of the original lock sys- project has increased due, in large part, is that our Upper Mississippi lock and tem in the 1930’s. to the finding of archeological objects dam measure was first introduced in The Mississippi River is home to a and petroleum in the canal turning 2004 and then made a part of the Senate wide variety of fish and birds, as well basin and prism as well as design re- WRDA bill that year. But we are only as other wildlife. These animals and finements. The provisions included in now getting a chance to move it to the abundant plant life are important to this bill increase the authorized fund- Senate floor. the character and life of the Mis- ing level for the project from $15 mil- I have been deeply involved with sissippi River. Approximately, 40 per- lion to $25.75 million and will ensure navigation because of its importance to cent of North America’s waterfowl and that the full 1.2-mile section of canal farmers in Iowa and across the upper shorebirds use the Mississippi Flyway. Parts of the Upper Mississippi River and turning basin are completed. Midwest. River transportation is crit- Fourth, the bill contains provisions ical to keeping commodity costs low may serve as the most important area to facilitate the restoration of the Ana- enough to remain competitive. for migrating diving ducks in the costia River, one of the most degraded When shipping on the river is con- United States. And the Mississippi rivers in the Chesapeake Bay water- strained, costs rise. When that hap- River serves as habitat for breeding shed and in the Nation. pens, prices for moving bulk farm com- and wintering birds, including the bald Through a cooperative and coordi- modities by alternative means, mainly eagle. We are all aware of the problems that nated Federal, State, local, and private rail, go up as well. These price differen- have plagued the Corps’ actions on the effort, significant progress has been tials seem relatively small compared Mississippi River. However, the Corps made over the past decade to restore to the total price, but they make a has pledged and is putting a much the Anacostia watershed. Today there huge difference in farm income. stronger emphasis on environmental are more than 60 local, State, and Fed- Clearly, river traffic on the Mis- protection. We need to work with the eral agencies involved in Anacostia wa- sissippi is incredibly important to pro- Corps to ensure that all updates and tershed restoration efforts, and more ducers in my State and elsewhere in renovations of the locks and dams are than $100 million in Federal, State, and the upper Midwest. As a result of traf- done with the utmost care for the envi- local funds have been invested in this fic congestion on the Mississippi, pro- ronment and the wildlife that depends endeavor. The U.S. Army Corps of En- ducers face longer shipping times, on the Mississippi River habitat. gineers has played a key role in im- which are very costly. Clearly, traffic In addition to that mitigation, we proving tidal waterflow through the management and helper boats to push need to give the Corps the authoriza- marsh, reducing the concentration of long barges through crowded locks will tion and the funding it needs to accom- nitrogen and phosphorus, and restoring be very helpful, and this bill will help plish real ecosystem restoration, and wetlands, but the job of restoring the that happen. In the long run, though, not just make up for the lost habitat of Anacostia watershed is far from com- that won’t be enough. It is incredibly specific identified species. The legisla- plete. The provisions in this legislation important that we address ways to tion we are proposing does just that. require the Secretary of the Army, in modernize a number of the locks on the This is going to be a challenge in coordination with the Mayor of the upper Mississippi. these difficult budget times, but not to District of Columbia, the Governor of And we face substantial improve- do so would be penny-wise and pound- Maryland, the county executives of ments from our competitors in their foolish. We need to be thinking both of Montgomery County and Prince transportation capabilities, particu- the long-term economic health of our George’s County, MD, and other stake- larly in Brazil. I visited there a few agricultural producers and shippers, in holders, to develop and make available years ago and saw firsthand how Brazil tandem with the long-term health of to the public a 10-year comprehensive was rapidly moving to improve its the diverse ecosystems on the river. action plan to provide for the restora- Amazon River facilities. In contrast, I would like to note that I am pleased tion and protection of the ecological we are sitting with 60-year-old locks that bill authorizes improvements to integrity of the Anacostia River and that raise our costs. the Des Moines flood control system. its tributaries. I would also note that moving goods Des Moines suffered major flooding in I wish to compliment the distin- like corn down to the Gulf by river in- 1993 and clearly needs the improve- guished chairmen of the committee stead of by rail, and building material ments to reduce the chance of flooding and the subcommittee, Senators up from the Gulf in the same manner in the future. INHOFE and BOND, and the ranking means considerable saving in fuel both I believe the legislation we are pro- members, Senators JEFFORDS and BAU- lowering costs and air pollution. posing strikes the correct balance. I CUS, for including these provisions and Existing law requires exhaustive urge our colleagues to support this im- for their work on this legislation. This analysis of future river use levels dec- portant bill. legislation is long overdue, and I urge ades into the future. The studies re- Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Presient, I thank my colleagues to join me in supporting quired for such predictions are, by Chairman INHOFE and Senator JEF- this measure. their nature, highly speculative at FORDS and both of their staffs for their Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am best. While many have been critical of tireless effort writing this bill. It has very pleased that we are finally going the methods of the U.S. Army Corps of not been an easy bill to write due to to conclude the Water Resources Devel- Engineers, the Corps is essential to our the many competing demands on water opment Act. My hope is that the con- ability to compete, to ensure that we resources as well as interests regarding ference with the House can be com- keep the arteries and veins of Amer- Corps reform.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.080 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7857 Traditionally, Congress passes WRDA connected to the river. This includes especially after 6 years, there are so every 2 years, ensuring that the Corps 90,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs. many people to thank. First, I want to of Engineers can stay current in study- In addition, this project manages to thank the support of my principal co- ing the most pressing water resource balance the navigation needs of com- sponsor, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. problems, constructing projects, and mercial shippers on our inland water- MCCAIN, who has worked with me since modifying existing projects to meet ways with ecosystem restoration. the 108th Congress. various needs across the country. Quite simply, this project authorizes I know he shares my view that future We have been waiting 6 long years for the most ambitious ecosystem restora- Corps projects should no longer fail to a bill to reauthorize navigation, eco- tion project in the history of the Corps produce predicted benefits, should stop system restoration, fish and wildlife of Engineers. At a time when many be- costing the taxpayers more than the conservation, and flood and storm dam- lieve this waterway is losing its habi- Corps estimated, should not have unan- age reduction projects all over the tats and eco-diversity, this $1.65 billion ticipated environmental impacts, and country. ecosystem restoration project is an im- should be built in an environmentally Today, I am pleased to see this bill portant step toward fostering wildlife compatible way. on the floor of the Senate, a measure and natural habitats along the inland He saw the importance of ensuring that is the product of bipartisan nego- waterway system. that the Corps does a better job, which tiations and has the support of 80 Sen- This restoration project will restore is what the taxpayers and the environ- ators. over 100,000 acres of habitat and create ment deserve. He and his staffer, Becky I strongly support this legislation. new recreational opportunities and ad- Jensen, deserve commendation. Most significant to my home State of ditional jobs in the area. I am particularly grateful for the Illinois is the bill’s authorization of Ecosystem restoration projects that help and support of the chairman of the are authorized in this bill include flood navigation improvements and restora- committee, Mr. INHOFE. He directed his plain restoration, island building, con- tion of the ecosystem of the Upper Mis- staff to work closely with mine, and struction of fish passages, island and sissippi River and Illinois Waterway Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and shoreline protection and tributary con- System. This project will increase lock Steven Aaron did so ably, and I thank fluence restoration, among others. capacity and improve the ecosystem of them, and the majority staff director, When this project was developed, I both the Upper Mississippi River and Andy Wheeler. worked diligently to ensure that the the Illinois River. I would also be remiss if I did not ac- natural ecosystem of the Mississippi Specifically, this bill authorizes im- knowledge the support of another and Illinois Rivers received the same provements to Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, former EPW chairman, the former Sen- attention as the navigational needs of and 24 on the Mississippi River. It also ator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith. authorizes the construction of 7 new the area. I also thank the managers of this bill It was he who brought conservative 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, for the inclusion of a project that is groups and taxpayer groups to the and 25 on the Mississippi River and at critically important to Illinois as well table on these issues, honored my re- the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the as the entire Great Lakes region—the quest for a hearing in 2002 along with Illinois River. Many of the locks on the authorization to make permanent the then-Ranking Member BAUCUS, and I rivers were built nearly 70 years ago Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dis- am deeply grateful. and are in desperate need of an over- persal Barrier system. This project is I want to thank our current esteemed haul. Inland waterway shipping relies critical to protecting the Great Lakes and retiring ranking member, the Sen- on the successful operation of these from the Asian Carp, an invasive spe- ator from Vermont, Mr. JEFFORDS. locks. Frequent delays caused by the cies now found in the Mississippi River. This may be the committee’s last antiquated lock system increase ship- Asian carp can grow to 4 feet, weigh 60 major bill this Congress, and he is to be ping costs, which hurts American farm- pounds, and are capable of consuming commended for his leadership. ers. up to 40 percent of their body weight in He and I have spoken personally Updating these locks is critical for plankton per day. While the Mississippi about my interests in improving the industry and agriculture in the Mid- River and the Great Lakes were once Corps, and I am grateful for his sup- west and in my home State of Illinois. separate water systems, the construc- port. Every year, the river moves $12 billion tion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Several of the minority staff of the worth of products. It moves 1 billion Canal connected these two water bod- committee have been working on the bushels of grain—about 60 percent of ies. Today, the Asian carp threatens a issues I am raising in my amendments all grain exports—to ports around the $4.1 billion sport and commercial fish- since my first independent review world. More than half of Illinois’ an- ing industry in the Great Lakes. Per- amendment on the 2000 WRDA bill. At nual corn crop and 75 percent of all manent operation of the barrier system the time, Jo-Ellen Darcy worked on U.S. soybean exports travel via the to prevent the Asian carp from enter- the committee for the Senator from Upper Mississippi/Illinois River sys- ing the waters of the Great Lakes is Montana, Mr. BAUCUS, who was then tem. Shipping via barge keeps exports critical to the protection of this valu- the ranking member, and she has fol- competitive and reduces transportation able ecosystem. I appreciate the inclu- lowed my interest in these issues for costs. That is good for producers and sion of language in this bill that recog- Senator BAUCUS, Senator REID, and consumers. In addition, increased barge nizes the threat of the Asian carp and now Senator JEFFORDS. shipping displaces shipments by rail the need to protect the Great Lakes I also want to acknowledge the help and truck, which lowers transportation ecosystem from this invasive species. and support of several others on the costs for all businesses nationwide. Finally, we must recognize that Hur- minority staff, Catharine Ransom, Ali- There are significant cost savings ricane Katrina was a wake-up call; one son Taylor, Ken Connolly, and Mary and environmental benefits to updating that requires us in Congress to take Frances Repko, who worked for me these locks as well. Barges operate at those steps that ensure we don’t wit- until 2003, and provided invaluable help 10 percent of the cost of trucks and 40 ness another Katrina-type disaster to me with my first Corps reform bill percent of the cost of rail traffic. They caused by a failure of engineering, in the 107th Congress and the WRDA also emit much less carbon monoxide, analysis or any other failure of over- amendment that preceded it. nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, and sight. We must ensure that projects I also have a long history working use less fuel to transport the equiva- meant to protect the public wellbeing with the Senator from Missouri, Mr. lent tonnage of products. do just that. This bill is critically im- BOND, on Corps issues. I appreciate the It is estimated that the construction portant to the agricultural interests in effort that he, and his staffers, Brian of the 7 locks will create 48 million my State. I will encourage the ad- Klippenstein and Letmon Lee, have man-hours of jobs and provide 3,000 to vancement of this bill through Con- made to improve the Corps’ perform- 6,000 jobs per year, including many gress and am committed to seeing that ance. high-paying manufacturing jobs. Cur- it is sent to the President. Our work together goes back to 1999. rently, in the Upper Mississippi River Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when The reauthorization of the Environ- Basin alone, more than 400,000 jobs are a bill like this one comes to the floor, mental Management Program in the

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JY6.068 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 Upper Mississippi was the only perma- adding $2 million in authority for geo- cally, I thank LTC Brian Green, Acting nent authorization in WRDA 99. In- graphic mapping and $10 million for New England District Commander; cluded in the final EMP provisions was streambank stabilization projects to John Kennelly, Chief of Planning, and a requirement that Senator BOND and I protect water quality. We also author- Bobby Byrne, Chief of Programs and developed to have the Corps create an ize a study of the Lake Champlain Civil Project Management with the independent technical advisory com- Canal dispersal barrier to help prevent New England District. mittee to review EMP projects, moni- invasive species from entering the With the New York District, I thank toring plans, and habitat and natural lake. COL John O’Dowd, the former District resource needs assessments. Our work Third, this bill includes major Commander; COL Richard Polo, the helped to cement the Environment changes for the Connecticut River. We current District Commander; Gene Committee’s commitment to secure authorize $30 million for modifications Brickman, Deputy Chief of the Plan- outside technical advice in Corps habi- to existing Corps dams on the Con- ning Division; Paul Tumminello, the tat restoration programs, like the necticut River to regulate flow and Waterbury Dam Project Manager; and EMP. temperature to mitigate impacts on Jason Shea, the Lake Champlain Basin The amendments I offered to the aquatic habitat and fisheries. The bill Program Coordinator. WRDA bill are widely supported in the also includes a $20 million authoriza- In addition, from the North Atlantic environmental and taxpayer commu- tion for ecosystem restoration on the Division, BG Bo Temple, the former Di- nity, and several individuals have Upper Connecticut River and $5 million vision Commander; Joseph Vietri, the worked hard for this day, including for a wetlands restoration partnership. Planning Director; and Stuart Piken, Chelsea Maxwell, former staffer to the Finally, the WRDA bill includes both the former Project Management Chief retired Senator from New Hampshire, nationwide and Vermont-specific pro- at Division and the current New York Mr. SMITH, and now with National grams for small dam remediation, re- District Deputy District Engineer for Wildlife Federation, Adam Kolton, moval, and rehabilitation. I authored a Project Management. David Conrad and Tim Eder with Na- continuing authority for small dams Finally, I thank Rob Vining, for- tional Wildlife Federation, Joan that allows $25 million to be used for merly with Army Corps Headquarters. Mulhern with Earth Justice, Melissa small dam removal or rehabilitation. I Mr. President, I especially thank my Samet with American Rivers, Steve joined my colleagues, Senators KERRY colleagues on the EPW Committee, Ellis and Jill Lancelot with Taxpayers and KENNEDY, as a cosponsor of this particularly Senators BAUCUS, BOND, for Common Sense, Tim Searchinger provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 1887. and INHOFE, for working with me on with Environmental Defense, and Pete In addition, the existing Vermont dams these critical priorities, and I look for- Sepp and Kristina Rasmussen with the remediation authority is expanded to ward to the enactment of the Water National Taxpayers Union. allow for measures to restore, protect, Resources Development Act of 2006. Finally, I want to thank my own and preserve an ecosystem affected by Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have staff. My staffer, Jessica Maher, has one of the dams included in the pro- been advised by both sides a voice vote worked tirelessly on this legislation. gram. would suffice on this measure. Many She has talked to countless offices and When I first took over as chairman of Members want to be recorded, but if we constituents, and has worked to ad- this Committee in 2001, I started work- all speak loudly we can do that with- dress their concerns and questions with ing with the State of Vermont to iden- out going through the time of a rollcall grace and good humor, as has Mike tify how we could get the Corps more vote. Schmidt, another member of my staff. involved in Vermont. At first blush, I suggest to my colleague from I am deeply grateful to Jess and to her this seemed counterintuitive to me, Vermont, if his side is happy with it, predecessor, Heather White. and to many Vermonters. After all, we accept a voice vote. Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while early on in my career as the States at- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without we are nearing completion of this bill, torney general, I led efforts to derail objection, it is so ordered. I would like to take a few minutes to several major flood control dams pro- The question is on the engrossment highlight some of the projects in the posed by the Corps for the Moose River, and third reading of the bill. bill for my State of Vermont. White River, and Saxtons River. The bill was ordered to be engrossed Throughout our work on this bill, I Did we really want to open the door for a third reading and was read the have worked to find a way to use the again? At the time, my answer was, third time. Army Corps of Engineers’ expertise in and still remains, a guarded yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a series of ‘‘Vermont style’’ projects. I In my opening statement when the previous order, the Senate will pro- believe we have succeeded. WRDA reached the Senate floor on ceed to the consideration of H.R. 2864; This bill would provide $67 million in Tuesday, I referenced some of the re- all after the enacting clause is strick- new authorities for the State of forms contained in the underlying bill en, and the text of S. 728, as amended, Vermont. Vermonters identified four as well as some of the amendments pro- is inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill major priorities for the Corps during posed by Senator FEINGOLD that will is read the third time. my discussions with them: keep further improve the Corps. However, The question is, Shall it pass? The bill (H.R. 2864), as amended, was Vermont projects in the Vermont over the last 30 years, the Corps has passed as follows: style, continue ongoing Lake Cham- made much progress. Ecosystem res- plain efforts, address Connecticut toration is a defined mission area. Con- H.R. 2864 River issues, and find a way to repair tinuing authorities programs allow Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2864) entitled ‘‘An Act or eliminate the thousands of small small-scale projects, like the ones usu- to provide for the conservation and develop- dams throughout the State creating ally found in Vermont, to proceed ment of water and related resources, to au- flood hazards and causing ecosystem without the excessive bureaucracy that thorize the Secretary of the Army to con- damage. This bill addresses each of smallest States tend to dread. struct various projects for improvements to these areas. Beginning in 2003, I held a series of rivers and harbors of the United States, and First, during our discussion on the annual workshops with the New Eng- for other purposes.’’, do pass with the fol- WRDA bill, I advocated strongly for an land and the New York districts, the lowing amendment: increase in the authorization for small State of Vermont, and local stake- Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: ecosystem restoration projects like holders at multiple locations in SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. those in Vermont. In this bill, we in- Vermont. The first year we were in (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as crease that program from $25 million Bennington, Norwich, and Barrer, and the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2006’’. to $50 million, allowing smaller, the second year we were in Norwich (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of con- Vermont-scale projects to move for- and Burlington. tents of this Act is as follows: ward. The projects included in this bill for Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Second, we have continued our ongo- Vermont are a direct result of those Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. ing support of the Lake Champlain pro- workshops, and I thank everyone who TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS gram, authorized in WRDA 2000, by helped make them possible. Specifi- Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 04:31 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6343 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.049 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7859 Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity im- Sec. 3004. Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona. Sec. 3056. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet reloca- provements and ecosystem res- Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. tion assistance, Louisiana. toration plan for the Upper Mis- Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Ar- Sec. 3057. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Wa- sissippi River and Illinois Water- kansas and Louisiana. terway, Louisiana. way System. Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Mis- Sec. 3058. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. Sec. 1003. Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem souri. Sec. 3059. Union River, Maine. restoration, Louisiana. Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Ar- Sec. 3060. Chesapeake Bay environmental res- Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage re- kansas and Missouri. toration and protection program, duction. Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navi- Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation. gation System, Arkansas and Virginia. Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem Oklahoma. Sec. 3061. Cumberland, Maryland. restoration. Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California. Sec. 3062. Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts. Sec. 3063. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 3011. CALFED Levee stability program, California. and Rhode Island. Subtitle A—Provisions Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California. Sec. 3064. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions. Sec. 3013. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal Michigan. Sec. 2002. Interagency and international sup- site designation, California. Sec. 3065. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota. port authority. Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California. Sec. 3066. Red Lake River, Minnesota. Sec. 2003. Training funds. Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California. Sec. 3067. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency report. Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California. Project, Mississippi and Lou- Sec. 2005. Planning. Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habi- isiana. Sec. 3068. Land exchange, Pike County, Mis- Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordi- tat, California. souri. nating Committee. Sec. 3018. Redwood City navigation project, Sec. 3069. L–15 levee, Missouri. Sec. 2007. Independent peer review. California. Sec. 3070. Union Lake, Missouri. Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers Sec. 3071. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana. losses. flood control, California. Sec. 3072. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana. Sec. 2009. State technical assistance. Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of non- Sec. 3073. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data. navigability, Port of San Fran- Montana and North Dakota. Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects cisco, California. Sec. 3074. Lower Truckee River, McCarran by non-Federal interests. Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California. Ranch, Nevada. Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management. Sec. 3022. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mis- Sec. 3075. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control de- sion Creek, California. Mexico. velopment program. Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California. Sec. 3076. Long Island Sound oyster restora- Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects. Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California. tion, New York and Connecticut. Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring. Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Break- Sec. 3077. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits. water, New Haven Harbor, Con- Sec. 3078. New York Harbor, New York, New Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation necticut. York. and processing of permits. Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Har- Sec. 3079. Missouri River restoration, North Da- Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit appli- bor, Connecticut. kota. cations. Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut. Sec. 3080. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Sec. 3028. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware. Ohio. Corps of Engineers reservoirs. Sec. 3029. Christina River, Wilmington, Dela- Sec. 3081. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredges. ware. Carroll Township, Ohio. Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall events. Sec. 3030. Designation of Senator William V. Sec. 3082. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting. Roth, Jr. Bridge, Delaware. Sec. 3083. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma. Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsors. Sec. 3031. Additional program authority, com- Sec. 3084. Release of retained rights, interests, Sec. 2024. Project administration. prehensive Everglades restoration, and reservations, Oklahoma. Sec. 2025. Program administration. Florida. Sec. 3085. Oklahoma lakes demonstration pro- Sec. 2026. National Dam Safety Program reau- Sec. 3032. Brevard County, Florida. gram, Oklahoma. Sec. 3086. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. thorization. Sec. 3033. Critical restoration projects, Ever- Sec. 3087. Lookout Point project, Lowell, Or- Sec. 2027. Extension of shore protection glades and south Florida eco- egon. projects. system restoration, Florida. Sec. 3034. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aqui- Sec. 3088. Upper Willamette River Watershed Subtitle B—Continuing Authorities Projects fer pilot projects, comprehensive ecosystem restoration. Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for Everglades restoration, Florida. Sec. 3089. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania. waterbourne transportation. Sec. 3035. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida. Sec. 3090. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to Sec. 3036. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Pennsylvania and New York. emergencies at shores and Florida. Sec. 3091. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Sec. 3092. South Carolina Department of Com- streambanks. Sec. 3037. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Flor- merce development proposal at Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for ida. Richard B. Russell Lake, South protection of aquatic and riparian Sec. 3038. Allatoona Lake, Georgia. Carolina. ecosystems program. Sec. 3039. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Sec. 3093. Missouri River restoration, South Da- Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of Idaho. kota. projects for improvement and res- Sec. 3040. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho. Sec. 3094. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Riv- toration of ecosystems program. Sec. 3041. Port of Lewiston, Idaho. ers enhancement project. Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and Sec. 3042. Cache River Levee, Illinois. Sec. 3095. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madi- coastal habitats. Sec. 3043. Chicago, Illinois. Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites. son Counties, Tennessee. Sec. 3044. Chicago River, Illinois. Sec. 3096. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation Sec. 3045. Illinois River Basin restoration. Kentucky. and removal of dams. Sec. 3046. Missouri and Illinois flood protection Sec. 3097. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Ten- Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent commu- projects reconstruction pilot pro- nessee. nities. gram. Sec. 3098. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cum- Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource Sec. 3047. Spunky Bottom, Illinois. berland River, Tennessee. projects. Sec. 3048. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Sec. 3099. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Ten- Sec. 2040. Program names. Lake, Kansas. nessee. Subtitle C—National Levee Safety Program Sec. 3049. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas. Sec. 3100. Cedar Bayou, Texas. Sec. 2051. Short title. Sec. 3050. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indi- Sec. 3101. Denison, Texas. Sec. 2052. Definitions. ana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Sec. 3102. Freeport Harbor, Texas. Sec. 2053. National Levee Safety Committee. West Virginia. Sec. 3103. Harris County, Texas. Sec. 3051. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky Sec. 2054. National Levee Safety Program. Sec. 3104. Connecticut River restoration, and Indiana. Sec. 2055. Authorization of appropriations. Vermont. Sec. 3052. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Sec. 3105. Dam remediation, Vermont. TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS Floodway System, Louisiana. Sec. 3106. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Sec. 3053. Regional visitor center, Atchafalaya water chestnut, and other non- Kodiak, Alaska. Basin Floodway System, Lou- native plant control, Vermont. Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska. isiana. Sec. 3107. Upper Connecticut River Basin wet- Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Sec. 3054. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. land restoration, Vermont and Alabama. Sec. 3055. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. New Hampshire.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6343 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 Sec. 3108. Upper Connecticut River Basin eco- Sec. 5005. Anacostia River, District of Columbia Sec. 6043. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania. system restoration, Vermont and and Maryland. Sec. 6044. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsyl- New Hampshire. Sec. 5006. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal vania. Sec. 3109. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont Dispersal Barriers project, Illi- Sec. 6045. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. and New York. nois. Sec. 6046. Narragansett Town Beach, Narra- Sec. 3110. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Sec. 5007. Rio Grande environmental manage- gansett, Rhode Island. Virginia and Maryland. ment program, Colorado, New Sec. 6047. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Is- Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia. Mexico, and Texas. land. Sec. 3112. Erosion control, Puget Island, Sec. 5008. Missouri River and tributaries, miti- Sec. 6048. Arroyo Colorado, Texas. Wahkiakum County, Washington. gation, recovery and restoration, Sec. 6049. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas. Sec. 3113. Lower Granite Pool, Washington. Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Mon- Sec. 6050. East Fork channel improvement, In- Sec. 3114. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary Na- tana, Nebraska, North Dakota, crement 2, east fork of the Trinity tional Wildlife Refuge, Wash- South Dakota, and Wyoming. River, Texas. ington and Idaho. Sec. 5009. Lower Platte River watershed res- Sec. 6051. Falfurrias, Texas. Sec. 3115. Snake River project, Washington and toration, Nebraska. Sec. 6052. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas. Idaho. Sec. 5010. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Sec. 6053. Lake of the Pines, Texas. Sec. 3116. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bel- Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial Sec. 6054. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas. lingham, Washington. wildlife habitat restoration, South Sec. 6055. City Waterway, Tacoma, Wash- Sec. 3117. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Vir- Dakota. ington. ginia. Sec. 5011. Connecticut River dams, Vermont. Sec. 6056. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Sec. 3118. McDowell County, West Virginia. TITLE VI—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS Virginia. Sec. 3119. Green Bay Harbor project, Green SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. Bay, Wisconsin. Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama. Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California. In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Sec. 3120. Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Secretary of the Army. Project, Milwaukee County, Wis- Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut. consin. Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut. TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS Sec. 3121. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin. Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut. SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. Sec. 3122. Mississippi River headwaters res- Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut. (a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—Except ervoirs. Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware as otherwise provided in this section, the fol- Sec. 3123. Lower Mississippi River Museum and River to Chesapeake Bay, part II, lowing projects for water resources development Riverfront Interpretive Site. installation of fender protection and conservation and other purposes are au- Sec. 3124. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi for bridges, Delaware and Mary- thorized to be carried out by the Secretary sub- River. land. stantially in accordance with the plans, and Sec. 3125. Upper Mississippi River system envi- Sec. 6008. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida. subject to the conditions, described in the re- ronmental management program. Sec. 6009. Brevoort, Indiana. spective reports designated in this section: Sec. 3126. Upper basin of Missouri River. Sec. 6010. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, (1) HAINES HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project for Sec. 3127. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem Indiana. navigation, Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of restoration program. Sec. 6011. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana. the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, Sec. 3128. Great Lakes remedial action plans Sec. 6012. Green Bay Levee and Drainage Dis- at a total estimated cost of $13,700,000, with an and sediment remediation. trict No. 2, Iowa. estimated Federal cost of $10,960,000 and an esti- Sec. 3129. Great Lakes tributary models. Sec. 6013. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa. mated non-Federal cost of $2,740,000. Sec. 6014. Big South Fork National River and Sec. 3130. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries (2) RILLITO RIVER (EL RIO ANTIGUO), PIMA recreational area, Kentucky and Navigation System new tech- COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The project for ecosystem nology pilot program. Tennessee. restoration, Rillito River (El Rio Antiguo), Pima Sec. 6015. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky. TITLE IV—STUDIES County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engi- Sec. 6016. Hazard, Kentucky. neers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil. Sec. 6017. West Kentucky tributaries, Ken- $75,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of Sec. 4002. National port study. tucky. $48,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navi- Sec. 6018. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Lou- $26,800,000. gation Channel. isiana. (3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, Sec. 4004. Los Angeles River revitalization Sec. 6019. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche ARIZONA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, study, California. Jump, Louisiana. Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Re- Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, Cali- Sec. 6020. Eastern Rapides and South-Central port of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, fornia. Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana. Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline spe- Sec. 6021. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, 2006, at a total cost of $94,400,000, with an esti- cial study. Louisiana. mated Federal cost of $61,200,000 and an esti- Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection Sec. 6022. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake mated non-Federal cost of $33,200,000. project, St. Helena, California. Borgne and Chef Menteur, Lou- (4) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, ARIZONA.—The Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San isiana. project for ecosystem restoration, Tanque Verde Joaquin Delta, Sherman Island, Sec. 6023. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers California. Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas. dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,706,000, Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline Sec. 6024. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine. with an estimated Federal cost of $3,706,000 and study, California. Sec. 6025. Northeast Harbor, Maine. an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000. Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restora- Sec. 6026. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine. (5) SALT RIVER (VA SHLYAY AKIMEL), MARICOPA tion, California. Sec. 6027. Saint John River Basin, Maine. COUNTY, ARIZONA.— Sec. 4011. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Sec. 6028. Tenants Harbor, Maine. (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem Colorado. Sec. 6029. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan. restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Ari- Sec. 4012. Selenium study, Colorado. Sec. 6030. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi. zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Sec. 4013. Promontory Point third-party review, Sec. 6031. Platte River flood and related January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $156,700,000, Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illi- streambank erosion control, Ne- with an estimated Federal cost of $101,600,000 nois. braska. and an estimated non-Federal cost of Sec. 4014. Vidalia Port, Louisiana. Sec. 6032. Epping, New Hampshire. $55,100,000. Sec. 4015. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. Sec. 6033. Manchester, New Hampshire. (B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMA- Sec. 4016. Middle Bass Island State Park, Mid- Sec. 6034. New York Harbor and adjacent chan- TION PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the maximum dle Bass Island, Ohio. nels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey extent practicable, shall coordinate the develop- Sec. 4017. Jasper County port facility study, City, New Jersey. ment and construction of the project described South Carolina. Sec. 6035. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New in subparagraph (A) with each Federal reclama- Sec. 4018. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. York. tion project located in the Salt River Basin to Sec. 4019. Lake Champlain Canal study, Sec. 6036. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New address statutory requirements and the oper- Vermont and New York. York. ations of those projects. TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 6037. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York. (6) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA.—The project Sec. 5001. Lakes program. Sec. 6038. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina for flood damage reduction and ecosystem res- Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration. and South Carolina. toration, Hamilton City, California: Report of Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Sec. 6039. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio. the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, Delaware and Maryland. Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio. at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Poto- Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted por- Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non- mac River Basins, Delaware, tion of Cut #4, Ohio. Federal cost of $17,600,000. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Sec. 6042. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, (7) IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—The project Virginia. Hammond, Oregon. for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach,

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7861 California: Report of the Chief of Engineers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–483; 82 Stat. 740), Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of Martin County, Florida, modifications to Cen- total cost of $256,100,000, with an estimated Fed- $13,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of tral and South Florida Project, as contained in eral cost of $192,100,000 and an estimated non- $8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of Senate Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, Federal cost of $64,000,000. $4,800,000, and at an estimated total cost of at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated (21) SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.—The project $41,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non- for ecosystem restoration, Smith Island, Mary- the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,398,000. land: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Oc- Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an estimated (iii) The uncompleted portions of the project tober 29, 2001, at a total cost of $14,500,000, with non-Federal cost of $20,550,000. authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and an (8) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALI- Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–483; 82 Stat. 740), estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000. FORNIA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin (22) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIS- Matilija Dam and Ventura River Watershed, County, Spillway Structure S–311 of the Central SOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief and South Florida Project, as contained in Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: Report of of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Session, the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, cost of $139,600,000, with an estimated Federal at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated at a total cost of $16,900,000, with an estimated cost of $86,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated Federal cost of $10,990,000 and an estimated cost of $52,900,000. non-Federal cost of $21,994,000. non-Federal cost of $5,910,000. (9) MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALI- (13) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA.—The (23) MANASQUAN TO BARNEGAT INLETS, NEW FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduc- project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm tion and ecosystem restoration, Middle Creek, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated damage reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat In- Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $125,270,000, lets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engi- Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total with an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000 neers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of cost of $43,630,000, with an estimated Federal and an estimated non-Federal cost of $70,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of cost of $28,460,000 and an estimated non-Federal $50,130,000. $45,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of cost of $15,170,000. (14) PICAYUNE STRAND, FLORIDA.—The project $24,620,000, and at an estimated total cost of (10) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH, CALIFORNIA.— for ecosystem restoration, Picayune Strand, $117,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California, September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $362,260,000 Federal cost of $58,550,000 and an estimated at a total cost of $103,012,000, with an estimated with an estimated Federal cost of $181,130,000 non-Federal cost of $58,550,000. Federal cost of $65,600,000 and an estimated and an estimated non-Federal cost of (24) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION non-Federal cost of $37,412,000, to be carried out $181,130,000. BEACH, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane by the Secretary substantially in accordance (15) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.— and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and with the plans and subject to the conditions rec- The project for ecosystem restoration and recre- Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Re- ommended in the final report signed by the ation, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Re- port of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, Chief of Engineers on December 22, 2004. port of the Chief of Engineers dated December 2006, at a total cost of $112,640,000, with an esti- (B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the 22, 2004, at a total cost of $201,600,000, with an mated Federal cost of $73,220,600 and an esti- project authorized by this paragraph, the Sec- estimated Federal cost of $130,600,000 and an es- mated non-Federal cost of $39,420,000, and at an retary shall— timated non-Federal cost of $71,000,000. estimated total cost of $6,400,000 for periodic (i) construct a recycled water pipeline extend- (16) PEORIA RIVERFRONT, ILLINOIS.—The nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, ing from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation project for ecosystem restoration, Peoria River- with an estimated Federal cost of $2,300,000 and District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the front, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,100,000. Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treat- dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $17,760,000, (25) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—The project ment Plant to the project; and with an estimated Federal cost of $11,540,000 for hurricane and storm damage reduction and (ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,220,000. ecosystem restoration, South River, New Jersey: 3. (17) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, (C) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.—On completion MOINES, IOWA.—The project for flood damage re- 2003, at a total cost of $120,810,000, with an esti- of salinity reduction in the project area, the duction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des mated Federal cost of $78,530,000 and an esti- Secretary shall transfer ownership of the pipe- Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers mated non-Federal cost of $42,280,000. line to the non-Federal interest at the fully de- dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of (26) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW preciated value of the pipeline, less— $10,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of MEXICO.—The project for flood damage reduc- (i) the non-Federal cost-share contributed $6,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of tion, Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mex- under subparagraph (A); and $3,700,000. ico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No- (ii) the estimated value of the water to be pro- (18) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The vember 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,000,000, vided as needed for maintenance of habitat val- project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Lou- with an estimated Federal cost of $15,600,000 ues in the project area throughout the life of the isiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,400,000. project. January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,500,000. The (27) MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.—The project (11) SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLO- costs of construction of the project are to be for hurricane and storm damage reduction, RADO.—The project for ecosystem restoration, paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Montauk Point, New York: Report of the Chief Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Den- general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total ver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers amounts appropriated from the Inland Water- cost of $14,070,000, with an estimated Federal dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $21,050,000, ways Trust Fund. cost of $7,035,000 and an estimated non-Federal with an estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 (19) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOU- cost of $7,035,000. and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,370,000. ISIANA.— (28) BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.—The (12) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, SOUTH FLORIDA.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane project for flood damage reduction, Bloomsburg, (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers out the project for ecosystem restoration, water Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of supply, flood control, and protection of water of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, $43,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of quality, Indian River Lagoon, south Florida, at 2003, at a total cost of $841,100,000 with an esti- $28,150,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated mated Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an esti- $15,150,000. first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an esti- mated non-Federal cost of $294,800,000. (29) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS mated first non-Federal cost of $682,500,000, in (B) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper- CHRISTI, TEXAS.— accordance with section 601 of the Water Re- ation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation sources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship and the recommendations of the report of the lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Water- Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004. way floodgate features that provide for inland Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, (B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—As of the date of en- waterway transportation shall be a Federal re- 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an esti- actment of this Act, the following projects are sponsibility, in accordance with section 102 of mated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an esti- not authorized: the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 mated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000. (i) The uncompleted portions of the project (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99–662). (B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE.—In carrying authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the (20) POPLAR ISLAND EXPANSION, MARYLAND.— out the project under subparagraph (A), the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 The project for the beneficial use of dredged ma- Secretary shall enforce navigational servitude in Stat. 2682), C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the terial at Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, including, at Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, at by section 537 of the Water Resources Develop- the sole expense of the owner of the facility, the a total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776), and modified removal or relocation of any facility obstructing Federal cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated by section 318 of the Water Resources Develop- the project. non-Federal cost of $73,900,000. ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2678), is further modi- (30) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS (ii) The uncompleted portions of the project fied to authorize the Secretary to construct the RIVER TO PORT O’CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE- authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control project in accordance with the Report of the ROUTE, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port project for ecosystem restoration, Jamaica Bay, ized under paragraphs (1) and (2), and physical O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total esti- construction required for the purposes of mitiga- Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December mated cost of $204,159,000, with an estimated tion shall be undertaken concurrently with the 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs Federal cost of $132,703,000 and an estimated physical construction of such projects. of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 non-Federal cost of $71,456,000. (D) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The from amounts appropriated from the general (6) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, total cost of the projects authorized under this fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts ap- OHIO.—The project for ecosystem restoration, paragraph shall be $1,870,000,000. The costs of propriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio, at a construction on the projects shall be paid 1⁄2 Fund. total cost of $18,730,000, with an estimated Fed- from amounts appropriated from the general (31) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH IS- eral cost of $12,170,000 and an estimated non- fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts ap- LAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for Federal cost of $6,560,000. propriated from the Inland Waterways Trust navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sabine (7) PAWLEY’S ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The Fund. Such sums shall remain available until River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of the project for hurricane and storm damage reduc- expended. Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a tion, Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, at a total (c) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZA- total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construc- cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost TION.— tion of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from of $4,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost (1) OPERATION.—To ensure the environmental amounts appropriated from the general fund of of $4,940,000, and at an estimated total cost of sustainability of the existing Upper Mississippi the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50- River and Illinois Waterway System, the Sec- from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. year life of the project, with an estimated Fed- retary shall modify, consistent with require- (32) RIVERSIDE OXBOW, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.— eral cost of $7,632,000 and an estimated non- ments to avoid adverse effects on navigation, The project for ecosystem restoration, Riverside Federal cost of $13,568,000. the operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief (8) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, VIR- Illinois Waterway System to address the cumu- of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost GINIA.—The project for navigation, Craney Is- lative environmental impacts of operation of the of $27,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of land Eastward Expansion, Virginia, at a total system and improve the ecological integrity of $11,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of cost of $671,340,000, with an estimated Federal the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River. $16,010,000. cost of $26,220,000 and an estimated non-Federal (2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (33) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The cost of $645,120,000. (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IM- out, consistent with requirements to avoid ad- Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, verse effects on navigation, ecosystem restora- Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated PROVEMENTS AND ECOSYSTEM RES- TORATION PLAN FOR THE UPPER tion projects to attain and maintain the sustain- March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS ability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi (34) CHEHALIS RIVER, CENTRALIA, WASH- WATERWAY SYSTEM. River and Illinois River in accordance with the INGTON.—The project for flood damage reduc- (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: general framework outlined in the Plan. tion, Centralia, Washington, authorized by sec- (1) PLAN.—The term ‘‘Plan’’ means the project (B) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—Ecosystem restora- tion 401(a) of the Water Resources Development for navigation and ecosystem improvements for tion projects may include, but are not limited Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662; 100 Stat. 4126)— the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water- to— (A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost way System: Report of the Chief of Engineers (i) island building; of $121,100,000, with a Federal cost of dated December 15, 2004. (ii) construction of fish passages; $73,220,000, and a non-Federal cost of (2) UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WA- (iii) floodplain restoration; $47,880,000; and (iv) water level management (including water (B) shall be carried out by the Secretary sub- TERWAY SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System’’ means the drawdown); stantially in accordance with the plans, and (v) backwater restoration; subject to the conditions, recommended in the projects for navigation and ecosystem restora- tion authorized by Congress for— (vi) side channel restoration; final report of the Chief of Engineers dated Sep- (vii) wing dam and dike restoration and modi- tember 27, 2004. (A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile fication; (b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL REPORT.—The (viii) island and shoreline protection; following projects for water resources develop- 0.0, to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Min- neapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile 854.0; (ix) topographical diversity; ment and conservation and other purposes are (x) dam point control; and authorized to be carried out by the Secretary (xi) use of dredged material for environmental (B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence substantially in accordance with the plans, and purposes; with the Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, subject to the conditions, recommended in a (xii) tributary confluence restoration; final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favor- River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O’Brien Lock in Chicago, (xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modification to able report of the Chief is completed not later Illinois, River Mile 327.0. benefit the environment; than December 31, 2006: (b) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF (xiv) land easement authority; and (1) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, ILLINOIS.—The NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS.— (xv) land acquisition. project for flood damage reduction, Wood River, (1) SMALL SCALE AND NONSTRUCTURAL MEAS- (C) COST SHARING.— Illinois, authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 URES.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clauses (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is modified to au- (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in gen- (ii) and (iii), the Federal share of the cost of thorize construction of the project at a total cost eral conformance with the Plan— carrying out an ecosystem restoration project of $16,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of (i) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, under this paragraph shall be 65 percent. $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 18, 20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock; (ii) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RESTORATION $5,830,000. (ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through PROJECTS.—In the case of a project under this (2) LICKING RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY.— 25; and subparagraph for ecosystem restoration, the The project for flood damage reduction, Licking (iii) conduct development and testing of an Federal share of the cost of carrying out the River, Cynthiana, Kentucky, at a total cost of appointment scheduling system. project shall be 100 percent if the project— $17,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of (B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The (I) is located below the ordinary high water $11,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of total cost of the projects authorized under this mark or in a connected backwater; $6,230,000. paragraph shall be $246,000,000. The costs of (II) modifies the operation or structures for (3) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project construction of the projects shall be paid 1⁄2 from navigation; or for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a amounts appropriated from the general fund of (III) is located on federally owned land. total cost of $204,600,000, with an estimated Fed- the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated (iii) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this para- eral cost of $129,700,000 and an estimated non- from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such graph affects the applicability of section 906(e) Federal cost of $74,900,000, except that the Sec- sums shall remain available until expended. of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 retary, in consultation with Vermillion and Ibe- (2) NEW LOCKS.— (33 U.S.C. 2283). ria Parishes, Louisiana, is directed to use avail- (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in gen- (iv) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—Not- able dredged material and rock placement on eral conformance with the Plan, construct new withstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Water- 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5(b)), for any way and the west bank of the Freshwater the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange project carried out under this section, a non- Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway. Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, surge protection. (B) MITIGATION.—The Secretary shall conduct with the consent of the affected local govern- (4) HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE mitigation for the new locks and small scale and ment. PARK, NEW JERSEY.—The project for ecosystem nonstructural measures authorized under para- (D) LAND ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Liberty graphs (1) and (2). acquire land or an interest in land for an eco- State Park, New Jersey, at a total cost of (C) CONCURRENCE.—The mitigation required system restoration project from a willing owner $33,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of under subparagraph (B) for the projects author- through conveyance of— $21,480,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of ized under paragraphs (1) and (2), including (i) fee title to the land; or $11,570,000. any acquisition of lands or interests in lands, (ii) a flood plain conservation easement. (5) JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently (3) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BEACH, QUEENS AND BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.—The with lands and interests for the projects author- PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.—

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7863

(A) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Before initiating (iv) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply to the construction of any individual ecosystem Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall the 5 near-term projects authorized by this sec- restoration project, the Secretary shall— not apply to the Advisory Panel or any working tion. (i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and group established by the Advisory Panel. (d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.— identify specific performance measures designed (6) RANKING SYSTEM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program to demonstrate ecosystem restoration; (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta- under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized (ii) establish the without-project condition or tion with the Advisory Panel, shall develop a to conduct a demonstration program within the baseline for each performance indicator; and system to rank proposed projects. applicable project area to evaluate new tech- (iii) for each separable element of the eco- (B) PRIORITY.—The ranking system shall give nologies and the applicability of the tech- system restoration, identify specific target goals greater weight to projects that restore natural nologies to the program. for each performance indicator. river processes, including those projects listed in (2) COST LIMITATION.—The cost of an indi- (B) OUTCOMES.—Performance measures identi- paragraph (2)(B). vidual project under this subsection shall be not fied under subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise (d) COMPARABLE PROGRESS.— more than $25,000,000. specific measurable environmental outcomes, (1) IN GENERAL.—As the Secretary conducts (e) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.— such as changes in water quality, hydrology, or pre-engineering, design, and construction for (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program the well-being of indicator species the popu- projects authorized under this section, the Sec- under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized lation and distribution of which are representa- retary shall— to use such sums as are necessary to conduct a tive of the abundance and diversity of eco- (A) select appropriate milestones; and program for the beneficial use of dredged mate- system-dependent aquatic and terrestrial spe- (B) determine, at the time of such selection, rial. cies. whether the projects are being carried out at (2) CONSIDERATION.—In carrying out the pro- (C) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Restoration design comparable rates. gram under subsection (a), the Secretary shall carried out as part of ecosystem restoration (2) NO COMPARABLE RATE.—If the Secretary consider the beneficial use of sediment from the shall include a monitoring plan for the perform- determines under paragraph (1)(B) that projects Illinois River System for wetlands restoration in ance measures identified under subparagraph authorized under this subsection are not moving wetlands-depleted watersheds. (A)(i), including— toward completion at a comparable rate, annual (f) REPORTS.— (i) a timeline to achieve the identified target funding requests for the projects will be ad- (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31, goals; and justed to ensure that the projects move toward 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress fea- (ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion at a comparable rate in the future. sibility reports on the features included in table completion. SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM 3 of the report referred to in subsection (a). RESTORATION, LOUISIANA. (2) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN REPORTS.— (4) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall submit (A) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry the reports described in paragraph (1) to the appropriated to carry out this subsection out a program for ecosystem restoration, Lou- Committee on Environment and Public Works of $1,650,000,000, of which not more than isiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in the Senate and the Committee on Transpor- $226,000,000 shall be available for projects de- accordance with the report of the Chief of Engi- tation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep- scribed in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more neers, dated January 31, 2005. resentatives. than $43,000,000 shall be available for projects (b) PRIORITIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program (B) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall be described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). Such sums under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give authorized to construct the projects identified in shall remain available until expended. priority to— the reports at the time the Committees referred (B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE FUNDS.—Of the (A) any portion of the program identified in to in subparagraph (A) each adopt a resolution amounts made available under subparagraph the report described in subsection (a) as a crit- approving the project. (A), not more than $35,000,000 for each fiscal ical restoration feature; (g) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—A year shall be available for land acquisition (B) any Mississippi River diversion project nongovernmental organization shall be eligible under paragraph (2)(D). that— to contribute all or a portion of the non-Federal (C) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LIMIT.—Other than (i) protects a major population area of the share of the cost of a project under this section. for projects described in clauses (ii) and (x) of Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, (h) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— paragraph (2)(B), the total cost of any single or Terrebonne Basin; and (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina- project carried out under this subsection shall (ii) produces an environmental benefit to the tion with the Governor of the State of Lou- not exceed $25,000,000. coastal area of the State of Louisiana; and isiana, shall— (5) IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS.— (C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, (A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 30, 2008, project that— and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary shall (i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mis- (B) not later than 1 year after the date of en- submit to the Committee on Environment and sissippi River diversion project; and actment of this Act, and every 5 years there- Public Works of the Senate and the Committee (ii) protects a major population area. after, submit to Congress the plan, or an update on Transportation and Infrastructure of the (c) MODIFICATIONS.— of the plan; and House of Representatives an implementation re- (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program (C) ensure that the plan is fully integrated port that— under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized with the analysis and design of comprehensive (i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and to make modifications as necessary to the 5 hurricane protection authorized by title I of the priorities for ecosystem restoration projects; and near-term critical ecosystem restoration features Energy and Water Development Appropriations (ii) measures the progress in meeting the identified in the report referred to in subsection Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247). goals. (a), due to the impact of Hurricanes Katrina (2) INCLUSIONS.—The comprehensive plan (B) ADVISORY PANEL.— and Rita on the project areas. shall include a description of— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall appoint (2) INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure (A) the framework of a long-term program and convene an advisory panel to provide inde- that the modifications under paragraph (1) are that provides for the comprehensive protection, pendent guidance in the development of each fully integrated with the analysis and design of conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, implementation report under subparagraph (A). comprehensive hurricane protection authorized estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne (ii) PANEL MEMBERS.—Panel members shall in- by title I of the Energy and Water Development estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related clude— Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; land and features of the coastal Louisiana eco- (I) 1 representative of each of the State re- 119 Stat. 2247). system, including protection of a critical re- source agencies (or a designee of the Governor (3) CONSTRUCTION.— source, habitat, or infrastructure from the ef- of the State) from each of the States of Illinois, (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized fects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin; to construct the projects modified under this subsidence; (II) 1 representative of the Department of Ag- subsection. (B) the means by which a new technology, or riculture; (B) REPORTS.— an improved technique, can be integrated into (III) 1 representative of the Department of (i) IN GENERAL.—Before beginning construc- the program under subsection (a); Transportation; tion of the projects, the Secretary shall submit a (C) the role of other Federal agencies and pro- (IV) 1 representative of the United States Geo- report documenting any modifications to the 5 grams in carrying out the program under sub- logical Survey; near-term projects, including cost changes, to section (a); and (V) 1 representative of the United States Fish the Louisiana Water Resources Council estab- (D) specific, measurable ecological success cri- and Wildlife Service; lished by subsection (n)(1) (referred to in this teria by which success of the comprehensive (VI) 1 representative of the Environmental section as the ‘‘Council’’) for approval. plan shall be measured. Protection Agency; (ii) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—On approval of (3) CONSIDERATION.—In developing the com- (VII) 1 representative of affected landowners; a report under clause (i), the Council shall sub- prehensive plan, the Secretary shall consider the (VIII) 2 representatives of conservation and mit the report to the Committee on Environment advisability of integrating into the program environmental advocacy groups; and and Public Works of the Senate and the Com- under subsection (a)— (IX) 2 representatives of agriculture and in- mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of (A) a related Federal or State project carried dustry advocacy groups. the House of Representatives. out on the date on which the plan is developed; (iii) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary shall serve (4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS.— (B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; as chairperson of the advisory panel. Section 902 of the Water Resources Development or

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 (C) any other project or activity identified 2) or any other provision of law, in carrying out (B) to demonstrate and evaluate a streamlined in— an activity to conserve, protect, restore, or approach to authorization of water resources (i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries pro- maintain the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the projects to be studied, designed, and constructed gram; Secretary may determine that the environmental by the Corps of Engineers. (ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conserva- benefits provided by the program under this sec- (3) MEMBERSHIP.— tion Plan; tion outweigh the disadvantage of an activity (A) IN GENERAL.—The president of the Mis- (iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management under this section. sissippi River Commission shall appoint members Plan; or (2) DETERMINATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS.— of the Council, after considering recommenda- (iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled If the Secretary determines that an activity tions of the Governor of Louisiana. ‘‘Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Lou- under this section is cost-effective, no further (B) REQUIREMENTS.—The Council shall be isiana’’. economic justification for the activity shall be composed of— (i) TASK FORCE.— required. (i) 2 individuals with expertise in coastal eco- (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a (l) STUDIES.— system restoration, including the interaction of task force to be known as the ‘‘Coastal Lou- (1) DEGRADATION.—Not later than 180 days saltwater and freshwater estuaries; and isiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec- (ii) 2 individual with expertise in geology or Task Force’’ (referred to in this subsection as retary, in consultation with the non-Federal in- civil engineering relating to hurricane and flood the ‘‘Task Force’’). terest, shall enter into a contract with the Na- damage reduction and navigation. (2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Task Force shall con- tional Academy of Sciences under which the Na- (C) CHAIRPERSON.—In addition to the members sist of the following members (or, in the case of tional Academy of Sciences shall carry out a appointed under subparagraph (B), the Council the head of a Federal agency, a designee at the study to identify— shall be chaired by 1 of the 3 officers of the level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent (A) the cause of any degradation of the Lou- Corps of Engineers of the Mississippi River Com- level): isiana Coastal Area ecosystem that occurred as mission. (A) The Secretary. a result of an activity approved by the Sec- (4) DUTIES.—With respect to modifications (B) The Secretary of the Interior. retary; and under subsection (c), the Council shall— (C) The Secretary of Commerce. (B) the sources of the degradation. (A) review and approve or disapprove the re- (D) The Administrator of the Environmental (2) FINANCING.—On completion, and taking ports completed by the Secretary; and Protection Agency. into account the results, of the study conducted (B) on approval, submit the reports to the (E) The Secretary of Agriculture. under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in consulta- Committee on Environment and Public Works of (F) The Secretary of Transportation. tion with the non-Federal interest, shall study— the Senate and the Committee on Transpor- (G) The Secretary of Energy. (A) financing alternatives for the program tation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep- (H) The Secretary of Homeland Security. under subsection (a); and resentatives. (I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana (B) potential reductions in the expenditure of (5) TERMINATION.— appointed by the Governor of that State. Federal funds in emergency responses that (A) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall terminate (3) DUTIES.—The Task Force shall make rec- would occur as a result of ecosystem restoration on the date that is 6 years after the date of en- ommendations to the Secretary regarding— in the Louisiana Coastal Area. actment of this Act. (A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, (m) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.— (B) EFFECT.—Any project modification under projects, and activities for addressing conserva- (1) REVIEW.—The Secretary, in cooperation subsection (c) that has not been approved by the tion, protection, restoration, and maintenance with any non-Federal interest, shall review each Council and submitted to Congress by the date of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; federally-authorized water resources project in described in subparagraph (A) shall not proceed (B) financial participation by each agency the coastal Louisiana area in existence on the to construction before the date on which the represented on the Task Force in conserving, date of enactment of this Act to determine modification is statutorily approved by Con- protecting, restoring, and maintaining the whether— gress. coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including rec- (A) each project is in accordance with the pro- (o) OTHER PROJECTS.— ommendations— gram under subsection (a); and (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the projects (i) that identify funds from current agency (B) the project could contribute to ecosystem identified in the analysis and design of com- missions and budgets; and restoration under subsection (a) through modi- prehensive hurricane protection authorized by (ii) for coordinating individual agency budget fication of the operations or features of the title I of the Energy and Water Development requests; and project. Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; (C) the comprehensive plan under subsection (2) MODIFICATIONS.—Subject to paragraphs (3) 119 Stat. 2247), the Secretary shall submit a re- (h). and (4), the Secretary may carry out the modi- port describing the projects to the Committee on (4) WORKING GROUPS.—The Task Force may fications described in paragraph (1)(B). Environment and Public Works of the Senate establish such working groups as the Task Force (3) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.—Before and the Committee on Transportation and In- determines to be necessary to assist the Task completing the report required under paragraph frastructure of the House of Representatives. Force in carrying out this subsection. (4), the Secretary shall provide an opportunity (2) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall be (5) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal for public notice and comment. authorized to construct the projects at the time Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall (4) REPORT.— the Committees referred to in paragraph (1) each not apply to the Task Force or any working (A) IN GENERAL.—Before modifying an oper- adopt a resolution approving the project. group of the Task Force. ation or feature of a project under paragraph (p) REPORT.— (j) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.— (1)(B), the Secretary shall submit to the Com- (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 6 years after (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish mittee on Environment and Public Works of the the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary a coastal Louisiana ecosystem science and tech- Senate and the Committee on Transportation shall submit to the Committee on Environment nology program. and Infrastructure of the House of Representa- and Public Works of the Senate and the Com- (2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program tives a report describing the modification. mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of established by paragraph (1) shall be— (B) INCLUSION.—A report under subparagraph the House of Representatives a report evalu- (A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the (A) shall include such information relating to ating the alternative means of authorizing physical, chemical, geological, biological, and the timeline and cost of a modification as the Corps of Engineers water resources projects cultural baseline conditions in coastal Lou- Secretary determines to be relevant. under subsections (c)(3), (f)(2), and (o)(2). isiana; (5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (2) INCLUSIONS.—The report shall include a (B) to improve knowledge of the physical, There is authorized to be appropriated to carry description of— chemical, geological, biological, and cultural out this subsection $10,000,000. (A) the projects authorized and undertaken baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana; and (n) LOUISIANA WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL.— under this section; (C) to identify and develop technologies, mod- (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established (B) the construction status of the projects; els, and methods to carry out this subsection. within the Mississippi River Commission, a sub- and (3) WORKING GROUPS.—The Secretary may es- group to be known as the ‘‘Louisiana Water Re- (C) the benefits and environmental impacts of tablish such working groups as the Secretary sources Council’’. the projects. determines to be necessary to assist the Sec- (2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Council (3) EXTERNAL REVIEW.—The Secretary shall retary in carrying out this subsection. are— enter into a contract with the National Acad- (4) CONTRACTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREE- (A) to manage and oversee each aspect of the emy of Science to perform an external review of MENTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the implementation of a system-wide, comprehensive the demonstration program under subsection Secretary may enter into a contract or coopera- plan for projects of the Corps of Engineers (in- (d), which shall be submitted to the Committee tive agreement with an individual or entity (in- cluding the study, planning, engineering, de- on Environment and Public Works of the Senate cluding a consortium of academic institutions in sign, and construction of the projects or compo- and the Committee on Transportation and In- Louisiana) with scientific or engineering exper- nents of projects and the functions or activities frastructure of the House of Representatives. tise in the restoration of aquatic and marine of the Corps of Engineers relating to other SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE ecosystems for coastal restoration and enhance- projects) that addresses hurricane protection, REDUCTION. ment through science and technology. flood control, ecosystem restoration, storm surge The Secretary— (k) ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS.— damage reduction, or navigation in the Hurri- (1) shall conduct a study for flood damage re- (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 209 canes Katrina and Rita disaster areas in the duction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas; of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962– State of Louisiana; and and

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.070 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7865

(2) if the Secretary determines that the project sion for liquidated damages in the event of a (2) PAYMENTS.—Payments made by an indi- is feasible, may carry out the project under sec- failure of 1 or more parties to perform. vidual for training received under subsection tion 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 ‘‘(3) OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIA- (a), up to the actual cost of the training— U.S.C. 701s). TIONS.—In any such agreement entered into by (A) may be retained by the Secretary; SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION. a State, or a body politic of the State which de- (B) shall be credited to an appropriation or The Secretary shall conduct a study for each rives its powers from the State constitution, or a account used for paying training costs; and of the following projects and, if the Secretary governmental entity created by the State legisla- (C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, determines that a project is feasible, may carry ture, the agreement may reflect that it does not without further appropriation, for training pur- out the project under section 107 of the River obligate future appropriations for such perform- poses. and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): ance and payment when obligating future ap- (3) EXCESS AMOUNTS.—Any payments received (1) LITTLE ROCK PORT, ARKANSAS.—Project for propriations would be inconsistent with con- under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the ac- navigation, Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, stitutional or statutory limitations of the State tual cost of training provided shall be credited Arkansas. or a political subdivision of the State. as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of the (2) AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for ‘‘(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.— United States. navigation, Au Sable River in the vicinity of ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An agreement under para- SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT. Oscoda, Michigan. graph (1) shall provide that the Secretary shall (a) IN GENERAL.—On the third Tuesday of (3) OUTER CHANNEL AND INNER HARBOR, ME- credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost January of each year beginning January 2008, NOMINEE HARBOR, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.— of the project, including a project implemented the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Com- Project for navigation, Outer Channel and under general continuing authority, the value mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan of in-kind contributions made by the non-Fed- Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Wisconsin. eral interest, including— and Infrastructure of the House of Representa- (4) MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, MIDDLE ‘‘(i) the costs of planning (including data col- tives a report on the expenditures for the pre- BASS ISLAND, OHIO.—Project for navigation, lection), design, management, mitigation, con- ceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Is- struction, and construction services that are for the current fiscal year. land, Ohio. provided by the non-Federal interest for imple- (b) CONTENTS.—In addition to the information SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECO- mentation of the project; and described in subsection (a), the report shall con- SYSTEM RESTORATION. ‘‘(ii) the value of materials or services pro- tain a detailed accounting of the following in- The Secretary shall conduct a study for each vided before execution of an agreement for the formation: of the following projects and, if the Secretary project, including— (1) With respect to general construction, infor- determines that a project is appropriate, may ‘‘(I) efforts on constructed elements incor- mation on— carry out the project under section 206 of the porated into the project; and (A) projects currently under construction, in- Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 ‘‘(II) materials and services provided after an cluding— U.S.C. 2330): agreement is executed. (i) allocations to date; (1) SAN DIEGO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for ‘‘(B) CONDITION.—The Secretary shall credit (ii) the number of years remaining to complete aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) construction; California, including efforts to address invasive if the Secretary determines that the property or (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to aquatic plant species. service provided as an in-kind contribution is maintain that construction schedule; and (2) SUISON MARSH, SAN PABLO BAY, CALI- integral to the project. (iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers FORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restora- ‘‘(C) LIMITATIONS.—Credit authorized for a expects to complete during the current fiscal tion, San Pablo Bay, California. project— year; and (3) JOHNSON CREEK, GRESHAM, OREGON.— ‘‘(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of (B) projects for which there is a signed cost- Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, John- the cost of the project; sharing agreement and completed planning, en- son Creek, Gresham, Oregon. ‘‘(ii) shall not alter any other requirement gineering, and design, including— (4) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND.— that a non-Federal interest provide land, an (i) the number of years the project is expected Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black- easement or right-of-way, or an area for dis- to require for completion; and stone River, Rhode Island. posal of dredged material for the project; and (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain (5) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.— ‘‘(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reason- that construction schedule. Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Col- able costs of the materials, services, or other (2) With respect to operation and maintenance lege Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia. things provided by the non-Federal interest, as of the inland and intracoastal waterways under TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS determined by the Secretary.’’. section 206 of Public Law 95–502 (33 U.S.C. Subtitle A—Provisions SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL 1804)— SUPPORT AUTHORITY. SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS. (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain Section 234 of the Water Resources Develop- Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 each waterway for the authorized reach and at ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended— (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amended— the authorized depth; and (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 221’’ and inserting the (B) the estimated annual cost of operation following: following: and maintenance of locks and dams to ensure ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may engage navigation without interruption. ‘‘SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT in activities (including contracting) in support FOR WATER RESOURCES (3) With respect to general investigations and PROJECTS.’’; of other Federal agencies, international organi- reconnaissance and feasibility studies— and zations, or foreign governments to address prob- (A) the number of active studies; (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the lems of national significance to the United (B) the number of completed studies not yet following: States.’’; authorized for construction; ‘‘(a) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTER- (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘Secretary of (C) the number of initiated studies; and EST.— State’’ and inserting ‘‘Department of State’’; (D) the number of studies expected to be com- ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—After December 31, 1970, the and pleted during the fiscal year. construction of any water resources project, or (3) in subsection (d)— (4) Funding received and estimates of funds to an acceptable separable element thereof, by the (A) by striking ‘‘$250,000 for fiscal year 2001’’ be received for interagency and international Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and support activities under section 318(a) of the of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where each fiscal year thereafter’’; and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 such interest will be reimbursed for such con- (B) by striking ‘‘or international organiza- U.S.C. 2323(a)). struction under any provision of law, shall not tions’’ and inserting ‘‘, international organiza- (5) Recreation fees and lease payments. be commenced until each non-Federal interest tions, or foreign governments’’. (6) Hydropower and water storage fees. has entered into a written partnership agree- SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS. (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust ment with the district engineer for the district in (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may include Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. which the project will be carried out under individuals from the non-Federal interest, in- (8) Other revenues and fees collected. which each party agrees to carry out its respon- cluding the private sector, in training classes (9) With respect to permit applications and sibilities and requirements for implementation or and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in notifications, a list of individual permit applica- construction of the project or the appropriate any case in which the Secretary determines that tions and nationwide permit notifications, in- element of the project, as the case may be; ex- it is in the best interest of the Federal Govern- cluding— cept that no such agreement shall be required if ment to include those individuals as partici- (A) the date on which each permit application the Secretary determines that the administrative pants. is filed; costs associated with negotiating, executing, or (b) EXPENSES.— (B) the date on which each permit application administering the agreement would exceed the (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual from a non- is determined to be complete; and amount of the contribution required from the Federal interest attending a training class or (C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000. course described in subsection (a) shall pay the grants, withdraws, or denies each permit. ‘‘(2) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.—An agreement de- full cost of the training provided to the indi- (10) With respect to the project backlog, a list scribed in paragraph (1) may include a provi- vidual. of authorized projects for which no funds have

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal years, (1) ALTERNATIVES.— (1) reflect national priorities; including, for each project— (A) IN GENERAL.—Feasibility and other studies (2) seek to avoid the unwise use of (A) the authorization date; and assessments of water resource problems and floodplains; (B) the last allocation date; projects shall include recommendations for al- (3) minimize vulnerabilities in any case in (C) the percentage of construction completed; ternatives— which a floodplain must be used; (D) the estimated cost remaining until comple- (i) that, as determined by the non-Federal in- (4) protect and restore the functions of nat- tion of the project; and terests for the projects, promote integrated water ural systems; and (E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the resources management; and (5) mitigate any unavoidable damage to nat- delay. (ii) for which the non-Federal interests are ural systems. SEC. 2005. PLANNING. willing to provide the non-Federal share for the (d) WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT.— (a) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLAN- studies or assessments. (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after NING.—Section 904 of the Water Resources De- (B) SCOPE AND PURPOSES.—The scope and the date of enactment of this Act, the Coordi- velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) is amend- purposes of studies and assessments described in nating Committee, in collaboration with the Sec- ed— subparagraph (A) shall not be constrained by retary, shall submit to the President and Con- (1) by striking ‘‘Enhancing’’ and inserting the budgetary or other policy as a result of the in- gress a report describing the vulnerability of the following: clusion of alternatives described in that sub- United States to damage from flooding and re- ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Enhancing’’; and paragraph. lated storm damage, including— (2) by adding at the end the following: (C) REPORTS OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—The re- (A) the risk to human life; ‘‘(b) ASSESSMENTS.—For all feasibility reports ports of the Chief of Engineers shall be based (B) the risk to property; and completed after December 31, 2005, the Secretary solely on the best technical solutions to water (C) the comparative risks faced by different shall assess whether— resource needs and problems. regions of the United States. ‘‘(1) the water resource project and each sepa- (2) REPORT COMPLETION.—The completion of a (2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph rable element is cost-effective; and report of the Chief of Engineers for a project— (1) shall include— ‘‘(2) the water resource project complies with (A) shall not be delayed while consideration is (A) an assessment of the extent to which pro- Federal, State, and local laws (including regula- being given to potential changes in policy or pri- grams in the United States relating to flooding tions) and public policies.’’. ority for project consideration; and address flood risk reduction priorities; (b) PLANNING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.—The (B) shall be submitted, on completion, to— (B) the extent to which those programs may be Chief of Engineers— (i) the Committee on Environment and Public unintentionally encouraging development and (1) shall, not later than 2 years after the date Works of the Senate; and economic activity in floodprone areas; on which the feasibility study cost sharing (ii) the Committee on Transportation and In- (C) recommendations for improving those pro- agreement is signed for a project, subject to the frastructure of the House of Representatives. grams with respect to reducing and responding availability of appropriations— (f) COMPLETION REVIEW.— to flood risks; and (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para- (A) complete the feasibility study for the (D) proposals for implementing the rec- graph (2), not later than 90 days after the date project; and ommendations. (B) sign the report of the Chief of Engineers of completion of a report of the Chief of Engi- (e) MODERNIZING WATER RESOURCES PLAN- for the project; neers that recommends to Congress a water re- NING GUIDELINES.— (2) may, with the approval of the Secretary, source project, the Secretary shall— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after (A) review the report; and extend the deadline established under para- the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 (B) provide any recommendations of the Sec- graph (1) for not to exceed 4 years, for a com- years thereafter, the Secretary and the Coordi- retary regarding the water resource project to plex or controversial study; and nating Committee shall, in collaboration with Congress. (3)(A) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to each other, review and propose updates and re- (2) PRIOR REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days project cost estimates; and visions to modernize the planning principles and after the date of enactment of this Act, with re- (B) not later than 1 year after the date of en- guidelines, regulations, and circulars by which spect to any report of the Chief of Engineers actment of this Act, shall— the Corps of Engineers analyzes and evaluates recommending a water resource project that is (i) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost water projects. In carrying out the review, the complete prior to the date of enactment of this estimation; and Coordinating Committee and the Secretary shall Act, the Secretary shall complete review of, and (ii) submit to Congress a report that includes consult with the National Academy of Sciences provide recommendations to Congress for, the suggested amendments to section 902 of the for recommendations regarding updating plan- report in accordance with paragraph (1). Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 ning documents. U.S.C. 2280). SEC. 2006. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING CO- (2) PROPOSED REVISIONS.—In conducting a re- ORDINATING COMMITTEE. (c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR view under paragraph (1), the Coordinating (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President shall es- FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasi- Committee and the Secretary shall consider revi- bility study for a project for flood damage re- tablish a Water Resources Planning Coordi- sions to improve water resources project plan- duction shall include, as part of the calculation nating Committee (referred to in this subsection ning through, among other things— of benefits and costs— as the ‘‘Coordinating Committee’’). (A) requiring the use of modern economic (b) MEMBERSHIP.— (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flood- principles and analytical techniques, credible (1) IN GENERAL.—The Coordinating Committee ing following completion of the proposed project; schedules for project construction, and current shall be composed of the following members (or (2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of discount rates as used by other Federal agen- a designee of the member): human life and residual risk to human safety cies; (A) The Secretary of the Interior. (B) eliminating biases and disincentives to following completion of the proposed project; (B) The Secretary of Agriculture. and (C) The Secretary of Health and Human Serv- providing projects to low-income communities, (3) a calculation of any upstream or down- ices. including fully accounting for the prevention of stream impacts of the proposed project. (D) The Secretary of Housing and Urban De- loss of life under section 904 of the Water Re- (d) CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EX- velopment. sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. PERTISE.— (E) The Secretary of Transportation. 2281); (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may es- (F) The Secretary of Energy. (C) eliminating biases and disincentives that tablish centers of expertise to provide specialized (G) The Secretary of Homeland Security. discourage the use of nonstructural approaches planning expertise for water resource projects to (H) The Secretary of Commerce. to water resources development and manage- be carried out by the Secretary in order to en- (I) The Administrator of the Environmental ment, and fully accounting for the flood protec- hance and supplement the capabilities of the Protection Agency. tion and other values of healthy natural sys- districts of the Corps of Engineers. (J) The Chairperson of the Council on Envi- tems; (2) DUTIES.—A center of expertise established ronmental Quality. (D) promoting environmental restoration under this subsection shall— (2) CHAIRPERSON AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.— projects that reestablish natural processes; (A) provide technical and managerial assist- The President shall appoint— (E) assessing and evaluating the impacts of a ance to district commanders of the Corps of En- (A) 1 member of the Coordinating Committee project in the context of other projects within a gineers for project planning, development, and to serve as Chairperson of the Coordinating region or watershed; implementation; Committee for a term of 2 years; and (F) analyzing and incorporating lessons (B) provide peer reviews of new major sci- (B) an Executive Director to supervise the ac- learned from recent studies of Corps of Engi- entific, engineering, or economic methods, mod- tivities of the Coordinating Committee. neers programs and recent disasters such as els, or analyses that will be used to support de- (3) FUNCTION.—The function of the Coordi- Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest cisions of the Secretary with respect to feasi- nating Committee shall be to carry out the du- Flood of 1993; bility studies; ties and responsibilities set forth under this sec- (G) encouraging wetlands conservation; and (C) provide support for external peer review tion. (H) ensuring the effective implementation of panels convened by the Secretary; and (c) NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING the policies of this Act. (D) carry out such other duties as are pre- AND MODERNIZATION POLICY.—It is the policy of (3) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Coordinating scribed by the Secretary. the United States that all water resources Committee and the Secretary shall solicit public (e) COMPLETION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS RE- projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers and expert comments regarding any revision PORTS.— shall— proposed under paragraph (2).

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7867

(4) REVISION OF PLANNING GUIDANCE.— tablishment of an independent panel of experts (ii) DEADLINE FOR PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days for the project; or PANEL STUDIES.—An independent panel of ex- after the date on which a review under para- (D) the Secretary determines on his or her perts established under this subsection shall graph (1) is completed, the Secretary, after pro- own initiative, or shall determine within 30 days complete its review of the project study and sub- viding notice and an opportunity for public of receipt of a written request for a controversy mit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 comment in accordance with subchapter II of determination by any party, that the project is days after the date of establishment of the chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 5, United controversial because— panel, or not later than 90 days after the close States Code (commonly known as the ‘‘Adminis- (i) there is a significant dispute regarding the of the public comment period on a draft project trative Procedure Act’’), shall implement such size, nature, potential safety risks, or effects of study that includes a preferred alternative, proposed updates and revisions to the planning the project; or whichever is later. The Secretary may extend principles and guidelines, regulations, and cir- (ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the these deadlines for good cause. culars of the Corps of Engineers under para- economic, or environmental costs or benefits of (iii) FAILURE TO COMPLETE REVIEW AND RE- graph (2) as the Secretary determines to be ap- the project. PORT.—If an independent panel of experts es- propriate. (2) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW PANELS.— tablished under this subsection does not submit (A) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW PANEL MEM- (B) EFFECT.—Effective beginning on the date to the Secretary a report by the deadline estab- BERSHIP.—For each water resources project sub- on which the Secretary implements the first up- lished by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers may ject to review under this subsection, the Director date or revision under paragraph (1), sub- continue project planning without delay. of Independent Review shall establish a panel of sections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water (iv) DURATION OF PANELS.—An independent independent experts that shall be composed of Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. panel of experts established under this sub- not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent ex- 1962d–17) shall not apply to the Corps of Engi- section shall terminate on the date of submission perts (including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrolo- neers. of the report by the panel. Panels may be estab- gist, 1 biologist, and 1 economist) who represent lished as early in the planning process as (5) REPORT.— a range of areas of expertise. The Director of deemed appropriate by the Director of Inde- (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall submit pendent Review, but shall be appointed no later to the Committees on Environment and Public Independent Review shall apply the National than 90 days before the release for public com- Works and Appropriations of the Senate, and to Academy of Science’s policy for selecting com- ment of a draft study subject to review under the Committees on Transportation and Infra- mittee members to ensure that members have no subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days structure and Appropriations of the House of conflict with the project being reviewed, and shall consult with the National Academy of after a determination that review is necessary Representatives, a report describing any revision Sciences in developing lists of individuals to under subsection (c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or of planning guidance under paragraph (4). serve on panels of experts under this subsection. (c)(1)(D). (B) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall pub- (E) EFFECT ON EXISTING GUIDANCE.—The lish the report under subparagraph (A) in the An individual serving on a panel under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate of pay project planning review required by this sub- Federal Register. to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be section shall be deemed to satisfy any external SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. allowed travel expenses. review required by Engineering Circular 1105–2– (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (B) DUTIES OF PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW PAN- 408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision (1) CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.—The term ELS.—An independent panel of experts estab- Documents. ‘‘construction activities’’ means development of lished under this subsection shall review the (d) SAFETY ASSURANCE.— detailed engineering and design specifications project study, receive from the public written (1) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SAFETY ASSURANCE during the preconstruction engineering and de- and oral comments concerning the project study, REVIEW.—The Secretary shall ensure that the sign phase and the engineering and design and submit a written report to the Secretary construction activities for any flood damage re- phase of a water resources project carried out by that shall contain the panel’s conclusions and duction project shall be reviewed by an inde- the Corps of Engineers, and other activities car- recommendations regarding project study issues pendent panel of experts established under this subsection if the Director of Independent Re- ried out on a water resources project prior to identified as significant by the panel, including view makes a determination that an inde- completion of the construction and to turning issues such as— the project over to the local cost-share partner. (i) economic and environmental assumptions pendent review is necessary to ensure public (2) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ and projections; health, safety, and welfare on any project— means a feasibility report, reevaluation report, (ii) project evaluation data; (A) for which the reliability of performance or environmental impact statement prepared by (iii) economic or environmental analyses; under emergency conditions is critical; (B) that uses innovative materials or tech- the Corps of Engineers. (iv) engineering analyses; niques; (b) DIRECTOR OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW.—The (v) formulation of alternative plans; (vi) methods for integrating risk and uncer- (C) for which the project design is lacking in Secretary shall appoint in the Office of the Sec- redundancy, or that has a unique construction retary a Director of Independent Review. The tainty; (vii) models used in evaluation of economic or sequencing or a short or overlapping design con- Director shall be selected from among individ- struction schedule; or uals who are distinguished experts in engineer- environmental impacts of proposed projects; and (viii) any related biological opinions. (D) other than a project described in subpara- ing, hydrology, biology, economics, or another (C) PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW RECORD.— graphs (A) through (C), as the Director of Inde- discipline related to water resources manage- (i) IN GENERAL.—After receiving a report from pendent Review determines to be appropriate. ment. The Secretary shall ensure, to the max- an independent panel of experts established (2) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW PANELS.—At the imum extent practicable, that the Director does under this subsection, the Secretary shall take appropriate point in the development of detailed not have a financial, professional, or other con- into consideration any recommendations con- engineering and design specifications for each flict of interest with projects subject to review. tained in the report and shall immediately make water resources project subject to review under The Director of Independent Review shall carry the report available to the public on the inter- this subsection, the Director of Independent Re- out the duties set forth in this section and such net. view shall establish an independent panel of ex- other duties as the Secretary deems appropriate. (ii) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Secretary shall perts to review and report to the Secretary on (c) SOUND PROJECT PLANNING.— prepare a written explanation of any rec- the adequacy of construction activities for the (1) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PLANNING REVIEW.— ommendations of the independent panel of ex- project. An independent panel of experts under The Secretary shall ensure that each project perts established under this subsection not this subsection shall be composed of not less study for a water resources project shall be re- adopted by the Secretary. Recommendations and than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts se- viewed by an independent panel of experts es- findings of the independent panel of experts re- lected from among individuals who are distin- tablished under this subsection if— jected without good cause shown, as determined guished experts in engineering, hydrology, or (A) the project has an estimated total cost of by judicial review, shall be given equal def- other pertinent disciplines. The Director of more than $40,000,000, including mitigation erence as the recommendations and findings of Independent Review shall apply the National costs; the Secretary during a judicial proceeding relat- Academy of Science’s policy for selecting com- (B) the Governor of a State in which the ing to the water resources project. mittee members to ensure that panel members water resources project is located in whole or in (iii) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS AND PUBLIC have no conflict with the project being reviewed. part, or the Governor of a State within the AVAILABILITY.—The report of the independent An individual serving on a panel of experts drainage basin in which a water resources panel of experts established under this sub- under this subsection shall be compensated at a project is located and that would be directly af- section and the written explanation of the Sec- rate of pay to be determined by the Secretary, fected economically or environmentally as a re- retary required by clause (ii) shall be included and shall be allowed travel expenses. sult of the project, requests in writing to the with the report of the Chief of Engineers to Con- (3) DEADLINES FOR SAFETY ASSURANCE RE- Secretary the establishment of an independent gress, shall be published in the Federal Register, VIEWS.—An independent panel of experts estab- panel of experts for the project; and shall be made available to the public on the lished under this subsection shall submit a writ- (C) the head of a Federal agency with author- Internet. ten report to the Secretary on the adequacy of ity to review the project determines that the (D) DEADLINES FOR PROJECT PLANNING RE- the construction activities prior to the initiation project is likely to have a significant adverse im- VIEWS.— of physical construction and periodically there- pact on public safety, or on environmental, fish (i) IN GENERAL.—Independent review of a after until construction activities are completed and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other re- project study shall be completed prior to the on a publicly available schedule determined by sources under the jurisdiction of the agency, completion of any Chief of Engineers report for the Director of Independent Review for the pur- and requests in writing to the Secretary the es- a specific water resources project. poses of assuring the public safety. The Director

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 of Independent Review shall ensure that these (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘to the of the President for appropriations for the Civil reviews be carried out in a way to protect the Congress unless such report contains’’ and in- Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary public health, safety, and welfare, while not serting ‘‘to Congress, and shall not select a shall submit to the Committee on the Environ- causing unnecessary delays in construction ac- project alternative in any final record of deci- ment and Public Works of the Senate and the tivities. sion, environmental impact statement, or envi- Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- (4) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW RECORD.—After ronmental assessment, unless the proposal, ture of the House of Representatives a report de- receiving a written report from an independent record of decision, environmental impact state- scribing the status of construction of projects panel of experts established under this sub- ment, or environmental assessment contains’’; that require mitigation under section 906 of section, the Secretary shall— and Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 (A) take into consideration recommendations (B) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘, and U.S.C. 2283) and the status of that mitigation. contained in the report, provide a written expla- other habitat types are mitigated to not less (2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report nation of recommendations not adopted, and im- than in-kind conditions’’ after ‘‘mitigated in- shall include the status of— mediately make the report and explanation kind’’; and (A) all projects that are under construction as available to the public on the Internet; and (2) by adding at the end the following: of the date of the report; (B) submit the report to the Committee on En- ‘‘(3) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.— (B) all projects for which the President re- vironment and Public Works of the Senate and ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To mitigate losses to flood quests funding for the next fiscal year; and the Committee on Transportation and Infra- damage reduction capabilities and fish and (C) all projects that have completed construc- structure of the House of Representatives. wildlife resulting from a water resources project, tion, but have not completed the mitigation re- (e) EXPENSES.— the Secretary shall ensure that the mitigation quired under section 906 of the Water Resources (1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of an independent plan for each water resources project complies Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283). panel of experts established under subsection (c) fully with the mitigation standards and policies (e) MITIGATION TRACKING SYSTEM.— or (d) shall be a Federal expense and shall not established pursuant to section 404 of the Fed- (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after exceed— eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary (A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project in 1344). shall establish a recordkeeping system to track, current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and ‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—A specific mitigation plan for each water resources project undertaken by (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project for a water resources project under paragraph the Secretary and for each permit issued under in current year dollars, if the total cost is (1) shall include, at a minimum— section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Con- $50,000,000 or more. ‘‘(i) a plan for monitoring the implementation trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)— (2) WAIVER.—The Secretary, at the written re- and ecological success of each mitigation meas- (A) the quantity and type of wetland and any quest of the Director of Independent Review, ure, including a designation of the entities that other habitat type affected by the project, may waive the cost limitations under paragraph will be responsible for the monitoring; project operation, or permitted activity; (1) if the Secretary determines appropriate. ‘‘(ii) the criteria for ecological success by (B) the quantity and type of mitigation meas- (f) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after the which the mitigation will be evaluated and de- ures required with respect to the project, project date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary termined to be successful; operation, or permitted activity; shall submit to Congress a report describing the ‘‘(iii) land and interests in land to be acquired (C) the quantity and type of mitigation meas- implementation of this section. for the mitigation plan and the basis for a deter- ures that have been completed with respect to (g) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section mination that the land and interests are avail- the project, project operation, or permitted ac- shall be construed to affect any authority of the able for acquisition; tivity; and Secretary to cause or conduct a peer review of ‘‘(iv) a description of— (D) the status of monitoring of the mitigation the engineering, scientific, or technical basis of ‘‘(I) the types and amount of restoration ac- measures carried out with respect to the project, any water resources project in existence on the tivities to be conducted; and project operation, or permitted activity. date of enactment of this Act. ‘‘(II) the resource functions and values that (2) REQUIREMENTS.—The recordkeeping system SEC. 2008. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE will result from the mitigation plan; and under paragraph (1) shall— LOSSES. ‘‘(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective (A) include information relating to the im- (a) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—Section actions in cases in which monitoring dem- pacts and mitigation measures relating to 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act onstrates that mitigation measures are not projects described in paragraph (1) that occur of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended by adding achieving ecological success in accordance with after November 17, 1986; and at the following: criteria under clause (ii). (B) be organized by watershed, project, permit ‘‘(3) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—In any ‘‘(4) DETERMINATION OF SUCCESS.— application, and zip code. case in which it is not technically practicable to ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A mitigation plan under (3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—The Sec- complete mitigation by the last day of construc- this subsection shall be considered to be success- retary shall make information contained in the tion of the project or separable element of the ful at the time at which the criteria under para- recordkeeping system available to the public on project because of the nature of the mitigation graph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved under the plan, as the Internet. to be undertaken, the Secretary shall complete determined by monitoring under paragraph SEC. 2009. STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. the required mitigation as expeditiously as prac- (3)(B)(i). Section 22 of the Water Resources Develop- ticable, but in no case later than the last day of ‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—In determining whether ment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amend- the first fiscal year beginning after the last day a mitigation plan is successful under subpara- ed— of construction of the project or separable ele- graph (A), the Secretary shall consult annually (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 22. (a) The Secretary’’ ment of the project.’’. with appropriate Federal agencies and each and inserting the following: (b) USE OF CONSOLIDATED MITIGATION.—Sec- State in which the applicable project is located tion 906(b) of the Water Resources Development on at least the following: ‘‘SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES. Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(b)) is amended by ‘‘(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as ‘‘(a) FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION.— adding at the end the following: of the date on which the report is submitted. ‘‘(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary’’; ‘‘(3) USE OF CONSOLIDATED MITIGATION.— ‘‘(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines achieve ecological success, as defined in the following: that other forms of compensatory mitigation are mitigation plan. ‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— not practicable or are less environmentally de- ‘‘(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a govern- sirable, the Secretary may purchase available success. mental agency or non-Federal interest, the Sec- credits from a mitigation bank or conservation ‘‘(iv) Any recommendations for improving the retary may provide, at Federal expense, tech- bank that is approved in accordance with the likelihood of success. nical assistance to the agency or non-Federal Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use ‘‘(C) REPORTING.—Not later than 60 days after interest in managing water resources. and Operation of Mitigations Banks (60 Fed. the date of completion of the annual consulta- ‘‘(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Technical assist- Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal laws (in- tion, the Federal agencies consulted shall, and ance under this paragraph may include provi- cluding regulations). each State in which the project is located may, sion and integration of hydrologic, economic, ‘‘(B) SERVICE AREA.—To the maximum extent submit to the Secretary a report that describes and environmental data and analyses.’’; practicable, the service area of the mitigation the results of the consultation described in (B). (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘this sec- bank or conservation bank shall be in the same ‘‘(D) ACTION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary tion’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘sub- watershed as the affected habitat. shall respond in writing to the substance and section (a)(1)’’; ‘‘(C) RESPONSIBILITY RELIEVED.—Purchase of recommendations contained in each report (4) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘up to 1⁄2 credits from a mitigation bank or conservation under subparagraph (C) by not later than 30 of the’’ and inserting ‘‘the’’; bank for a water resources project relieves the days after the date of receipt of the report. (5) in subsection (c)— Secretary and the non-Federal interest from re- ‘‘(5) MONITORING.—Mitigation monitoring (A) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’ and inserting sponsibility for monitoring or demonstrating shall continue until it has been demonstrated the following: mitigation success.’’. that the mitigation has met the ecological suc- ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (c) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.—Section cess criteria.’’. ‘‘(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.— 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act (d) STATUS REPORT.— There is’’; of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended— (1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the submis- (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by sub- (1) in paragraph (1)— sion of the President to Congress of the request paragraph (A)), by striking ‘‘the provisions of

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7869 this section except that not more than $500,000 that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as fits, including the benefits to the aquatic envi- shall be expended in any one year in any one provided by this section, the non-Federal inter- ronment to be derived from the creation of wet- State.’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1).’’; and est may design and construct an alternative to lands and control of shoreline erosion. (C) by adding at the end the following: such project. ‘‘(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of ‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is author- ‘‘(13) MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED, WIS- such incremental costs shall be determined in ized to be appropriated to carry out subsection CONSIN.—The project for the Menominee River accordance with subsection (c). (a)(2) $10,000,000 for each fiscal year, of which Watershed, Wisconsin.’’. ‘‘(e) STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.—The Sec- not more than $2,000,000 for each fiscal year SEC. 2012. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. retary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may be used by the Secretary to enter into coop- (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Re- may— ‘‘(1) cooperate with any State in the prepara- erative agreements with nonprofit organizations sources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) tion of a comprehensive State or regional coastal and State agencies to provide assistance to rural is amended to read as follows: sediment management plan within the bound- and small communities.’’; and ‘‘SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. (6) by adding at the end the following: aries of the State; ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In connection with sedi- NNUAL SUBMISSION.—For each fiscal ‘‘(2) encourage State participation in the im- ‘‘(e) A ment obtained through the construction, oper- year, based on performance criteria developed plementation of the plan; and ation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal by the Secretary, the Secretary shall list in the ‘‘(3) submit to Congress reports and rec- water resources project, the Secretary, acting annual civil works budget submitted to Congress ommendations with respect to appropriate Fed- through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop the individual activities proposed for funding eral participation in carrying out the plan. Regional Sediment Management plans and ‘‘(f) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.’’. carry out projects at locations identified in the section, the Secretary shall give priority to re- SEC. 2010. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA. plan prepared under subsection (e), or identified gional sediment management projects in the vi- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting jointly by the non-Federal interest and the Sec- cinity of— through the Chief of Engineers, shall carry out retary, for use in the construction, repair, modi- ‘‘(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New a program to provide public access to water re- fication, or rehabilitation of projects associated York; source and related water quality data in the with Federal water resources projects, for— ‘‘(2) Fletcher Cove, California; custody of the Corps of Engineers. ‘‘(1) the protection of property; ‘‘(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and (b) DATA.—Public access under subsection (a) ‘‘(2) the protection, restoration, and creation Pennsylvania; and shall— of aquatic and ecologically related habitats, in- ‘‘(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio. (1) include, at a minimum, access to data gen- cluding wetlands; and ‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— erated in water resource project development ‘‘(3) the transport and placement of suitable There is authorized to be appropriated to carry and regulation under section 404 of the Federal sediment out this section $30,000,000 during each fiscal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); ‘‘(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to sub- year, to remain available until expended, for the and section (c), projects carried out under subsection Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of (2) appropriately employ geographic informa- (a) may be carried out in any case in which the which up to $5,000,000 shall be used for the de- tion system technology and linkages to water re- Secretary finds that— velopment of regional sediment management source models and analytical techniques. ‘‘(1) the environmental, economic, and social plans as provided in subsection (e). (c) PARTNERSHIPS.—To the maximum extent benefits of the project, both monetary and non- ‘‘(h) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding practicable, in carrying out activities under this monetary, justify the cost of the project; and section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 section, the Secretary shall develop partner- ‘‘(2) the project would not result in environ- U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out ships, including cooperative agreements with mental degradation. under this section, a non-Federal interest may State, tribal, and local governments and other ‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF PLANNING AND include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of Federal agencies. PROJECT COSTS.— the affected local government.’’. (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In consultation and co- (b) REPEAL.— There is authorized to be appropriated to carry operation with the appropriate Federal, State, (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Re- out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year. regional, and local agencies, the Secretary, act- sources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed. SEC. 2011. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL ing through the Chief of Engineers, shall de- PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTER- velop at Federal expense plans and projects for (2) EXISTING PROJECTS.—The Secretary, acting ESTS. regional management of sediment obtained in through the Chief of Engineers, may complete (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 211(e)(6) of the conjunction with construction, operation, and any project being carried out under section 145 Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 maintenance of Federal water resources on the day before the date of enactment of this U.S.C. 701b–13(e)(6)) is amended by adding at projects. Act. the end following: ‘‘(2) COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.— SEC. 2013. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CON- TROL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. ‘‘(E) BUDGET PRIORITY.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Costs associated with con- ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Budget priority for projects struction of a project under this section or iden- (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Act entitled under this section shall be proportionate to the tified in a Regional Sediment Management plan ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in percentage of project completion. shall be limited solely to construction costs that the cost of protecting the shores of publicly ‘‘(ii) COMPLETED PROJECT.—A completed are in excess of those costs necessary to carry owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 project shall have the same priority as a project out the dredging for construction, operation, or U.S.C. 426g), is amended to read as follows: with a contractor on site.’’. maintenance of an authorized Federal water re- ‘‘SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION (b) CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL sources project in the most cost-effective way, AND IMPACT MINIMIZATION PRO- GRAM. PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Section consistent with economic, engineering, and en- ‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SHORE AND 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act vironmental criteria. BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by adding ‘‘(B) COST SHARING.—The determination of PROJECTS.— at the end the following: any non-Federal share of the construction cost ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry ‘‘(9) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, IL- shall be based on the cost sharing as specified in out construction of small shore and beach res- LINOIS.—An element of the project for flood con- subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 of the toration and protection projects not specifically trol, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois. Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 authorized by Congress that otherwise comply ‘‘(10) ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT (HOLMAN U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water re- with the first section of this Act if the Secretary FIELD), ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.—The project for source project using the dredged resource. determines that such construction is advisable. flood damage reduction, St. Paul Downtown ‘‘(C) TOTAL COST.—Total Federal costs associ- ‘‘(2) LOCAL COOPERATION.—The local coopera- Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota. ated with construction of a project under this tion requirement under the first section of this UFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project ‘‘(11) B section shall not exceed $5,000,000 without Con- Act shall apply to a project under this section. for flood control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, author- gressional approval. ‘‘(3) COMPLETENESS.—A project under this sec- ized by the first section of the Act of June 20, ‘‘(3) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, tion— 1938 (52 Stat. 804, chapter 535) (commonly AND REHABILITATION COSTS.—Operation, mainte- ‘‘(A) shall be complete; and known as the ‘River and Harbor Act of 1938’) nance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs as- ‘‘(B) shall not commit the United States to and modified by section 3a of the Act of August sociated with a project are a non-Federal spon- any additional improvement to ensure the suc- 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly sor responsibility. cessful operation of the project, except for par- known as the ‘Flood Control Act of 1939’), ex- ‘‘(d) SELECTION OF SEDIMENT DISPOSAL METH- ticipation in periodic beach nourishment in ac- cept that, subject to the approval of the Sec- OD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES.— cordance with— retary as provided by this section, the non-Fed- ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing and carrying ‘‘(i) the first section of this Act; and eral interest may design and construct an alter- out a Federal water resources project involving ‘‘(ii) the procedure for projects authorized native to such project. the disposal of material, the Secretary may se- after submission of a survey report. ‘‘(12) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—The Halls Bayou lect, with the consent of the non-Federal inter- ‘‘(b) NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL element of the project for flood control, Buffalo est, a disposal method that is not the least-cost DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PRO- Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by option if the Secretary determines that the in- GRAM.— section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Devel- cremental costs of the disposal method are rea- ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting opment Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), except sonable in relation to the environmental bene- through the Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.071 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 national shoreline erosion control development ‘‘(E) applicable university research facilities. (1) areas in which there has been a Federal and demonstration program (referred to in this ‘‘(4) COMPLETION OF DEMONSTRATION.—After investment of funds; and section as the ‘program’). carrying out the initial construction and eval- (2) areas with respect to which the need for ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.— uation of the performance and lifecycle cost of prevention or mitigation of damage to shores ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The program shall include a demonstration project under this section, the and beaches is attributable to Federal naviga- provisions for— Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engi- tion projects or other Federal activities. ‘‘(i) projects consisting of planning, design, neers, may— (c) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall apply construction, and adequate monitoring of proto- ‘‘(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest the policy to each shore protection and beach type engineered and native and naturalized veg- of the project, amend the agreement for a feder- renourishment project (including shore protec- etative shoreline erosion control devices and ally-authorized shore protection project in exist- tion and beach renourishment projects in exist- methods; ence on the date on which initial construction ence on the date of enactment of this Act). ‘‘(ii) detailed engineering and environmental of the demonstration project is complete to in- SEC. 2015. COST SHARING FOR MONITORING. reports on the results of each project carried out corporate the demonstration project as a feature (a) IN GENERAL.—Costs incurred for moni- under the program; and of the shore protection project, with the future toring for an ecosystem restoration project shall ‘‘(iii) technology transfers, as appropriate, to cost of the demonstration project to be deter- be cost-shared— private property owners, State and local enti- mined by the cost-sharing ratio of the shore pro- (1) in accordance with the formula relating to ties, nonprofit educational institutions, and tection project; or the applicable original construction project; and nongovernmental organizations. ‘‘(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility (2) for a maximum period of 10 years. ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY.—A for the completed demonstration project to the (b) AGGREGATE LIMITATION.—Monitoring costs project under this section shall not be carried non-Federal or other Federal agency interest of for an ecosystem restoration project— out until the Secretary, acting through the the project. (1) shall not exceed in the aggregate, for a 10- Chief of Engineers, determines that the project ‘‘(5) AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary, acting year period, an amount equal to 5 percent of the is feasible. through the Chief of Engineers, may enter into cost of the applicable original construction ‘‘(C) EMPHASIS.—A project carried out under an agreement with the non-Federal or other project; and the program shall emphasize, to the maximum Federal agency interest of a project under this (2) after the 10-year period, shall be 100 per- extent practicable— section— cent non-Federal. ‘‘(i) the development and demonstration of in- ‘‘(A) to share the costs of construction, oper- SEC. 2016. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS. novative technologies; ation, maintenance, and monitoring of a project ‘‘(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a For each of the following projects, the Corps under the program; shoreline site, taking into account the lifecycle of Engineers shall include ecosystem restoration ‘‘(B) to share the costs of removing a project cost of the design, including cleanup, mainte- benefits in the calculation of benefits for the or project element constructed under the pro- nance, and amortization; project: gram, if the Secretary determines that the ‘‘(iii) new and enhanced shore protection (1) Grayson’s Creek, California. project or project element is detrimental to pri- project design and project formulation tools the (2) Seven Oaks, California. vate property, public infrastructure, or public purposes of which are to improve the physical (3) Oxford, California. safety; or performance, and lower the lifecycle costs, of (4) Walnut Creek, California. ‘‘(C) to specify ownership of a completed the projects; (5) Wildcat Phase II, California. ‘‘(iv) natural designs, including the use of na- project that the Chief of Engineers determines SEC. 2017. FUNDING TO EXPEDITE THE EVALUA- tive and naturalized vegetation or temporary will not be part of a Corps of Engineers project. TION AND PROCESSING OF PERMITS. ‘‘(6) REPORT.—Not later than December 31 of structures that minimize permanent structural Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Devel- each year beginning after the date of enactment alterations to the shoreline; opment Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 ‘‘(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to ad- of this paragraph, the Secretary shall prepare Stat. 2594) is amended by striking ‘‘In fiscal jacent shorefront communities; and submit to the Committee on Environment years 2001 through 2003, the’’ and inserting ‘‘(vi) the potential for long-term protection af- and Public works of the Senate and the Com- ‘‘The’’. forded by the technology; and mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of SEC. 2018. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT ‘‘(vii) recommendations developed from eval- the House of Representatives a report describ- APPLICATIONS. uations of the program established under the ing— (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Act of ‘‘(A) the activities carried out and accomplish- the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962–5 note; 88 Stat. 26), includ- ments made under the program during the pre- shall implement a program to allow electronic ing— ceding year; and submission of permit applications for permits ‘‘(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade; ‘‘(B) any recommendations of the Secretary under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. ‘‘(II) proper filtration; relating to the program. (b) LIMITATIONS.—This section does not pre- ‘‘(III) durable components; ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— clude the submission of a hard copy, as re- ‘‘(IV) adequate connection between units; and ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), quired. ‘‘(V) consideration of additional relevant in- the Secretary may expend, from any appropria- (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— formation. tions made available to the Secretary for the There is authorized to be appropriated to carry ‘‘(D) SITES.— purpose of carrying out civil works, not more out this section $3,000,000. ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Each project under the pro- than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay gram shall be carried out at— SEC. 2019. IMPROVEMENT OF WATER MANAGE- the Federal share of the costs of construction of MENT AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS RES- ‘‘(I) a privately owned site with substantial small shore and beach restoration and protec- ERVOIRS. public access; or tion projects or small projects under the pro- (a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and ‘‘(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in gram. maintenance, by the Corps of Engineers, of res- tidal waters. ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The total amount expended ervoirs in operation as of the date of enactment ‘‘(ii) SELECTION.—The Secretary, acting for a project under this section shall— of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out the through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop ‘‘(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal measures described in subsection (c) to support criteria for the selection of sites for projects participation in the project (including periodic the water resource needs of project sponsors and under the program, including criteria based nourishment as provided for under the first sec- any affected State, local, or tribal government on— tion of this Act), as determined by the Secretary; ‘‘(I) a variety of geographic and climatic con- for authorized project purposes. and (b) COOPERATION.—The Secretary shall carry ditions; ‘‘(B) be not more than $3,000,000.’’. ‘‘(II) the size of the population that is depend- out the measures described in subsection (c) in (b) REPEAL.—Section 5 the Act entitled ‘‘An cooperation and coordination with project spon- ent on the beaches for recreation or the protec- Act authorizing Federal participation in the tion of private property or public infrastructure; sors and any affected State, local, or tribal gov- cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned ernment. ‘‘(III) the rate of erosion; property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. ‘‘(IV) significant natural resources or habitats (c) MEASURES.—In carrying out this section, 426e et seq.; 110 Stat. 3700) is repealed. and environmentally sensitive areas; and the Secretary may— ‘‘(V) significant threatened historic structures SEC. 2014. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS. (1) conduct a study to identify unused, or landmarks. (a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Act underused, or additional water storage capacity ‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary, acting of July 3, 1930 (33 U.S.C. 426), and notwith- at reservoirs; through the Chief of Engineers, shall carry out standing administrative actions, it is the policy (2) review an operational plan and identify the program in consultation with— of the United States to promote shore protection any change to maximize an authorized project ‘‘(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly projects and related research that encourage the purpose to improve water storage capacity and with respect to native and naturalized vegeta- protection, restoration, and enhancement of enhance efficiency of releases and withdrawal tive means of preventing and controlling shore- sandy beaches, including beach restoration and of water; line erosion; periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 (3) improve and update data, data collection, ‘‘(B) Federal, State, and local agencies; years, on a comprehensive and coordinated and forecasting models to maximize an author- ‘‘(C) private organizations; basis by the Federal Government, States, local- ized project purpose and improve water storage ‘‘(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center ities, and private enterprises. capacity and delivery to water users; and established by the first section of Public Law 88– (b) PREFERENCE.—In carrying out the policy, (4) conduct a sediment study and implement 172 (33 U.S.C. 426–1); and preference shall be given to— any sediment management or removal measure.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.072 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7871

(d) REVENUES FOR SPECIAL CASES.— SEC. 2026. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM RE- (3) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ (1) COSTS OF WATER SUPPLY STORAGE.—In the AUTHORIZATION. and inserting ‘‘$75,000,000’’. case of a reservoir operated or maintained by (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited SEC. 2034. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF the Corps of Engineers on the date of enactment as the ‘‘National Dam Safety Program Act of PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND of this Act, the storage charge for a future con- 2006’’. RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PRO- tract or contract renewal for the first cost of (b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 13 of the Na- GRAM. water supply storage at the reservoir shall be tional Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) Section 1135 of the Water Resources Develop- the lesser of the estimated cost of purposes fore- is amended— ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended— gone, replacement costs, or the updated cost of (1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding ‘‘, and (1) by striking the section heading and insert- storage. $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through ing the following: (2) REALLOCATION.—In the case of a water 2011, to remain available until expended’’ after ‘‘SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF supply that is reallocated from another project ‘‘expended’’; PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND purpose to municipal or industrial water supply, (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$500,000’’ RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PRO- the joint use costs for the reservoir shall be ad- and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’; GRAM.’’; (3) in subsection (c), by inserting before the justed to reflect the reallocation of project pur- and period at the end the following: ‘‘, and poses. (2) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘25,000,000’’ $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through (3) CREDIT FOR AFFECTED PROJECT PUR- and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’. 2011, to remain available until expended’’; POSES.—In the case of a reallocation that ad- SEC. 2035. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE ESTUARIES (4) in subsection (d), by inserting before the AND COASTAL HABITATS. versely affects hydropower generation, the Sec- period at the end the following: ‘‘, and $700,000 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry retary shall defer to the Administrator of the re- for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, to re- spective Power Marketing Administration to cal- out an estuary habitat restoration project if the main available until expended’’; and Secretary determines that the project— culate the impact of such a reallocation on the (5) in subsection (e), by inserting before the (1) will improve the elements and features of rates for hydroelectric power. period at the end the following: ‘‘, and an estuary (as defined in section 103 of the Es- SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES. $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through tuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 2011, to remain available until expended’’. (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by add- 2902)); SEC. 2027. EXTENSION OF SHORE PROTECTION (2) is in the public interest; and ing at the end the following: ‘‘This subpara- PROJECTS. (3) is cost-effective. graph shall not apply to the Federal hopper (a) IN GENERAL.—Before the date on which (b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of the applicable period for Federal financial par- the cost of construction of any project under Engineers.’’. ticipation in a shore protection project termi- this section— SEC. 2021. EXTRAORDINARY RAINFALL EVENTS. nates, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of (1) shall be 35 percent; and In the State of Louisiana, extraordinary rain- Engineers, is authorized to review the shore pro- (2) shall include the costs of all land, ease- fall events such as Hurricanes Katrina and tection project to determine whether it would be ments, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations. feasible to extend the period of Federal financial Rita, which occurred during calendar year 2005, (c) AGREEMENTS.—Construction of a project and Hurricane Andrew, which occurred during participation relating to the project. under this section shall commence only after a (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to calendar year 1992, shall not be considered in non-Federal interest has entered into a binding Congress a report describing the results of each making a determination with respect to the ordi- agreement with the Secretary to pay— review conducted under subsection (a). nary high water mark for purposes of carrying (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of con- out section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 Subtitle B—Continuing Authorities Projects struction required under subsection (b); and U.S.C. 403) (commonly known as the ‘‘Rivers SEC. 2031. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR (2) in accordance with regulations promul- and Harbors Act’’). WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION. gated by the Secretary, 100 percent of the costs SEC. 2022. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING. Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of of any operation, maintenance, replacement, or Section 309 of Public Law 102–154 (42 U.S.C. 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) is amended— rehabilitation of the project. 1856a–1; 105 Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting (1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 107. (a) That the Sec- (d) LIMITATION.—Not more than $5,000,000 in ‘‘the Secretary of the Army,’’ after ‘‘the Sec- retary of the Army is hereby authorized to’’ and Federal funds may be allocated under this sec- retary of Energy,’’. inserting the following: tion for a project at any 1 location. SEC. 2023. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS SPON- ‘‘SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— SORS. WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry Section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal year (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)) is amended— may’’; beginning after the date of enactment of this (1) by striking ‘‘A non-Federal interest shall (2) in subsection (b)— Act. be’’ and inserting the following: (A) by striking ‘‘(b) Not more’’ and inserting the following: SEC. 2036. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In this section, the term SITES. ‘‘(b) ALLOTMENT.—Not more’’; and ‘non-Federal interest’ means’’; and Section 560 of the Water Resources Develop- (2) by adding at the end the following: (B) by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,000,000’’; ment Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354– ‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘non-Federal in- (3) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘(c) Local’’ 355) is amended— terest’ includes a nonprofit organization acting and inserting the following: (1) by striking subsection (f); with the consent of the affected unit of govern- ‘‘(c) LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—Local’’; (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through ment.’’. (4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘(d) Non- (e) as subsections (b) through (f), respectively; SEC. 2024. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION. Federal’’ and inserting the following: (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redes- (a) PROJECT TRACKING.—The Secretary shall ‘‘(d) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Non-Federal’’; ignated by paragraph (2)) the following: assign a unique tracking number to each water (5) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘(e) Each’’ ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.— resources project under the jurisdiction of the and inserting the following: In this section, the term ‘non-Federal interest’ Secretary, to be used by each Federal agency ‘‘(e) COMPLETION.—Each’’; and includes, with the consent of the affected local throughout the life of the project. (6) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘(f) This’’ government, nonprofit entities, notwithstanding (b) REPORT REPOSITORY.— and inserting the following: section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall maintain ‘‘(f) APPLICABILITY.—This’’. U.S.C. 1962d–5b).’’; at the Library of Congress a copy of each final SEC. 2032. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION DUE (4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by para- feasibility study, final environmental impact TO EMERGENCIES AT SHORES AND graph (2))— statement, final reevaluation report, record of STREAMBANKS. (A) by inserting ‘‘, and construction’’ before Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 decision, and report to Congress prepared by the ‘‘assistance’’; and U.S.C. 701r) is amended— Corps of Engineers. (B) by inserting ‘‘, including, with the consent (1) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting (2) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.— of the affected local government, nonprofit enti- ‘‘$20,000,000’’; and (A) IN GENERAL.—Each document described in ties,’’ after ‘‘non-Federal interests’’; paragraph (1) shall be made available to the (2) by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500,000’’. (5) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as re- public for review, and an electronic copy of each designated by paragraph (2))— SEC. 2033. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT document shall be made permanently available (A) by inserting ‘‘physical hazards and’’ after to the public through the Internet website of the FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM. ‘‘adverse’’; and Corps of Engineers. Section 206 of the Water Resources Develop- (B) by striking ‘‘drainage from’’; OST.—The Secretary shall charge the re- (B) C ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended— (6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by para- questor for the cost of duplication of the re- (1) by striking the section heading and insert- graph (2)), by striking ‘‘50’’ and inserting ‘‘25’’; quested document. ing the following: and SEC. 2025. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. ‘‘SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT (7) by adding at the end the following: Sections 101, 106, and 108 of the Energy and FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC AND ‘‘(g) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.’’; non-Federal share of the costs of operation and (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2252–2254), are re- (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘an aquatic’’ maintenance for a project carried out under this pealed. and inserting ‘‘a freshwater aquatic’’; and section shall be 100 percent.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.072 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

‘‘(h) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY.—The provision that a partnership agreement meets the require- (C) is not otherwise defined as a dam by the of assistance under this section shall not relieve ments of law and policies of the Secretary in ef- Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety. from liability any person that would otherwise fect on the date of execution of the partnership (5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means be liable under Federal or State law for dam- agreement.’’. the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ages, response costs, natural resource damages, (b) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of Chief of Engineers. restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief. the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means— ‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (100 Stat. 4190) is amended— (A) a State; There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (1) in paragraph (2)— (B) the District of Columbia; out this section for each fiscal year $45,000,000, (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shall’’ (C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and to remain available until expended.’’. and inserting ‘‘may’’; and (D) any other territory or possession of the SEC. 2037. SMALL PROJECTS FOR THE REHABILI- (B) by striking the second sentence; and United States. TATION AND REMOVAL OF DAMS. (2) in paragraph (4)— (7) STATE LEVEE SAFETY AGENCY.—The term (A) in the first sentence— (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry ‘‘State levee safety agency’’ means the State (i) by striking ‘‘injunction, for’’ and inserting out a small dam removal or rehabilitation agency that has regulatory authority over the ‘‘injunction and payment of liquidated dam- project if the Secretary determines that the safety of any non-Federal levee in a State. ages, for’’; and project will improve the quality of the environ- (8) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United (ii) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty im- ment or is in the public interest. States’’, when used in a geographical sense, posed under this section,’’; and (b) COST SHARING.—A non-Federal interest means all of the States. (B) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘any shall provide 35 percent of the cost of the re- SEC. 2053. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY COMMITTEE. civil penalty imposed under this section,’’ and moval or remediation of any project carried out (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— inserting ‘‘any liquidated damages,’’. under this section, including provision of all (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish (c) APPLICABILITY.— a National Levee Safety Committee, consisting land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para- of representatives of Federal agencies and State, relocations. graph (2), the amendments made by subsections tribal, and local governments, in accordance (c) AGREEMENTS.—Construction of a project (a) and (b) shall apply only to partnership with this subsection. under this section shall be commenced only after agreements entered into after the date of enact- (2) FEDERAL AGENCIES.— a non-Federal interest has entered into a bind- ment of this Act. (A) IN GENERAL.—The head of each Federal ing agreement with the Secretary to pay— (2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph agency and the head of the International (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of con- (1), the district engineer for the district in which Boundary Waters Commission may designate a struction required by this section; and a project is located may amend the partnership representative to serve on the Committee. (2) 100 percent of any operation and mainte- agreement for the project entered into on or be- (B) ACTION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary nance cost. fore the date of enactment of this Act— shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, (d) COST LIMITATION.—Not more than (A) at the request of a non-Federal interest for that— $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted a project; and under this section for a project at any single lo- (B) if construction on the project has not been (i) each Federal agency that designs, owns, cation. initiated as of the date of enactment of this Act. operates, or maintains a levee is represented on (e) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be ap- (d) REFERENCES.— the Committee; and propriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 (1) COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—Any reference (ii) each Federal agency that has responsi- for each fiscal year. in a law, regulation, document, or other paper bility for emergency preparedness or response SEC. 2038. REMOTE, MARITIME-DEPENDENT COM- of the United States to a cooperation agreement activities is represented on the Committee. MUNITIES. or project cooperation agreement shall be con- (3) TRIBAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERN- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop sidered to be a reference to a partnership agree- MENTS.— eligibility criteria for Federal participation in ment or a project partnership agreement, respec- (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall appoint navigation projects located in economically dis- tively. 8 members to the Committee— advantaged communities that are— (2) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Any reference (i) 3 of whom shall represent tribal govern- (1) dependent on water transportation for to a partnership agreement or project partner- ments affected by levees, based on recommenda- subsistence; and ship agreement in this Act (other than in this tions of tribal governments; (2) located in— section) shall be considered to be a reference to (ii) 3 of whom shall represent State levee safe- (A) remote areas of the United States; a cooperation agreement or a project coopera- ty agencies, based on recommendations of Gov- (B) American Samoa; tion agreement, respectively. ernors of the States; and (C) Guam; (iii) 2 of whom shall represent local govern- SEC. 2040. PROGRAM NAMES. (D) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar- ments, based on recommendations of Governors Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 iana Islands; of the States. (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended by striking ‘‘SEC. (E) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or (B) REQUIREMENT.—In appointing members (F) the United States Virgin Islands. 205. That the’’ and inserting the following: under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall en- (b) ADMINISTRATION.—The criteria developed ‘‘SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION sure broad geographic representation, to the under this section— OF FLOODING AND OBTAIN RISK maximum extent practicable. MINIMIZATION. (1) shall— (4) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary shall serve ‘‘The’’. (A) provide for economic expansion; and as Chairperson of the Committee. (B) identify opportunities for promoting eco- Subtitle C—National Levee Safety Program (5) OTHER MEMBERS.—The Secretary, in con- nomic growth; and SEC. 2051. SHORT TITLE. sultation with the Committee, may invite to par- (2) shall not require project justification solely This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘National ticipate in meetings of the Committee, as appro- on the basis of National Economic Development Levee Safety Program Act of 2006’’. priate, 1 or more of the following: benefits received. SEC. 2052. DEFINITIONS. (A) Representatives of the National Labora- SEC. 2039. AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCE In this subtitle: tories. PROJECTS. (1) ASSESSMENT.—The term ‘‘assessment’’ (B) Levee safety experts. (a) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 221 of means the periodic engineering evaluation of a (C) Environmental organizations. the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– levee by a registered professional engineer to— (D) Members of private industry. 5b) is amended— (A) review the engineering features of the (E) Any other individual or entity, as the (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub- levee; and Committee determines to be appropriate. section (g); and (B) develop a risk-based performance evalua- (b) DUTIES.— (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol- tion of the levee, taking into consideration po- (1) IN GENERAL.—The Committee shall— lowing: tential consequences of failure or overtopping of (A) advise the Secretary in implementing the ‘‘(e) PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.—If the Sec- the levee. national levee safety program under section retary determines that a project needs to be con- (2) COMMITTEE.—The term ‘‘Committee’’ 2054; tinued for the purpose of public health and means the National Levee Safety Committee es- (B) support the establishment and mainte- safety— tablished by section 2053(a). nance of effective programs, policies, and guide- ‘‘(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the in- (3) INSPECTION.—The term ‘‘inspection’’ means lines to enhance levee safety for the protection creased projects costs, up to an amount equal to an annual review of a levee to verify whether of human life and property throughout the 20 percent of the original estimated project costs the owner or operator of the levee is conducting United States; and and in accordance with the statutorily-deter- required operation and maintenance in accord- (C) support coordination and information ex- mined cost share; and ance with established levee maintenance stand- change between Federal agencies and State ‘‘(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-deter- ards. levee safety agencies that share common prob- mined Federal share, the Secretary shall pay all (4) LEVEE.—The term ‘‘levee’’ means an em- lems and responsibilities relating to levee safety, increased costs remaining after payment of 20 bankment (including a floodwall) that— including planning, design, construction, oper- percent of the increased costs by the non-Fed- (A) is designed, constructed, or operated for ation, emergency action planning, inspections, eral interest under paragraph (1). the purpose of flood or storm damage reduction; maintenance, regulation or licensing, technical ‘‘(f) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) (B) reduces the risk of loss of human life or or financial assistance, research, and data man- limits the authority of the Secretary to ensure risk to the public safety; and agement.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.072 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7873

(c) POWERS.— (7) to develop technical assistance materials, (6) REPORT.—As soon as practicable after the (1) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.— seminars, and guidelines to improve the security date on which a levee is assessed under this sec- (A) IN GENERAL.—The Committee may secure of levees in the United States. tion, the Secretary shall provide to the Governor directly from a Federal agency such information (c) STRATEGIC PLAN.—In carrying out the pro- of the State in which the levee is located a no- as the Committee considers to be necessary to gram under this section, the Secretary, in co- tice describing the results of the assessment, in- carry out this section. ordination with the Committee, shall prepare a cluding— (B) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—On request strategic plan— (A) a description of the results of the assess- of the Committee, the head of a Federal agency (1) to establish goals, priorities, and target ment under this subsection; shall provide the information to the Committee. dates to improve the safety of levees in the (B) a description of any hazardous condition (2) CONTRACTS.—The Committee may enter United States; discovered during the assessment; and into any contract the Committee determines to (2) to cooperate and coordinate with, and pro- (C) on request of the Governor, information be necessary to carry out a duty of the Com- vide assistance to, State levee safety agencies, to relating to any remedial measure necessary to mittee. the maximum extent practicable; mitigate or avoid any hazardous condition dis- (d) WORKING GROUPS.— (3) to share information among Federal agen- covered during the assessment. N GENERAL (1) I .—The Secretary may establish cies, State and local governments, and private (7) SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS.— working groups to assist the Committee in car- entities relating to levee safety; and (A) IN GENERAL.—After the date on which a (4) to provide information to the public relat- rying out this section. levee is initially assessed under this subsection, ing to risks associated with levee failure or over- (2) MEMBERSHIP.—A working group under the Secretary shall conduct a subsequent assess- topping. paragraph (1) shall be composed of— ment of the levee not less frequently than once (A) members of the Committee; and (d) FEDERAL GUIDELINES.— (B) any other individual, as the Secretary de- (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program every 5 years. TATE ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL LEV- termines to be appropriate. under this section, the Secretary, in coordina- (B) S (e) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.— tion with the Committee, shall establish Federal EES.— (1) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—A member of the guidelines relating to levee safety. (i) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall conduct as- Committee who is an officer or employee of the (2) INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.— sessments of non-Federal levees located within United States shall serve without compensation The Federal guidelines under paragraph (1) the State in accordance with the applicable in addition to compensation received for the shall incorporate, to the maximum extent prac- State levee safety program. services of the member as an officer or employee ticable, any activity carried out by a Federal (ii) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—Each of the United States. agency as of the date on which the guidelines State shall make the results of the assessments (2) OTHER MEMBERS.—A member of the Com- are established. under clause (i) available for inclusion in the mittee who is not an officer or employee of the (e) INCORPORATION OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES.— national inventory under subsection (f). United States shall serve without compensation. The program under this section shall incor- (iii) NON-FEDERAL LEVEES.— (f) TRAVEL EXPENSES.— porate, to the maximum extent practicable— (I) IN GENERAL.—On request of the Governor (1) REPRESENTATIVES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.— (1) any activity carried out by a State or local of a State, the Secretary may assess a non-Fed- To the extent amounts are made available in ad- government, or a private entity, relating to the eral levee in the State. vance in appropriations Acts, a member of the construction, operation, or maintenance of a (II) COST.—The State shall pay 100 percent of Committee who represents a Federal agency levee; and the cost of an assessment under subclause (I). shall be reimbursed with appropriations for (2) any activity carried out by a Federal agen- (III) FUNDING.—The Secretary may accept travel expenses by the agency of the member, in- cy to support an effort by a State levee safety funds from any levee owner for the purposes of cluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates agency to develop and implement an effective conducting engineering assessments to deter- authorized for an employee of an agency under levee safety program. mine the performance and structural integrity of subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United (f) INVENTORY OF LEVEES.—The Secretary a levee. States Code, while away from home or regular shall develop, maintain, and periodically pub- (h) STATE LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAMS.— place of business of the member in the perform- lish an inventory of levees in the United States, (1) ASSISTANCE TO STATES.—In carrying out ance of services for the Committee. including the results of any levee assessment the program under this section, the Secretary (2) OTHER INDIVIDUALS.—To the extent conducted under this section and inspection. shall provide funds to State levee safety agen- amounts are made available in advance in ap- (g) ASSESSMENTS OF LEVEES.— cies (or another appropriate State agency, as propriations Acts, a member of the Committee (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para- designated by the Governor of the State) to as- who represents a State levee safety agency, a graph (2), as soon as practicable after the date sist States in establishing, maintaining, and im- member of the Committee who represents the pri- of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall proving levee safety programs. vate sector, and a member of a working group conduct an assessment of each levee in the (2) APPLICATION.— created under subsection (d) shall be reimbursed United States that protects human life or the (A) IN GENERAL.—To receive funds under this for travel expenses by the Secretary, including public safety to determine the potential for a subsection, a State levee safety agency shall per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates author- failure or overtopping of the levee that would submit to the Secretary an application in such ized for an employee of an agency under sub- pose a risk of loss of human life or a risk to the time, in such manner, and containing such in- chapter 1 of chapter 57 of title 5, United States public safety. formation as the Secretary may require. Code, while away from home or regular place of (2) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may exclude (B) INCLUSION.—An application under sub- business of the member in performance of serv- from assessment under paragraph (1) any non- paragraph (A) shall include an agreement be- ices for the Committee. Federal levee the failure or overtopping of tween the State levee safety agency and the Sec- (g) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Fed- which would not pose a risk of loss of human retary under which the State levee safety agen- eral Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) life or a risk to the public safety. cy shall, in accordance with State law— shall not apply to the Committee. (3) PRIORITIZATION.—In determining the order (i) review and approve plans and specifica- in which to assess levees under paragraph (1), SEC. 2054. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM. tions to construct, enlarge, modify, remove, or the Secretary shall give priority to levees the (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta- abandon a levee in the State; failure or overtopping of which would constitute tion with the Committee and State levee safety (ii) perform periodic evaluations during levee the highest risk of loss of human life or a risk agencies, shall establish and maintain a na- construction to ensure compliance with the ap- to the public safety, as determined by the Sec- tional levee safety program. proved plans and specifications; retary. (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program (iii) approve the construction of a levee in the (4) DETERMINATION.—In assessing levees under this section are— State before the date on which the levee becomes under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take (1) to ensure that new and existing levees are operational; into consideration the potential of a levee to fail safe through the development of technologically (iv) assess, at least once every 5 years, all lev- or overtop because of— ees and reservoirs in the State the failure of and economically feasible programs and proce- (A) hydrologic or hydraulic conditions; dures for hazard reduction relating to levees; which would cause a significant risk of loss of (B) storm surges; human life or risk to the public safety to deter- (2) to encourage appropriate engineering poli- (C) geotechnical conditions; cies and procedures to be used for levee site in- (D) inadequate operating procedures; mine whether the levees and reservoirs are safe; vestigation, design, construction, operation and (E) structural, mechanical, or design defi- (v) establish a procedure for more detailed and maintenance, and emergency preparedness; ciencies; or frequent safety evaluations; (3) to encourage the establishment and imple- (F) other conditions that exist or may occur in (vi) ensure that assessments are led by a mentation of effective levee safety programs in the vicinity of the levee. State-registered professional engineer with re- each State; (5) STATE PARTICIPATION.—On request of a lated experience in levee design and construc- (4) to develop and support public education State levee safety agency, with respect to any tion; and awareness projects to increase public ac- levee the failure of which would affect the (vii) issue notices, if necessary, to require ceptance and support of State levee safety pro- State, the Secretary shall— owners of levees to perform necessary mainte- grams; (A) provide information to the State levee nance or remedial work, improve security, revise (5) to develop technical assistance materials safety agency relating to the construction, oper- operating procedures, or take other actions, in- for Federal and State levee safety programs; ation, and maintenance of the levee; and cluding breaching levees; (6) to develop methods of providing technical (B) allow an official of the State levee safety (viii) contribute funds to— assistance relating to levee safety to non-Fed- agency to participate in the assessment of the (I) ensure timely repairs or other changes to, eral entities; and levee. or removal of, a levee in order to reduce the risk

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.072 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 of loss of human life and the risk to public safe- (2) periodically update State levee safety River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkan- ty; and agencies and Congress on the status of the pro- sas, at a total estimated cost of $8,000,000, with (II) if the owner of a levee does not take an gram. an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an action described in subclause (I), take appro- (l) LEVEE SAFETY TRAINING.—The Secretary, estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. priate action as expeditiously as practicable; in consultation with the Committee, shall estab- SEC. 3006. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, (ix) establish a system of emergency proce- lish a program under which the Secretary shall ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA. dures and emergency response plans to be used provide training for State levee safety agency (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Flood if a levee fails or if the failure of a levee is immi- staff and inspectors to a State that has, or in- Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 170) is amended in nent; tends to develop, a State levee safety program, the matter under the heading ‘‘RED- (x) identify— on request of the State. OUACHITA RIVER BASIN’’ by striking ‘‘at (I) each levee the failure of which could be (m) EFFECT OF SUBTITLE.—Nothing in this Calion, Arkansas’’ and inserting ‘‘improvements reasonably expected to endanger human life; subtitle— at Calion, Arkansas (including authorization (II) the maximum area that could be flooded if (1) creates any Federal liability relating to the for the comprehensive flood-control project for a levee failed; and recovery of a levee caused by an action or fail- Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in (III) necessary public facilities that would be ure to act; the project all flood control, drainage, and (2) relieves an owner or operator of a levee of affected by the flooding; and power improvements in the basin above the any legal duty, obligation, or liability relating (xi) for the period during which the funds are lower end of the left bank Ouachita River provided, maintain or exceed the aggregate ex- to the ownership or operation of the levee; or (3) except as provided in subsection levee)’’. penditures of the State during the 2 fiscal years (g)(7)(B)(iii)(III), preempts any applicable Fed- (b) MODIFICATION.—Section 3 of the Act of preceding the fiscal year during which the eral or State law. August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 642, chapter 377), is funds are provided to ensure levee safety. amended in the second sentence of subsection SEC. 2055. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (3) DETERMINATION OF SECRETARY.— (a) in the matter under the heading ‘‘LOWER There are authorized to be appropriated to the (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days MISSISSIPPI RIVER’’ by inserting before the after the date on which the Secretary receives Secretary— (1) $50,000,000 to establish and maintain the period at the end the following: ‘‘Provided, That an application under paragraph (2), the Sec- inventory under section 2054(f); the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, author- retary shall approve or disapprove the applica- (2) $424,000,000 to carry out levee safety as- ized by the first section of the Act of May 15, tion. sessments under section 2054(g); 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569), shall remain as (B) NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL.—If the Secretary (3) to provide funds for State levee safety pro- a component of the Mississippi River and Tribu- disapproves an application under subparagraph grams under section 2054(h)— taries Project and afforded operation and main- (A), the Secretary shall immediately provide to (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and tenance responsibilities as directed in section 3 the State levee safety agency a written notice of (B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 of that Act (45 Stat. 535)’’. the disapproval, including a description of— through 2011; SEC. 3007. ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND (i) the reasons for the disapproval; and (4) $2,000,000 to carry out research under sec- MISSOURI. (ii) changes necessary for approval of the ap- tion 2054(j); (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con- plication, if any. (5) $1,000,000 to carry out levee safety training trol, St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas, and (C) FAILURE TO DETERMINE.—If the Secretary under section 2054(l); and Missouri, authorized the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 fails to make a determination by the deadline (6) $150,000 to provide travel expenses to mem- Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as modified, is further under subparagraph (A), the application shall bers of the Committee under section 2053(f). modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake be considered to be approved. TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED channel stabilization and sediment removal (4) REVIEW OF STATE LEVEE SAFETY PRO- PROVISIONS measures on the St. Francis River and tribu- GRAMS.— SEC. 3001. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, taries as an integral part of the original project. (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunc- KODIAK, ALASKA. (b) NO SEPARABLE ELEMENT.—The measures tion with the Committee, may periodically re- The Secretary shall carry out, on an emer- undertaken under subsection (a) shall not be view any program carried out using funds under gency basis, necessary removal of rubble, sedi- considered to be a separable element of the this subsection. ment, and rock impeding the entrance to the St. project. (B) INADEQUATE PROGRAMS.—If the Secretary Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, SEC. 3008. ST. FRANCIS BASIN LAND TRANSFER, determines under a review under subparagraph at a Federal cost of $2,000,000. ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. (A) that a program is inadequate to reasonably SEC. 3002. SITKA, ALASKA. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey protect human life and property, the Secretary The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for to the State of Arkansas, without monetary con- shall, until the Secretary determines the pro- navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Ref- sideration and subject to subsection (b), all gram to be adequate— uge, Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the right, title, and interest to land within the State (i) revoke the approval of the program; and Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 acquired by the Federal Government as mitiga- (ii) withhold assistance under this subsection. Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the Secretary to tion land for the project for flood control, St. (i) REPORTING.—Not later than 90 days after take such action as is necessary to correct de- Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, the end of each odd-numbered fiscal year, the sign deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Break- authorized by the Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. Secretary, in consultation with the Committee, water, at full Federal expense. The estimated 702a et seq.) (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood shall submit to Congress a report describing— cost is $6,300,000. Control Act of 1928’’). (1) the status of the program under this sec- SEC. 3003. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— tion; ALABAMA. (1) IN GENERAL.—The conveyance by the (2) the progress made by Federal agencies dur- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall con- United States under this section shall be subject ing the 2 preceding fiscal years in implementing struct a new project management office located to— Federal guidelines for levee safety; in the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at a loca- (A) the condition that the State of Arkansas (3) the progress made by State levee safety tion within the vicinity of the city, at full Fed- (including the successors and assigns of the agencies participating in the program; and eral expense. State) agree to operate, maintain, and manage (4) recommendations for legislative or other (b) TRANSFER OF LAND AND STRUCTURES.—The the land at no cost or expense to the United action that the Secretary considers to be nec- Secretary shall sell, convey, or otherwise trans- States and for fish and wildlife, recreation, and essary, if any. fer to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair environmental purposes; and (j) RESEARCH.—The Secretary, in coordination market value, the land and structures associ- (B) such other terms and conditions as the with the Committee, shall carry out a program ated with the existing project management of- Secretary determines to be in the interest of the of technical and archival research to develop fice, if the city agrees to assume full responsi- United States. and support— bility for demolition of the existing project man- (2) REVERSION.—If the State (or a successor or (1) improved techniques, historical experience, agement office. assign of the State) ceases to operate, maintain, and equipment for rapid and effective levee con- (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— and manage the land in accordance with this struction, rehabilitation, and assessment or in- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to spection; out subsection (a) $32,000,000. the property shall revert to the United States, at (2) the development of devices for the contin- SEC. 3004. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA. the option of the Secretary. ued monitoring of levee safety; The project for flood damage reduction, Rio SEC. 3009. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER (3) the development and maintenance of infor- De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by sec- NAVIGATION SYSTEM, ARKANSAS mation resources systems required to manage tion 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Develop- AND OKLAHOMA. levee safety projects; and ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified to (a) NAVIGATION CHANNEL.—The Secretary (4) public policy initiatives and other improve- authorize the Secretary to construct the project shall continue construction of the McClellan- ments relating to levee safety engineering, secu- at a total cost of $54,100,000, with an estimated Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkan- rity, and management. Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal sas and Oklahoma, to operate and maintain the (k) PARTICIPATION BY STATE LEVEE SAFETY cost of $19,100,000. navigation channel to the authorized depth of AGENCIES.—In carrying out the levee safety pro- SEC. 3005. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKAN- the channel, in accordance with section 136 of gram under this section, the Secretary shall— SAS. the Energy and Water Development Appropria- (1) solicit participation from State levee safety The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of tions Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–137; 117 Stat. agencies; and authorized and completed levees on the White 1842).

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.072 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7875

(b) MITIGATION.— 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act ning, design, and construction of a project (1) IN GENERAL.—As mitigation for any inci- of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to authorize under subsection (b) shall be 65 percent. dental taking relating to the McClellan-Kerr the Secretary to complete the project, in accord- (2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— Navigation System, the Secretary shall deter- ance with the requirements of local cooperation (A) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND mine the need for, and construct modifications as specified in section 5 of the Watershed Pro- RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The Secretary shall credit to- in, the structures and operations of the Arkan- tection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. ward the non-Federal share of the cost of con- sas River in the area of Tulsa County, Okla- 1005), at a total remaining cost of $105,000,000, struction of any project under subsection (b) the homa, including the construction of low water with an estimated remaining Federal cost of value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of dams and islands to provide nesting and for- $65,000,000 and an estimated remaining non- any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged aging habitat for the interior least tern, in ac- Federal cost of $40,000,000. material disposal areas, or relocations provided cordance with the study entitled ‘‘Arkansas SEC. 3016. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying River Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), out the project. to States’’. the project for Magpie Creek, California, au- (B) FORM.—The non-Federal interest may (2) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of thorized by section 205 of the Flood Control Act provide not more than 50 percent of the non- the cost of a project under this subsection shall of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Federal share required under this clause in the be 35 percent. Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements form of services, materials, supplies, or other in- (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— applicable to nonstructural flood control under kind contributions. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The oper- section 103(b) of the Water Resources Develop- out this subsection $12,000,000. ation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for the portion SEC. 3010. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA. replacement of projects carried out under this of the project consisting of land acquisition to (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con- section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. preserve and enhance existing floodwater stor- trol, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Devel- age. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (b) CREDITING.—The crediting allowed under opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified out this section $20,000,000, to remain available subsection (a) shall not exceed the non-Federal to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of until expended. share of the cost of the project. the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling SEC. 3018. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION PROJECT, basin on the storm drainage system of the city SEC. 3017. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE CALIFORNIA. of Woodland, including all appurtenant fea- HABITAT, CALIFORNIA. The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City (a) COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.— tures, erosion control measures, and environ- Navigation Channel, California, on an annual (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall partici- mental protection features. basis, to maintain the authorized depth of –30 pate with appropriate State and local agencies (b) OBJECTIVES.—Mitigation under subsection mean lower low water. (a) shall restore the pre-project capacity of the in the implementation of a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and aquatic SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS city (1,360 cubic feet per second) to release water FLOOD CONTROL, CALIFORNIA. habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in to the Yolo Bypass, including— (a) CREDIT FOR NON-FEDERAL WORK.— (1) channel improvements; the 14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall credit to- (2) an outlet work through the west levee of below Pine Flat Dam, California, in a manner ward that portion of the non-Federal share of the Yolo Bypass; and that— the cost of any flood damage reduction project (3) a new low flow cross channel to handle (A) provides for long-term aquatic resource authorized before the date of enactment of this city and county storm drainage and settling enhancement; and Act that is to be paid by the Sacramento Area (B) avoids adverse effects on water storage basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per second) when Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the and water rights holders. the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition. Federal share of the flood control project au- (2) GOALS AND PRINCIPLES.—The cooperative SEC. 3011. CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, thorized by section 9159 of the Department of CALIFORNIA. program described in paragraph (1) shall be car- Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. In addition to funds made available pursuant ried out— 1944). to the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environ- (A) substantially in accordance with the goals (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—In determining the Fed- and principles of the document entitled ‘‘Kings mental Improvement Act (Public Law 108–361) to eral share of the project authorized by section carry out section 103(f)(3)(D) of that Act (118 River Fisheries Management Program Frame- 9159(b) of that Act, the Secretary shall include Stat. 1696), there is authorized to be appro- work Agreement’’ and dated May 29, 1999, be- all audit verified costs for planning, engineer- priated to carry out projects described in that tween the California Department of Fish and ing, construction, acquisition of project land, section $106,000,000, to remain available until Game and the Kings River Water Association easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and envi- expended. and the Kings River Conservation District; and (B) in cooperation with the parties to that ronmental mitigation for all project elements SEC. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA. that the Secretary determines to be cost-effec- The project for environmental restoration, agreement. (b) PARTICIPATION BY SECRETARY.— tive. Hamilton Airfield, California, authorized by sec- (3) AMOUNT CREDITED.—The amount credited tion 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Develop- (1) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the goals of the agreement described in subsection (a)(2), shall be equal to the Federal share determined ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to under this section, reduced by the total of all re- include the diked bayland parcel known as ‘‘Bel the Secretary shall participate in the planning, design, and construction of projects and pilot imbursements paid to the non-Federal interests Marin Keys Unit V’’ at an estimated total cost for work under section 9159(b) of that Act before of $221,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of projects on the Kings River and its tributaries to enhance aquatic habitat and water availability the date of enactment of this Act. $166,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost (b) FOLSOM DAM.—Section 128(a) of the En- for fisheries purposes (including maintenance of of $55,500,000, as part of the project to be carried ergy and Water Development Appropriations a trout fishery) in accordance with flood control out by the Secretary substantially in accordance Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2259), is operations, water rights, and beneficial uses in with the plans, and subject to the conditions, amended— recommended in the final report of the Chief of existence as of the date of enactment of this Act. (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘The Sec- (2) PROJECTS.—Projects referred to in para- Engineers dated July 19, 2004. retary’’ and inserting the following: graph (1) may include— SEC. 3013. LA–3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DIS- ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; POSAL SITE DESIGNATION, CALI- (A) projects to construct or improve pumping, (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The FORNIA. conveyance, and storage facilities to enhance Secretaries’’ and inserting the following: Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Re- water transfers; and ‘‘(2) TECHNICAL REVIEWS.—The Secretaries’’; search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. (B) projects to carry out water exchanges and (3) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘In de- 1412(c)(4)) is amended in the third sentence by create opportunities to use floodwater within veloping’’ and inserting the following: striking ‘‘January 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘Janu- and downstream of Pine Flat Reservoir. ‘‘(3) IMPROVEMENTS.— ary 1, 2007’’. (c) NO AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN DAM-RE- ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In developing’’; SEC. 3014. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALI- LATED PROJECTS.—Nothing in this section au- (4) in the fourth sentence, by striking ‘‘In FORNIA. thorizes any project for the raising of Pine Flat conducting’’ and inserting the following: (a) REPORT.—The project for navigation, Dam or the construction of a multilevel intake ‘‘(B) USE OF FUNDS.—In conducting’’; and Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California, structure at Pine Flat Dam. (5) by adding at the end the following: authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Re- (d) USE OF EXISTING STUDIES.—In carrying ‘‘(4) PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), out this section, the Secretary shall use, to the STUDY.—The Secretaries, in cooperation with is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a maximum extent practicable, studies in existence non-Federal agencies, are directed to expedite limited reevaluation report to determine whether on the date of enactment of this Act, including their respective activities, including the formu- maintenance of the project is feasible. data and environmental documentation in the lation of all necessary studies and decision doc- (b) AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT.—If the Sec- document entitled ‘‘Final Feasibility Report and uments, in furtherance of the collaborative ef- retary determines that maintenance of the Report of the Chief of Engineers for Pine Flat fort known as the ‘Project Alternative Solutions project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration’’ Study’, as well as planning, engineering, and the maintenance. and dated July 19, 2002. design, including preparation of plans and spec- SEC. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA. (e) COST SHARING.— ifications, of any features recommended for au- The project for flood damage reduction, (1) PROJECT PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUC- thorization by the Secretary of the Army under Llagas Creek, California, authorized by section TION.—The Federal share of the cost of plan- paragraph (6).

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

‘‘(5) CONSOLIDATION OF TECHNICAL REVIEWS and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. $130,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of the 401), is not commenced by the date that is 5 of $113,900,000. Army shall consolidate technical reviews and years after the date of issuance of such a per- SEC. 3024. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALI- design activities for— mit, the declaration of nonnavigability for the FORNIA. ‘‘(A) the project for flood damage reduction portion under this section shall cease to be ef- The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba authorized by section 101(a)(6) of the Water Re- fective. River Basin, California, authorized by section sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274); SEC. 3021. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALI- 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development and FORNIA. Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to author- ‘‘(B) the project for flood damage reduction, (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: ize the Secretary to construct the project at a dam safety, and environmental restoration au- (1) SALTON SEA AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘Salton total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Fed- thorized by sections 128 and 134 of the Energy Sea Authority’’ means the Joint Powers Author- eral cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non- and Water Development Appropriations Act, ity established under the laws of the State of Federal cost of $37,700,000. 2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842). California by a joint power agreement signed on SEC. 3025. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND ‘‘(6) REPORT.—The recommendations of the June 2, 1993. BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, Secretary of the Army, along with the views of (2) SALTON SEA SCIENCE OFFICE.—The term CONNECTICUT. the Secretary of the Interior and relevant non- ‘‘Salton Sea Science Office’’ means the Office The western breakwater for the project for Federal agencies resulting from the activities di- established by the United States Geological Sur- navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, rected in paragraphs (4) and (5), shall be for- vey and currently located in La Quinta, Cali- authorized by the first section of the Act of Sep- warded to the Committee on Environment and fornia. tember 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known Public Works of the Senate and the Committee (b) PILOT PROJECTS.— and designated as the ‘‘Charles Hervey on Transportation and Infrastructure of the (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall review Townshend Breakwater’’. House of Representatives by not later than June the preferred restoration concept plan approved SEC. 3026. ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HAR- 30, 2007, and shall provide status reports by not by the Salton Sea Authority to determine that BOR, CONNECTICUT. later than September 30, 2006, and quarterly the pilot projects are economically justified, (a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project thereafter. technically sound, environmentally acceptable, for navigation, New London Harbor, Con- ‘‘(7) EFFECT.—Nothing in this section shall be and meet the objectives of the Salton Sea Rec- necticut, authorized by the Act of June 13, 1902 deemed as deauthorizing the full range of lamation Act (Public Law 105–372). If the Sec- (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot water- project features and parameters of the projects retary makes a positive determination, the Sec- front channel described in subsection (b), is re- listed in paragraph (5), nor shall it limit any retary may enter into an agreement with the designated as an anchorage area. previous authorizations granted by Congress.’’. Salton Sea Authority and, in consultation with (b) DESCRIPTION OF CHANNEL.—The channel SEC. 3020. CONDITIONAL DECLARATION OF NON- the Salton Sea Science Office, carry out the referred to in subsection (a) may be described as NAVIGABILITY, PORT OF SAN FRAN- CISCO, CALIFORNIA. pilot project for improvement of the environment beginning at a point along the western limit of (a) CONDITIONAL DECLARATION OF NON- in the Salton Sea, except that the Secretary the existing project, N. 188, 802.75, E. 779, 462.81, NAVIGABILITY.—If the Secretary determines, in shall be a party to each contract for construc- thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet consultation with appropriate Federal and non- tion under this subsection. to a point N. 189, 554.87, E. 780, 612.53, thence Federal entities, that projects proposed to be (2) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In prioritizing running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a carried out by non-Federal entities within the pilot projects under this section, the Secretary point N. 189, 319.88, E. 780, 983.98, thence run- portions of the San Francisco, California, wa- shall— ning southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point terfront described in subsection (b) are not in (A) consult with the Salton Sea Authority and N. 188, 864.63, E. 780, 288.08, thence running the public interest, the portions shall be de- the Salton Sea Science Office; and southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N. 188, clared not to be navigable water of the United (B) consider the priorities of the Salton Sea 301.88, E. 780, 360.49, thence running northwest- States for the purposes of section 9 of the Act of Authority. erly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin. March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), and the General (3) COST SHARING.—Before carrying out a pilot SEC. 3027. NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT. Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.). project under this section, the Secretary shall (a) IN GENERAL.—The portions of a 10-foot (b) PORTIONS OF WATERFRONT.—The portions enter into a written agreement with the Salton channel of the project for navigation, Norwalk of the San Francisco, California, waterfront re- Sea Authority that requires the non-Federal in- Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first sec- ferred to in subsection (a) are those that are, or terest to— tion of the Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1276) will be, bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occu- (A) pay 35 percent of the total costs of the and described in subsection (b), are not author- pied by permanent structures and that are lo- pilot project; ized. cated as follows: beginning at the intersection of (B) acquire any land, easements, rights-of- (b) DESCRIPTION OF PORTIONS.—The portions the northeasterly prolongation of the portion of way, relocations, and dredged material disposal of the channel referred to in subsection (a) are the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying be- areas necessary to carry out the pilot project; as follows: tween Beale Street and Main Street with the and (1) RECTANGULAR PORTION.—An approxi- southwesterly line of Spear Street, which inter- (C) hold the United States harmless from any mately rectangular-shaped section along the section lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San claim or damage that may arise from carrying northwesterly terminus of the channel. The sec- Francisco Port Commission; following thence out the pilot project, except any claim or dam- tion is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long and southerly along said line of jurisdiction as de- age that may arise from the negligence of the is further described as commencing at a point N. scribed in the State of California Harbor and Federal Government or a contractor of the Fed- 104,165.85, E. 417,662.71, thence running south Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in eral Government. 24°06′55″ E. 395.00 feet to a point N. 103,805.32, 1961, to its intersection with the easterly line of (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— E. 417,824.10, thence running south 00°38′06″ E. Townsend Street along a line that is parallel There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 87.84 feet to a point N. 103,717.49, E. 417,825.07, and distant 10 feet from the existing southern out subsection (b) $26,000,000, of which not more thence running north 24°06′55″ W. 480.00 feet, to boundary of Pier 40 to its point of intersection than $5,000,000 may be used for any 1 pilot a point N. 104,155.59, E. 417.628.96, thence run- with the United States Government pier-head project under this section. ning north 73°05′25″ E. 35.28 feet to the point of line; thence northerly along said pier-head line SEC. 3022. SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER origin. to its intersection with a line parallel with, and MISSION CREEK, CALIFORNIA. (2) PARALLELOGRAM-SHAPED PORTION.—An distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing eas- The project for flood damage reduction, Santa area having the approximate shape of a par- terly boundary line of Pier 30–32; thence north- Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, Cali- allelogram along the northeasterly portion of erly along said parallel line and its northerly fornia, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of the the channel, southeast of the area described in prolongation, to a point of intersection with a Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 paragraph (1), approximately 20 feet wide and line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Sec- 260 feet long, and further described as com- from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier retary to construct the project at a total cost of mencing at a point N. 103,855.48, E. 417,849.99, 30–32, thence westerly along last said parallel $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of thence running south 33°07′30″ E. 133.40 feet to line to its intersection with the United States $15,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of a point N. 103,743.76, E. 417,922.89, thence run- Government pier-head line; to the northwesterly $15,000,000. ning south 24°07′04″ E. 127.75 feet to a point N. line of Bryan Street northwesterly; thence SEC. 3023. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALI- 103,627.16, E. 417,975.09, thence running north southwesterly along said northwesterly line of FORNIA. 33°07′30″ W. 190.00 feet to a point N. 103,786.28, Bryant Street to the point of beginning. The project for flood damage reduction and E. 417,871.26, thence running north 17°05′15″ W. (c) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.— recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, 72.39 feet to the point of origin. If, by the date that is 20 years after the date of authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Re- (c) MODIFICATION.—The 10-foot channel por- enactment of this Act, any portion of the San sources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), tion of the Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut navi- Francisco, California, waterfront described in is modified to authorize the Secretary to con- gation project described in subsection (a) is subsection (b) has not been bulkheaded, filled, struct the project generally in accordance with modified to authorize the Secretary to realign or otherwise occupied by 1 or more permanent the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Re- the channel to include, immediately north of the structures, or if work in connection with any duction, San Jose, California, Limited Reevalu- area described in subsection (b)(2), a triangular activity carried out pursuant to applicable Fed- ation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total cost section described as commencing at a point N. eral law requiring a permit, including sections 9 of $244,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 103,968.35, E. 417,815.29, thence running S.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7877

17°05′15″ east 118.09 feet to a point N. 103,855.48, rying out a project under subparagraph (A) (C) SHARING OF COSTS.—Each purchaser of E. 417,849.99, thence running N. 33°07′30″ west shall not exceed $25,000,000. land under this subsection shall share in the as- 36.76 feet to a point N. 103,886.27, E. 417,829.90, ‘‘(II) SEMINOLE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.— sociated environmental and real estate costs of thence running N. 10°05′26″ west 83.37 feet to the The Federal share of the cost of carrying out the purchase, including surveys and associated point of origin. the Seminole Water Conservation Plan shall not fees in accordance with the memorandum re- SEC. 3028. ST. GEORGE’S BRIDGE, DELAWARE. exceed $30,000,000.’’. ferred to in subsection (a)(1). Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Devel- SEC. 3034. LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND HILLSBORO (D) OTHER CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may opment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended AQUIFER PILOT PROJECTS, COM- impose on the sale and purchase of land under PREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RES- this subsection such other conditions as the Sec- by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Sec- TORATION, FLORIDA. retary determines to be appropriate. retary shall assume ownership responsibility for Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources (c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Re- the replacement bridge not later than the date Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) on which the construction of the bridge is com- amended by adding at the end the following: is repealed. pleted and the contractors are released of their ‘‘(v) HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, responsibility by the State. In addition, the Sec- FLORIDA.—The pilot projects for aquifer storage SEC. 3039. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVE- retary may not carry out any action to close or and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aqui- MENTS, IDAHO. remove the St. George’s Bridge, Delaware, with- fer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out specific congressional authorization.’’. the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 out additional general construction measures to SEC. 3029. CHRISTINA RIVER, WILMINGTON, (113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for the purposes allow for operation at lower pool levels to sat- DELAWARE. of this section as being in the Plan and carried isfy the recreation mission at Dworshak Dam, (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall remove out in accordance with this section, except that Idaho. the shipwrecked vessel known as the ‘‘State of costs of operation and maintenance of those (b) IMPROVEMENTS.—In carrying out sub- Pennsylvania’’, and any debris associated with projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.’’. section (a), the Secretary shall provide for ap- that vessel, from the Christina River at Wil- SEC. 3035. LIDO KEY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLOR- propriate improvements to— mington, Delaware, in accordance with section IDA. (1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act The Secretary shall carry out the project for Engineers; and of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426m(b)). hurricane and storm damage reduction in Lido (2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment (b) NO RECOVERY OF FUNDS.—Notwith- Key, Sarasota County, Florida, based on the re- of this Act, are leased, permitted, or licensed for standing any other provision of law, in carrying port of the Chief of Engineers dated December use by others. out this section, the Secretary shall not be re- 22, 2004, at a total cost of $14,809,000, with an (c) COST SHARING.—The Secretary shall carry quired to recover funds from the owner of the estimated Federal cost of $9,088,000 and an esti- out this section through a cost-sharing program vessel described in subsection (a) or any other mated non-Federal cost of $5,721,000, and at an with Idaho State Parks and Recreation Depart- vessel. estimated total cost $63,606,000 for periodic ment, with a total estimated project cost of (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the $5,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of There is authorized to be appropriated to carry project, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of out this section $425,000, to remain available $31,803,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000. until expended. $31,803,000. SEC. 3040. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, SEC. 3030. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. SEC. 3036. PORT SUTTON CHANNEL, TAMPA HAR- IDAHO. ROTH, JR. BRIDGE, DELAWARE. BOR, FLORIDA. The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, (a) DESIGNATION.—The State Route 1 Bridge The project for navigation, Port Sutton Chan- as constructed under the emergency conserva- over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in the nel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by sec- tion work program established under the Act of State of Delaware is designated as the ‘‘Senator tion 101(b)(12) of the Water Resources Develop- March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), is modi- William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge’’. ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to fied— (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law (in- authorize the Secretary to carry out the project (1) to direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the cluding regulations), map, document, paper, or at a total cost of $12,900,000. Gooding Channel Project for the purposes of other record of the United States to the bridge SEC. 3037. TAMPA HARBOR, CUT B, TAMPA, FLOR- flood control and ecosystem restoration, if the described in subsection (a) shall be considered to IDA. Secretary determines that the rehabilitation and be a reference to the Senator William V. Roth, The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, ecosystem restoration is feasible; Jr. Bridge. Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River (2) to authorize and direct the Secretary to SEC. 3031. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY, and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modi- plan, design, and construct the project at a total COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RES- fied to authorize the Secretary to construct cost of $9,000,000; TORATION, FLORIDA. passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles (3) to authorize the non-Federal interest to Section 601(c)(3) of the Water Resources De- long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the provide any portion of the non-Federal share of velopment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended Secretary determines that the improvements are the cost of the project in the form of services, by adding at the end the following: necessary for navigation safety. materials, supplies, or other in-kind contribu- ‘‘(C) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHOR- SEC. 3038. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA. tions; ITY.—Section 902 of the Water Resources Devel- (a) LAND EXCHANGE.— (4) to authorize the non-Federal interest to opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange use funds made available under any other Fed- to the individual project funding limits in sub- land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona eral program toward the non-Federal share of paragraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in Lake, Georgia, identified in the Real Estate De- the cost of the project if the use of the funds is subparagraph (B).’’. sign Memorandum prepared by the Mobile dis- permitted under the other Federal program; and SEC. 3032. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. trict engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved Octo- (5) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the ber 8, 1996, for land on the north side of non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shoreline protection, Brevard County, Florida, authorized Allatoona Lake that is required for wildlife make a determination under section 103(m) of by section 418 of the Water Resources Develop- management and protection of the water quality the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637), is amended by and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the ability to pay of the (2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all striking ‘‘7.1-mile reach’’ and inserting ‘‘7.6-mile non-Federal interest. land exchanges under this subsection shall be a reach’’. SEC. 3041. PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO. fair market appraisal to ensure that land ex- (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to a 7.1-mile (a) EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTER- changed is of equal value. reach with respect to the project described in ESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS.—With respect to (b) DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LAND, subsection (a) shall be considered to be a ref- property covered by each deed described in sub- ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.— section (b)— erence to a 7.6-mile reach with respect to that (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may— project. (A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at (1) the reversionary interests and use restric- SEC. 3033. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS, Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the tions relating to port and industrial use pur- EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1); poses are extinguished; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FLOR- and (2) the restriction that no activity shall be per- IDA. (B) use the proceeds of the sale, without fur- mitted that will compete with services and facili- Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources ther appropriation, to pay costs associated with ties offered by public marinas is extinguished; Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is the purchase of land required for wildlife man- (3) the human habitation or other building amended— agement and protection of the water quality and structure use restriction is extinguished in each (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. area in which the elevation is above the stand- all that follows and inserting ‘‘$95,000,000.’’; (2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— ard project flood elevation; and and (A) WILLING SELLERS.—Land acquired under (4) the use of fill material to raise low areas (2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the fol- this subsection shall be by negotiated purchase above the standard project flood elevation is au- lowing: from willing sellers only. thorized, except in any low area constituting ‘‘(ii) FEDERAL SHARE.— (B) BASIS.—The basis for all transactions wetland for which a permit under section 404 of ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub- under this subsection shall be a fair market the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 clause (II), the Federal share of the cost of car- value appraisal acceptable to the Secretary. U.S.C. 1344) is required.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

(b) DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in sub- (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (c) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines section (a) are as follows: There is authorized to be appropriated to carry that the property conveyed under subsection (a) (1) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez out this section $50,000,000, to remain available ceases to be held in public ownership or to be Perce County, Idaho, 2.07 acres. until expended. used for any purpose other than a fire station, (2) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez SEC. 3047. SPUNKY BOTTOM, ILLINOIS. all right, title, and interest in and to the prop- Perce County, Idaho, 7.32 acres. (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood con- erty shall revert to the United States, at the op- (c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in trol, Illinois and Des Plaines River Basin, be- tion of the United States. this section affects the remaining rights and in- terests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized tween Beardstown, Illinois, and the mouth of SEC. 3050. OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, IN- the Illinois River, authorized by section 5 of the DIANA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND project purposes with respect to property cov- WEST VIRGINIA. ered by deeds described in subsection (b). Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, chapter 688), is modified to authorize ecosystem restoration as Section 101(16) of the Water Resources Devel- SEC. 3042. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS. a project purpose. opment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578) is amended— The Cache River Levee created for flood con- (b) MODIFICATIONS.— (1) by striking ‘‘(A) in general.—Projects for eco- trol at the Cache River, Illinois, and authorized (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), system restoration, Ohio River Mainstem’’ and by the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chap- notwithstanding the limitation on the expendi- inserting the following: ter 795), is modified to add environmental res- ture of Federal funds to carry out project modi- ‘‘(A) AUTHORIZATION.— toration as a project purpose. fications in accordance with section 1135 of the ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Projects for ecosystem res- SEC. 3043. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 toration, Ohio River Basin (excluding the Ten- Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Devel- U.S.C. 2309a), modifications to the project re- nessee and Cumberland River Basins)’’; and opment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended ferred to in subsection (a) shall be carried out at (2) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end by inserting ‘‘Lake Michigan and’’ before ‘‘the Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, in accordance with the following: Chicago River’’. subsection (a). ‘‘(ii) NONPROFIT ENTITY.—For any ecosystem SEC. 3044. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS. (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—Not more than $7,500,000 restoration project carried out under this para- The Federal navigation channel for the North in Federal funds may be expended under this graph, with the consent of the affected local Branch Channel portion of the Chicago River section to carry out modifications to the project government, a nonprofit entity may be consid- authorized by section 22 of the Act of March 3, referred to in subsection (a). ered to be a non-Federal interest. 1899 (30 Stat. 1156, chapter 425), extending from (3) POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MAN- ‘‘(iii) PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.— 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge AGEMENT.—Of the Federal funds expended There is authorized to be developed a program to 100 feet upstream of the Division Street under paragraph (2), not less than $500,000 shall implementation plan of the Ohio River Basin Bridge, Chicago, Illinois, is redefined to be no remain available for a period of 5 years after the (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River wider than 66 feet. date of completion of construction of the modi- Basins) at full Federal expense. SEC. 3045. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. fications for use in carrying out post-construc- ‘‘(iv) PILOT PROGRAM.—There is authorized to Section 519(c)(3) of the Water Resources De- tion monitoring and adaptive management. be initiated a completed pilot program in Lower velopment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended (c) EMERGENCY REPAIR ASSISTANCE.—Notwith- Scioto Basin, Ohio.’’. by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting standing any modifications carried out under SEC. 3051. MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY ‘‘$20,000,000’’. subsection (b), the project described in sub- AND INDIANA. SEC. 3046. MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS FLOOD PRO- section (a) shall remain eligible for emergency Section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources De- TECTION PROJECTS RECONSTRUC- repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of velopment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) is amended TION PILOT PROGRAM. August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), without consid- by striking ‘‘$219,600,000’’ each place it appears (a) DEFINITION OF RECONSTRUCTION.—In this eration of economic justification. section: and inserting ‘‘$430,000,000’’. (1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘reconstruction’’ SEC. 3048. STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND SEC. 3052. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN means any action taken to address 1 or more LAKE, KANSAS. FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. major deficiencies of a project caused by long- (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after (a) IN GENERAL.—The public access feature of term degradation of the foundation, construc- the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Lou- tion materials, or engineering systems or compo- acting through the Tulsa District of the Corps of isiana project, authorized by section 601(a) of nents of the project, the results of which render Engineers, shall transfer to Pleasant Township, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 the project at risk of not performing in compli- Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the Sec- ance with the authorized purposes of the Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of retary to acquire from willing sellers the fee in- project. the United States in and to the land described in terest (exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals) of an (2) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘reconstruction’’ subsection (c). additional 20,000 acres of land in the Lower includes the incorporation by the Secretary of (b) REVERSION.—If the land transferred under Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public ac- current design standards and efficiency im- this section ceases at any time to be used as a cess feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway provements in a project if the incorporation does nonprofit cemetery or for another public pur- System, Louisiana project. not significantly change the authorized scope, pose, the land shall revert to the United States. (b) MODIFICATION.— function, or purpose of the project. (c) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyed (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), ef- (b) PARTICIPATION BY SECRETARY.—The Sec- under this section is a tract of land near John fective beginning November 17, 1986, the public retary may participate in the reconstruction of Redmond Lake, Kansas, containing approxi- access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin flood control projects within Missouri and Illi- mately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the west Floodway System, Louisiana project, is modified nois as a pilot program if the Secretary deter- line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE to remove the $32,000,000 limitation on the max- mines that such reconstruction is not required corner of the NE1⁄4 of sec. 32, T. 20 S., R. 14 E., imum Federal expenditure for the first costs of as a result of improper operation and mainte- Coffey County, Kansas. the public access feature. nance by the non-Federal interest. (d) CONSIDERATION.— (2) FIRST COST.—The authorized first cost of (c) COST SHARING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The conveyance under this $250,000,000 for the total project (as defined in (1) IN GENERAL.—Costs for reconstruction of a section shall be at fair market value. section 601(a) of the Water Resources Develop- project under this section shall be shared by the (2) COSTS.—All costs associated with the con- ment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142)) shall not be ex- Secretary and the non-Federal interest in the veyance shall be paid by Pleasant Township, ceeded, except as authorized by section 902 of same percentages as the costs of construction of Coffey County, Kansas. that Act (100 Stat. 4183). the original project were shared. (e) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The con- (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 315(a)(2) (2) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR veyance under this section shall be subject to of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 COSTS.—The costs of operation, maintenance, re- such other terms and conditions as the Sec- (114 Stat. 2603) is amended by inserting before pair, and rehabilitation of a project carried out retary considers necessary to protect the inter- the period at the end the following: ‘‘and may under this section shall be a non-Federal re- ests of the United States. include Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, Lou- sponsibility. SEC. 3049. MILFORD LAKE, MILFORD, KANSAS. isiana, as 1 of the alternative sites’’. (d) CRITICAL PROJECTS.—In carrying out this (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b) section, the Secretary shall give priority to the SEC. 3053. REGIONAL VISITOR CENTER, and (c), the Secretary shall convey at fair mar- ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY following projects: ket value by quitclaim deed to the Geary County SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, (a) PROJECT FOR FLOOD CONTROL.—Notwith- Illinois. (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage title, and interest of the United States in and to standing paragraph (3) of the report of the District, Illinois. a parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 Chief of Engineers dated February 28, 1983 (re- (3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for con- lating to recreational development in the Lower Illinois. struction, operation, and maintenance of a fire Atchafalaya Basin Floodway), the Secretary (4) City of St. Louis, Missouri. station. shall carry out the project for flood control, (5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, (b) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.— Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Lou- Missouri. The exact acreage and the description of the isiana, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the (e) ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION.—Reconstruction real property referred to in subsection (a) shall Act of August 15, 1985 (Public Law 99–88; 99 efforts and activities carried out under this sec- be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to Stat. 313; 100 Stat. 4142). tion shall not require economic justification. the Secretary. (b) VISITORS CENTER.—

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7879

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting the Assistant Secretary for Economic Develop- that portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot through the Chief of Engineers and in consulta- ment (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Assist- turning basin and lying northerly of a line com- tion with the State of Louisiana, shall study, ant Secretary’’) pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) mencing at a point N. 315,975.13, E. 1,004,424.86, design, and construct a type A regional visitors and 703 of the Public Works and Economic De- thence running N. 61° 27′ 20.71″ W. about 132.34 center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Lou- velopment Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), feet to a point N. 316,038.37, E. 1,004,308.61. isiana. 3233). SEC. 3060. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL (2) COST SHARING.— (B) REQUIREMENT.—The Assistant Secretary RESTORATION AND PROTECTION (A) IN GENERAL.—The cost of construction of shall make amounts appropriated pursuant to PROGRAM, MARYLAND, PENNSYL- the visitors center shall be shared in accordance paragraph (1) available to the Port of New Orle- VANIA, AND VIRGINIA. with the recreation cost-share requirement ans to relocate to the Mississippi River within Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Develop- under section 103(c) of the Water Resources De- the State of Louisiana the port-owned facilities ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)). that are occupied by businesses in the vicinity striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting (B) COST OF UPGRADING.—The non-Federal that may be impacted due to the treatment of ‘‘$30,000,000’’. share of the cost of upgrading the visitors center the Outlet under the analysis and design of SEC. 3061. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND. from a type B to type A regional visitors center comprehensive hurricane protection authorized Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Devel- shall be 100 percent. by title I of the Energy and Water Development opment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended— (3) AGREEMENT.—The project under this sub- Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; (1) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting section shall be initiated only after the Sec- 119 Stat. 2247). ‘‘$25,750,000’’; retary and the non-Federal interests enter into (b) REVOLVING LOAN FUND GRANTS.—There is (2) by striking ‘‘$9,750,000’’ and inserting a binding agreement under which the non-Fed- authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant ‘‘$16,738,000’’; and eral interests shall— Secretary $185,000,000, to remain available until (3) by striking ‘‘$5,250,000’’ and inserting (A) provide any land, easement, right-of-way, expended, to provide assistance pursuant to sec- ‘‘$9,012,000’’. or dredged material disposal area required for tions 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works and SEC. 3062. AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, MASSACHUSETTS. the project that is owned, claimed, or controlled Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. (a) DEAUTHORIZATION.—The portion of the by— 3149(c)(2), 3233) to 1 or more eligible recipients to project for navigation, Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Mas- (i) the State of Louisiana (including agencies establish revolving loan funds to make loans for sachusetts, authorized August 31, 1994, pursu- and political subdivisions of the State); or terms up to 20 years at or below market interest (ii) any other non-Federal government entity ant to section 107 of the Act of July 14, 1960 (33 rates (including interest-free loans) to private U.S.C. 577) (commonly known as the ‘‘River and authorized under the laws of the State of Lou- businesses within the Port of New Orleans that isiana; Harbor Act of 1960’’), consisting of the 8-foot may need to relocate to the Mississippi River deep anchorage in the cove described in sub- (B) pay 100 percent of the cost of the oper- within the State of Louisiana due to the treat- ation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and re- section (b) is deauthorized. ment of the Outlet under the analysis and de- (b) DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project habilitation of the project; and sign of comprehensive hurricane protection au- (C) hold the United States free from liability described in subsection (a) is more particularly thorized by title I of the Energy and Water De- for the construction, operation, maintenance, described as the portion beginning at a point velopment Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the along the southern limit of the existing project, 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247). project, except for damages due to the fault or N. 254332.00, E. 1023103.96, thence running (c) COORDINATION WITH SECRETARY.—The As- negligence of the United States or a contractor northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along sistant Secretary shall ensure that the programs of the United States. the western limit of the existing project N. described in subsections (a) and (b) are fully co- (4) DONATIONS.—In carrying out the project 255076.84, E. 1022945.07, thence running south- ordinated with the Secretary to ensure that fa- under this subsection, the Mississippi River westerly about 38.11 feet to a point N. 255038.99, cilities are relocated in a manner that is con- Commission may accept the donation of cash or E. 1022940.60, thence running southeasterly sistent with the analysis and design of com- other funds, land, materials, and services from about 267.07 feet to a point N. 254772.00, E. prehensive hurricane protection authorized by any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit 1022947.00, thence running southeasterly about title I of the Energy and Water Development corporation, as the Commission determines to be 462.41 feet to a point N. 254320.06, E. 1023044.84, Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; appropriate. thence running northeasterly about 60.31 feet to 119 Stat. 2247). SEC. 3054. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOU- the point of origin. (d) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The Assistant ISIANA. SEC. 3063. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS Secretary may use up to 2 percent of the The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, AND RHODE ISLAND. amounts made available under subsections (a) Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section and (b) for administrative expenses. River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481), is 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development modified to authorize the Secretary to provide SEC. 3057. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the project for WATERWAY, LOUISIANA. $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife of $15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of losses, Red River Waterway, Louisiana, author- the Calcasieu River from mile 5 to mile 16 as the the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), ized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Chief of Engineers determines to be advisable to shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and reduce maintenance dredging needs and facili- Secretary, except that the authorized depth of modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources tate protection of valuable disposal areas for the that portion of the project extending riverward Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, 102(p) of the Water Resources Development Act Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, shall SEC. 3055. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOU- of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 301(b)(7) of the ISIANA. not exceed 35 feet. Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 The project for flood damage reduction and (b) FEASIBILITY.—The Secretary shall conduct Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Re- recreation, East Baton Rouge Parish, Lou- a study to determine the feasibility of deepening sources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), isiana, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the that portion of the navigation channel of the is further modified— Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 navigation project for Fall River Harbor, Mas- (1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the Stat. 277), as amended by section 116 of the Con- sachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by sec- project at a total cost of $33,200,000; solidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 tion 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 (2) to permit the purchase of marginal farm- Stat. 140), is modified to authorize the Secretary Stat. 731), seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. land for reforestation (in addition to the pur- to carry out the project substantially in accord- Memorial Bridge Fall River and Somerset, Mas- chase of bottomland hardwood); and ance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers sachusetts. (3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry man- dated December 23, 1996, and the subsequent (c) LIMITATION.—The project described in sub- agement practices to improve species diversity Post Authorization Change Report dated De- section (a) shall not be authorized for construc- on mitigation land that meets habitat goals and cember 2004, at a total cost of $178,000,000. tion after the last day of the 5-year period be- objectives of the Corps of Engineers and the ginning on the date of enactment of this Act un- SEC. 3056. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET RE- State of Louisiana. LOCATION ASSISTANCE, LOUISIANA. less, during that period, funds have been obli- SEC. 3058. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. (a) PORT FACILITIES RELOCATION.— gated for construction (including planning and (1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— The maximum amount of Federal funds that design) of the project. There is authorized to be appropriated may be expended for the project being carried SEC. 3064. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, $175,000,000, to remain available until expended, out under section 111 of the River and Harbor MICHIGAN. to support the relocation of Port of New Orleans Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of Section 426 of the Water Resources Develop- deep draft facilities from the Mississippi River shore damages attributable to the project for ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326) is amended to Gulf Outlet (referred to in this section as the navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be read as follows: ‘‘Outlet’’), the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, and $20,000,000. ‘‘SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to the Mis- SEC. 3059. UNION RIVER, MAINE. MICHIGAN. sissippi River. The project for navigation, Union River, ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: (2) ADMINISTRATION.— Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act ‘‘(1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘manage- (A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated pur- of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215, chapter 314), is ment plan’ means the management plan for the suant to paragraph (1) shall be administered by modified by redesignating as an anchorage area St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan,

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.073 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 that is in effect as of the date of enactment of and replacement of projects carried out under of the project that is required to be paid by the this section. this section shall be non-Federal responsibilities. Federal Government as determined on the date ‘‘(2) PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Partnership’ ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— of enactment of section 3(a)(8) of the Water Re- means the partnership established by the Sec- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013). retary under subsection (b)(1). out this section $10,000,000 for each fiscal (c) DESIGN SCHEDULE.— ‘‘(b) PARTNERSHIP.— year.’’. (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall estab- SEC. 3065. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA. appropriations, the Secretary shall complete the design of the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diver- lish and lead a partnership of appropriate Fed- (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the cost sion Project by not later than 1 year after the eral agencies (including the Environmental Pro- limitation described in section 107(b) of the date of enactment of this Act. tection Agency) and the State of Michigan (in- River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)), (2) MISSED DEADLINE.—If the Secretary does cluding political subdivisions of the State)— the Secretary shall carry out the project for ‘‘(A) to promote cooperation among the Fed- not complete the design of the project by the navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, pursu- date described in paragraph (1)— eral Government, State and local governments, ant to the authority provided under that section and other involved parties in the management of (A) the Secretary shall assign such resources at a total Federal cost of $9,000,000. as the Secretary determines to be available and the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair water- (b) PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILI- sheds; and necessary to complete the design; and TIES.—Section 321 of the Water Resources Devel- (B) the authority of the Secretary to expend ‘‘(B) develop and implement projects con- opment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605) is amended funds for travel, official receptions, and official sistent with the management plan. by inserting ‘‘, and to provide public access and representations shall be suspended until the de- ‘‘(2) COORDINATION WITH ACTIONS UNDER recreational facilities’’ after ‘‘including any re- sign is complete. OTHER LAW.— quired bridge construction’’. (d) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Actions taken under this SEC. 3066. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA. (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of section by the Partnership shall be coordinated appropriations, the Secretary shall complete with actions to restore and conserve the St. The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, Minnesota, authorized by section construction of the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Clair River and Lake St. Clair and watersheds Diversion Project by not later than September taken under other provisions of Federal and 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include 30, 2012. State law. (2) MISSED DEADLINE.—If the Secretary does ‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in flood protection for the adjacent and inter- connected areas generally known as the Samp- not complete the construction of the Bonnet this section alters, modifies, or affects any other Carre Freshwater Diversion Project by the date provision of Federal or State law. son and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accord- ance with the feasibility report supplement, described in paragraph (1)— ‘‘(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF ST. CLAIR RIVER AND (A) the Secretary shall assign such resources local flood protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at LAKE ST. CLAIR MANAGEMENT PLAN.— as the Secretary determines to be available and a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— necessary to complete the construction; and ‘‘(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated (B) the authority of the Secretary to expend Clair strategic implementation plan in accord- non-Federal cost of $8,750,000. funds for travel, official receptions, and official ance with the management plan; SEC. 3067. BONNET CARRE FRESHWATER DIVER- representations shall be suspended until the ‘‘(B) provide technical, planning, and engi- SION PROJECT, MISSISSIPPI AND construction is complete. LOUISIANA. neering assistance to non-Federal interests for SEC. 3068. LAND EXCHANGE, PIKE COUNTY, MIS- (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environ- developing and implementing activities con- SOURI. mental enhancement, Mississippi and Louisiana sistent with the management plan; (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: ‘‘(C) plan, design, and implement projects Estuarine Areas, Mississippi and Louisiana, au- (1) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘Federal land’’ consistent with the management plan; and thorized by section 3(a)(8) of the Water Re- means the 2 parcels of Corps of Engineers land ‘‘(D) provide, in coordination with the Admin- sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013) totaling approximately 42 acres, located on Buf- istrator of the Environmental Protection Agen- is modified to direct the Secretary to carry out falo Island in Pike County, Missouri, and con- cy, financial and technical assistance, including that portion of the project identified as the sisting of Government Tract Numbers MIS–7 and grants, to the State of Michigan (including po- ‘‘Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project’’, a portion of FM–46. litical subdivisions of the State) and interested in accordance with this section. (2) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘non-Fed- nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and (b) NON-FEDERAL FINANCING REQUIRE- eral land’’ means the approximately 42 acres of implementation of projects to restore, conserve, MENTS.— land, subject to any existing flowage easements manage, and sustain the St. Clair River, Lake (1) MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA.— situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream St. Clair, and associated watersheds. (A) IN GENERAL.—The States of Mississippi and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island ‘‘(2) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Financial and tech- and Louisiana shall provide the funds needed (also known as Grimes Island). nical assistance provided under subparagraphs during any fiscal year for meeting the respective (b) LAND EXCHANGE.—Subject to subsection (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) may be used in non-Federal cost sharing requirements of each (c), on conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United support of non-Federal activities consistent with State for the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diver- States of all right, title, and interest in and to the management plan. sion Project during that fiscal year by making the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall con- ‘‘(d) SUPPLEMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLAN AND deposits of the necessary funds into an escrow vey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title, and interest of STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—In con- account or into such other account as the Sec- the United States in and to the Federal land. sultation with the Partnership and after pro- retary determines to be acceptable. (c) CONDITIONS.— viding an opportunity for public review and (B) DEADLINE.—Any deposits required under (1) DEEDS.— comment, the Secretary shall develop informa- this paragraph shall be made by the affected (A) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of tion to supplement— State by not later than 30 days after receipt of the non-Federal land to the Secretary shall be ‘‘(1) the management plan; and notification from the Secretary that the amounts by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary. ‘‘(2) the strategic implementation plan devel- are due. (B) FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of the oped under subsection (c)(1)(A). (2) FAILURE TO PAY.— Federal land to S.S.S., Inc., shall be— (i) by quitclaim deed; and ‘‘(e) COST SHARING.— (A) LOUISIANA.—In the case of deposits re- (ii) subject to any reservations, terms, and ‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal quired to be made by the State of Louisiana, the conditions that the Secretary determines to be share of the cost of technical assistance, or the Secretary may not award any new contract or necessary to allow the United States to operate cost of planning, design, construction, and eval- proceed to the next phase of any feature being and maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navi- uation of a project under subsection (c), and the carried out in the State of Louisiana under sec- tion 1003 if the State of Louisiana is not in com- gation Project. cost of development of supplementary informa- (C) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—The Secretary pliance with paragraph (1). tion under subsection (d)— shall, subject to approval of S.S.S., Inc., provide (B) MISSISSIPPI.—In the case of deposits re- ‘‘(A) shall be 25 percent of the total cost of the a legal description of the Federal land and non- quired to be made by the State of Mississippi, project or development; and Federal land for inclusion in the deeds referred the Secretary may not award any new contract ‘‘(B) may be provided through the provision of to in subparagraphs (A) and (B). in-kind services. or proceed to the next phase of any feature (2) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.— ‘‘(2) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND being carried out as a part of the Bonnet Carre (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may require RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The Secretary shall credit the Freshwater Diversion Project if the State of Mis- the removal of, or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily non-Federal sponsor for the value of any land, sissippi is not in compliance with paragraph (1). remove, any improvements to the non-Federal easements, rights-of-way, dredged material dis- (3) ALLOCATION.—The non-Federal share of land before the completion of the exchange or as posal areas, or relocations provided for use in project costs shall be allocated between the a condition of the exchange. carrying out a project under subsection (c). States of Mississippi and Louisiana as described (B) NO LIABILITY.—If S.S.S., Inc., removes ‘‘(3) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding in the report to Congress on the status and po- any improvements to the non-Federal land section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 tential options and enhancement of the Bonnet under subparagraph (A)— U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal sponsor for any Carre Freshwater Diversion Project dated De- (i) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the project carried out under this section may in- cember 1996. United States relating to the removal; and clude a nonprofit entity. (4) EFFECT.—The modification of the Bonnet (ii) the United States shall not incur or be lia- ‘‘(4) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The op- Carre Freshwater Diversion Project by this sec- ble for any cost associated with the removal or eration, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, tion shall not reduce the percentage of the cost relocation of the improvements.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.074 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7881

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary (B) Indian tribes; costs incurred after the date of the enactment of shall require S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable ad- (C) conservation districts; and this Act that are associated with the restoration ministrative costs associated with the exchange. (D) the Yellowstone River Conservation Dis- projects; and (4) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT.—If the ap- trict Council; and (3) hold the United States harmless for any praised fair market value, as determined by the (2) seek the full participation of the State of claim of damage that arises from the negligence Secretary, of the Federal land exceeds the ap- Montana. of the Federal Government or a contractor of praised fair market value, as determined by the (d) COST SHARING.—Before carrying out any the Federal Government. Secretary, of the non-Federal land, S.S.S., Inc., restoration project under this section, the Sec- (e) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Not with- shall make a cash equalization payment to the retary shall enter into an agreement with the standing section 221 of the Flood Control Act of United States. non-Federal interest for the restoration project 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal interest (5) DEADLINE.—The land exchange under sub- under which the non-Federal interest shall for any project carried out under this section section (b) shall be completed not later than 2 agree— may include a nonprofit entity, with the con- years after the date of enactment of this Act. (1) to provide 35 percent of the total cost of sent of the local government. SEC. 3069. L–15 LEVEE, MISSOURI. the restoration project, including necessary (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— The portion of the L–15 levee system that is land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and There is authorized to be appropriated under the jurisdiction of the Consolidated North disposal sites; $25,000,000 to carry out this section. (2) to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of County Levee District and situated along the SEC. 3076. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RES- feasibility studies and design during construc- right descending bank of the Mississippi River TORATION, NEW YORK AND CON- tion following execution of a project cooperation from the confluence of that river with the Mis- NECTICUT. agreement; souri River and running upstream approxi- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall plan, (3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, main- mately 14 miles shall be considered to be a Fed- design, and construct projects to increase aquat- tenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation eral levee for purposes of cost sharing under sec- ic habitats within Long Island Sound and adja- costs incurred after the date of enactment of tion 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. cent waters, including the construction and res- this Act that are associated with the restoration 701n). toration of oyster beds and related shellfish project; and SEC. 3070. UNION LAKE, MISSOURI. habitat. (4) to hold the United States harmless for any (b) COST-SHARING.—The non-Federal share of (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall offer to claim of damage that arises from the negligence convey to the State of Missouri, before January the cost of activities carried out under this sec- of the Federal Government or a contractor of tion shall be 25 percent and may be provided 31, 2006, all right, title, and interest in and to the Federal Government in carrying out the res- approximately 205.50 acres of land described in through in-kind services and materials. toration project. (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— subsection (b) purchased for the Union Lake (e) FORM OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Not more There is authorized to be appropriated Project that was deauthorized as of January 1, than 50 percent of the non-Federal share of the $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 40906), in accordance with cost of a restoration project carried out under SEC. 3077. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK. section 1001 of the Water Resources Develop- this section may be provided in the form of in- ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)). kind credit for work performed during construc- Section 554 of the Water Resources Develop- (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land referred to tion of the restoration project. ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,200,000’’ and inserting in subsection (a) is described as follows: (f) NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwith- (1) TRACT 500.—A tract of land situated in standing section 221 of the Flood Control Act of ‘‘$18,200,000’’. Franklin County, Missouri, being part of the 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), with the consent of SEC. 3078. NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK, NEW SW1⁄4 of sec. 7, and the NW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of sec. the applicable local government, a nonprofit en- YORK. 8, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of the fifth principal merid- tity may be a non-Federal interest for a restora- Section 217 of the Water Resources Develop- ian, consisting of approximately 112.50 acres. tion project carried out under this section. ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended— (2) TRACT 605.—A tract of land situated in (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub- Franklin County, Missouri, being part of the There is authorized to be appropriated to carry section (d); N1⁄2 of the NE, and part of the SE of the NE of out this section $30,000,000. (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol- sec. 18, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of the fifth principal SEC. 3074. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN lowing: meridian, consisting of approximately 93.00 RANCH, NEVADA. ‘‘(c) DREDGED MATERIAL FACILITY.— acres. The maximum amount of Federal funds that ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter (c) CONVEYANCE.—On acceptance by the State may be expended for the project being carried into cost-sharing agreements with 1 or more of Missouri of the offer by the Secretary under out, as of the date of enactment of this Act, non-Federal public interests with respect to a subsection (a), the land described in subsection under section 1135 of the Water Resources De- project, or group of projects within a geographic (b) shall immediately be conveyed, in its current velopment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for envi- region, if appropriate, for the acquisition, de- condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri. ronmental restoration of McCarran Ranch, Ne- sign, construction, management, or operation of SEC. 3071. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MON- vada, shall be $5,775,000. a dredged material processing, treatment, con- TANA. taminant reduction, or disposal facility (includ- SEC. 3075. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, Section 325(f)(1)(A) of the Water Resources NEW MEXICO. ing any facility used to demonstrate potential Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607) is (a) RESTORATION PROJECTS.— beneficial uses of dredged material, which may amended by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting (1) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘restoration include effective sediment contaminant reduc- ‘‘$25,000,000’’. project’’ means a project that will produce, con- tion technologies) using funds provided in whole SEC. 3072. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MON- sistent with other Federal programs, projects, or in part by the Federal Government. TANA. and activities, immediate and substantial eco- ‘‘(2) PERFORMANCE.—One or more of the par- The Secretary may use funds appropriated to system restoration and recreation benefits. ties to the agreement may perform the acquisi- carry out the Missouri River recovery and miti- (2) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall carry out tion, design, construction, management, or oper- gation program to assist the Bureau of Reclama- restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande ation of a dredged material processing, treat- tion in the design and construction of the Lower from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant ment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facil- Yellowstone project of the Bureau, Intake, Mon- Butte Reservoir, in the State of New Mexico. ity. tana, for the purpose of ecosystem restoration. (b) PROJECT SELECTION.—The Secretary shall ‘‘(3) MULTIPLE FEDERAL PROJECTS.—If appro- SEC. 3073. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBU- select restoration projects in the Middle Rio priate, the Secretary may combine portions of TARIES, MONTANA AND NORTH DA- Grande. separate Federal projects with appropriate com- KOTA. (c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out bined cost-sharing between the various projects, (a) DEFINITION OF RESTORATION PROJECT.—In subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with, if the facility serves to manage dredged material this section, the term ‘‘restoration project’’ and consider the activities being carried out from multiple Federal projects located in the ge- means a project that will produce, in accordance by— ographic region of the facility. with other Federal programs, projects, and ac- (1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species ‘‘(4) PUBLIC FINANCING.— tivities, substantial ecosystem restoration and Act Collaborative Program; and ‘‘(A) AGREEMENTS.— related benefits, as determined by the Secretary. (2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Mid- ‘‘(i) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND (b) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall carry out, dle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative. COST SHARING.—The cost-sharing agreement in accordance with other Federal programs, (d) COST SHARING.—Before carrying out any used shall clearly specify— projects, and activities, restoration projects in restoration project under this section, the Sec- ‘‘(I) the Federal funding sources and com- the watershed of the Yellowstone River and trib- retary shall enter into an agreement with non- bined cost-sharing when applicable to multiple utaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to Federal interests that requires the non-Federal Federal navigation projects; and produce immediate and substantial ecosystem interests to— ‘‘(II) the responsibilities and risks of each of restoration and recreation benefits. (1) provide 35 percent of the total cost of the the parties related to present and future dredged (c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out restoration projects including provisions for nec- material managed by the facility. subsection (b), the Secretary shall— essary lands, easements, rights-of-way, reloca- ‘‘(ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.— (1) consult with, and consider the activities tions, and disposal sites; ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing agreement being carried out by— (2) pay 100 percent of the operation, mainte- may include the management of sediments from (A) other Federal agencies; nance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation the maintenance dredging of Federal navigation

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.074 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 projects that do not have partnerships agree- available storage in a balanced approach that thorized civil works project under the adminis- ments. incorporates advice from representatives from all trative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for ‘‘(II) PAYMENTS.—The cost-sharing agreement the project purposes to ensure that the full the purpose of demonstrating the benefits of en- may allow the non-Federal interest to receive re- value of the reservoir is realized by the United hanced recreation facilities and activities at imbursable payments from the Federal Govern- States. those lakes. ment for commitments made by the non-Federal (2) RECOGNITION OF PURPOSE.—To achieve the (b) REQUIREMENTS.—In implementing the pro- interest for disposal or placement capacity at goal described in paragraph (1), recreation is gram under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, dredged material treatment, processing, con- recognized as a project purpose at Lake consistent with authorized project purposes— taminant reduction, or disposal facilities. Eufaula, pursuant to the Act of December 22, (1) pursue strategies that will enhance, to the ‘‘(iii) CREDIT.—The cost-sharing agreement 1944 (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control maximum extent practicable, recreation experi- may allow costs incurred prior to execution of a Act of 1944’’) (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665). ences at the lakes included in the program; partnership agreement for construction or the (b) LAKE EUFAULA ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— (2) use creative management strategies that purchase of equipment or capacity for the (1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Fed- optimize recreational activities; and project to be credited according to existing cost- eral Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), (3) ensure continued public access to recre- sharing rules. the Secretary shall establish an advisory com- ation areas located on or associated with the ‘‘(B) CREDIT.— mittee for the Lake Eufaula, Canadian River, civil works project. (c) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 180 days after ‘‘(i) EFFECT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS.—Noth- Oklahoma project authorized by the Act of July ing in this subsection supersedes or modifies an 24, 1946 (commonly known as the ‘‘River and the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary agreement in effect on the date of enactment of Harbor Act of 1946’’) (Public Law 79–525; 60 shall issue guidelines for the implementation of this paragraph between the Federal Government Stat. 634). this section, to be developed in coordination and any other non-Federal interest for the cost- (2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the committee with the State of Oklahoma. shall be advisory only. (d) REPORT.— sharing, construction, and operation and main- (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after (3) DUTIES.—The committee shall provide in- tenance of a Federal navigation project. the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary formation and recommendations to the Corps of ‘‘(ii) CREDIT FOR FUNDS.—Subject to the ap- shall submit to the Committee on Environment Engineers regarding the operations of Lake proval of the Secretary and in accordance with and Public Works of the Senate and the Com- Eufaula for the project purposes for Lake law (including regulations and policies) in effect mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of Eufaula. on the date of enactment of this paragraph, a the House of Representatives a report describing non-Federal public interest of a Federal naviga- (4) COMPOSITION.—The Committee shall be composed of members that equally represent the the results of the program under subsection (a). tion project may seek credit for funds provided (2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph project purposes for Lake Eufaula. for the acquisition, design, construction, man- (1) shall include a description of the projects (c) REALLOCATION STUDY.— agement, or operation of a dredged material undertaken under the program, including— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the appropriation processing, treatment, or disposal facility to the (A) an estimate of the change in any related of funds, the Secretary, acting through the extent the facility is used to manage dredged recreational opportunities; material from the Federal navigation project. Chief of Engineers, shall perform a reallocation (B) a description of any leases entered into, ‘‘(iii) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST RESPONSIBIL- study, at full Federal expense, to develop and including the parties involved; and ITIES.—The non-Federal interest shall— present recommendations concerning the best (C) the financial conditions that the Corps of ‘‘(I) be responsible for providing all necessary value, while minimizing ecological damages, for Engineers used to justify those leases. land, easement rights-of-way, or relocations as- current and future use of the Lake Eufaula (3) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—The Secretary sociated with the facility; and storage capacity for the authorized project pur- shall make the report available to the public in ‘‘(II) receive credit for those items.’’; and poses of flood control, water supply, hydro- electronic and written formats. (3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection electric power, navigation, fish and wildlife, (e) TERMINATION.—The authority provided by (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))— and recreation. this section shall terminate on the date that is (A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after (2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—The re- 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act. ‘‘operation’’ each place it appears; and allocation study shall take into consideration SEC. 3086. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. (B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, or’’ the recommendations of the Lake Eufaula Advi- The remaining obligation of the Waurika after ‘‘dredged material’’ the first place it ap- sory Committee. Project Master Conservancy District payable to pears in each of those paragraphs. (d) POOL MANAGEMENT PLAN.— the United States Government in the amounts, (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 360 days after SEC. 3079. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, rates of interest, and payment schedules— NORTH DAKOTA. the date of enactment of this Act, to the extent (1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Act of feasible within available project funds and sub- payment schedules that existed on June 3, 1986; 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sen- ject to the completion and approval of the re- and tence by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and all that fol- allocation study under subsection (c), the Tulsa (2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed lows through ‘‘2005’’ and inserting District Engineer, taking into consideration rec- without a specific, separate, and written agree- ‘‘$25,000,000’’. ommendations of the Lake Eufaula Advisory ment between the District and the United Committee, shall develop an interim manage- States. SEC. 3080. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO. ment plan that accommodates all project pur- SEC. 3087. LOOKOUT POINT PROJECT, LOWELL, poses for Lake Eufaula. Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Develop- OREGON. (2) MODIFICATIONS.—A modification of the ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended— (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (c), the plan under paragraph (1) shall not cause sig- (1) by striking ‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting Secretary shall convey at fair market value to nificant adverse impacts on any existing permit, ‘‘$5,500,000’’; and the Lowell School District No. 71, all right, title, lease, license, contract, public law, or project (2) by adding before the period at the end the and interest of the United States in and to a purpose, including flood control operation, re- following: ‘‘(which repair and rehabilitation parcel consisting of approximately 0.98 acres of lating to Lake Eufaula. shall include lowering the crest of the Dam by land, including 3 abandoned buildings on the not more than 12.5 feet)’’. SEC. 3084. RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, IN- land, located in Lowell, Oregon, as described in TERESTS, AND RESERVATIONS, subsection (b). SEC. 3081. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION OKLAHOMA. (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The parcel of PROJECT, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, (a) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, OHIO. land to be conveyed under subsection (a) is more AND RESERVATIONS.—Each reversionary interest particularly described as follows: Commencing Increased operation and maintenance activi- and use restriction relating to public parks and at the point of intersection of the west line of ties for the Toussaint River Federal Navigation recreation on the land conveyed by the Sec- Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of the Project, Carroll Township, Ohio, that are car- retary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addi- ried out in accordance with section 107 of the pursuant to the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to author- tion to Lowell, as platted and recorded on page River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and ize the sale of certain lands to the State of Okla- 56 of volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat relate directly to the presence of unexploded homa’’ (67 Stat. 62, chapter 118) is terminated. Records; thence north on the west line of Pio- ordnance, shall be carried out at full Federal (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as neer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true expense. practicable after the date of enactment of this point of beginning of this description; thence SEC. 3082. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. Act, the Secretary shall execute and file in the north on the west line of Pioneer Street a dis- Payments made by the city of Edmond, Okla- appropriate office a deed of release, an amended tance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to homa, to the Secretary in October 1999 of all deed, or another appropriate instrument to re- the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of costs associated with present and future water lease each interest and use restriction described 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west storage costs at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under in subsection (a). line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number SEC. 3085. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION and thence east 250.0 feet to the true point of DACW56–79–C–0072 shall satisfy the obligations PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA. beginning of this description in sec. 14, T. 19 S., of the city under that contract. (a) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.—Not later R. 1 W. of the Willamette Meridian, Lane Coun- SEC. 3083. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA. than 1 year after the date of enactment of this ty, Oregon. (a) PROJECT GOAL.— Act, the Secretary shall implement an innova- (c) CONDITION.—The Secretary shall not com- (1) IN GENERAL.—The goal for operation of tive program at the lakes located primarily in plete the conveyance under subsection (a) until Lake Eufaula shall be to maximize the use of the State of Oklahoma that are a part of an au- such time as the Forest Service—

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.074 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7883 (1) completes and certifies that necessary envi- proximately 8 acres, together with any improve- Carolina Department of Commerce for public ronmental remediation associated with the ments on that property, in as-is condition, for recreation purposes for the Richard B. Russell structures located on the property is complete; public ownership and use as the site of the ad- Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project author- and ministrative offices and road maintenance com- ized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of (2) transfers the structures to the Corps of En- plex for the Township. 1966 (80 Stat. 1420). gineers. (b) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.— (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.— (d) EFFECT OF OTHER LAW.— The exact acreage and the legal description of (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) (1) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING the real property described in subsection (a) and (3), the parcels of land referred to in sub- PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United shall be determined by a survey that is satisfac- section (a) are the parcels contained in the por- States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance tory to the Secretary. tion of land described in Army Lease Number under this section. (c) RESERVATION OF INTERESTS.—The Sec- DACW21–1–92–0500. (2) LIABILITY.— retary shall reserve such rights and interests in (2) RETENTION OF INTERESTS.—The United (A) IN GENERAL.—Lowell School District No, and to the property to be conveyed as the Sec- States shall retain— 71 shall hold the United States harmless from retary considers necessary to preserve the oper- (A) ownership of all land included in the lease any liability with respect to activities carried ational integrity and security of the Tioga-Ham- referred to in paragraph (1) that would have out on the property described in subsection (b) mond Lakes Flood Control Project. been acquired for operational purposes in ac- on or after the date of the conveyance under (d) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines cordance with the 1971 implementation of the subsection (a). that the property conveyed under subsection (a) 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition Policy; and (B) CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.—The United States ceases to be held in public ownership, or to be (B) such other land as is determined by the shall be liable with respect to any activity car- used as a site for the Tioga Township adminis- Secretary to be required for authorized project ried out on the property described in subsection trative offices and road maintenance complex or purposes, including easement rights-of-way to (b) before the date of conveyance under sub- for related public purposes, all right, title, and remaining Federal land. section (a). interest in and to the property shall revert to (3) SURVEY.—The exact acreage and legal de- SEC. 3088. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER- the United States, at the option of the United scription of the land described in paragraph (1) SHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. States. shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of the survey to be (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct SEC. 3090. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, studies and ecosystem restoration projects for PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK. paid by the State. (c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.— the upper Willamette River watershed from Al- Section 567 of the Water Resources Develop- (1) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING bany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the Willam- ment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended— PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United ette River and tributaries. (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance (b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry following: under this section. out ecosystem restoration projects under this ‘‘(c) COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.— (2) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The section for the Upper Willamette River water- ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the study Secretary may require that the conveyance shed in consultation with the Governor of the and implementing the strategy under this sec- under this section be subject to such additional State of Oregon, the heads of appropriate In- tion, the Secretary shall enter into cost-sharing terms and conditions as the Secretary considers dian tribes, the Environmental Protection Agen- and project cooperation agreements with the appropriate to protect the interests of the United cy, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Government, State and local govern- States. the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bu- ments (with the consent of the State and local (3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.— reau of Land Management, the Forest Service, governments), land trusts, or nonprofit, non- (A) IN GENERAL.—The State shall be respon- and local entities. governmental organizations with expertise in sible for all costs, including real estate trans- (c) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out wetland restoration. action and environmental compliance costs, as- ecosystem restoration projects under this sec- ‘‘(2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—Under the co- sociated with the conveyance under this section. tion, the Secretary shall undertake activities operation agreement, the Secretary may provide (B) FORM OF CONTRIBUTION.—As determined necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish assistance for implementation of wetland res- appropriate by the Secretary, in lieu of payment and wildlife habitat. toration projects and soil and water conserva- of compensation to the United States under sub- (d) COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS.— tion measures.’’; and paragraph (A), the State may perform certain (1) STUDIES.—Studies conducted under this (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the environmental or real estate actions associated section shall be subject to cost sharing in ac- following: with the conveyance under this section if those cordance with section 206 of the Water Re- ‘‘(d) IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY.— actions are performed in close coordination sources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry with, and to the satisfaction of, the United 2330). out the development, demonstration, and imple- States. (2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.— mentation of the strategy under this section in (4) LIABILITY.—The State shall hold the (A) IN GENERAL.—Non-Federal interests shall cooperation with local landowners, local gov- United States harmless from any liability with pay 35 percent of the cost of any ecosystem res- ernment officials, and land trusts. respect to activities carried out, on or after the toration project carried out under this section. ‘‘(2) GOALS OF PROJECTS.—Projects to imple- date of the conveyance, on the real property (B) ITEMS PROVIDED BY NON-FEDERAL INTER- ment the strategy under this subsection shall be conveyed under this section. ESTS.— designed to take advantage of ongoing or (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Non-Federal interests shall planned actions by other agencies, local munici- (1) IN GENERAL.—The State shall pay fair mar- provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, palities, or nonprofit, nongovernmental organi- ket value consideration, as determined by the dredged material disposal areas, and relocations zations with expertise in wetland restoration United States, for any land included in the con- necessary for ecosystem restoration projects to that would increase the effectiveness or decrease veyance under this section. be carried out under this section. the overall cost of implementing recommended (2) NO EFFECT ON SHORE MANAGEMENT POL- (ii) CREDIT TOWARD PAYMENT.—The value of projects.’’. ICY.—The Shoreline Management Policy (ER– the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged ma- SEC. 3091. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND. 1130–2–406) of the Corps of Engineers shall not terial disposal areas, and relocations provided The Secretary may use amounts in the Envi- be changed or altered for any proposed develop- under paragraph (1) shall be credited toward ronmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used ment of land conveyed under this section. the payment required under subsection (a). Defense Sites, under section 2703(a)(5) of title (3) FEDERAL STATUTES.—The conveyance (C) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—100 percent of 10, United States Code, for the removal of aban- under this section shall be subject to the Na- the non-Federal share required under subsection doned marine camels at any Formerly Used De- tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 (a) may be satisfied by the provision of in-kind fense Site under the jurisdiction of the Depart- U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (including public review contributions. ment of Defense that is undergoing (or is sched- under that Act) and other Federal statutes. (3) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.—Non-Fed- uled to undergo) environmental remediation (4) COST SHARING.—In carrying out the con- eral interests shall be responsible for all costs under chapter 160 of title 10, United States Code veyance under this section, the Secretary and associated with operating, maintaining, replac- (and other provisions of law), in Narragansett the State shall comply with all obligations of ing, repairing, and rehabilitating all projects Bay, Rhode Island, in accordance with the any cost sharing agreement between the Sec- carried out under this section. Corps of Engineers prioritization process under retary and the State in effect as of the date of (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— the Formerly Used Defense Sites program. the conveyance. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (5) LAND NOT CONVEYED.—The State shall con- out this section $15,000,000. SEC. 3092. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEVELOPMENT PRO- tinue to manage the land not conveyed under SEC. 3089. TIOGA TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA. POSAL AT RICHARD B. RUSSELL this section in accordance with the terms and (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey LAKE, SOUTH CAROLINA. conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21–1– to the Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, at fair (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey 92–0500. market value, all right, title, and interest in and to the State of South Carolina, by quitclaim SEC. 3093. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, to the parcel of real property located on the deed, all right, title, and interest of the United SOUTH DAKOTA. northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of the States in and to the parcels of land described in (a) MEMBERSHIP.—Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Floods Control Project, subsection (b)(1) that are managed, as of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Tioga County, Pennsylvania, consisting of ap- date of enactment of this Act, by the South Stat. 2708) is amended—

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.074 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 (1) in clause (vii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the section 401 of the Water Resources Development 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. end; Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and modified by the 1818), is modified to provide that— (2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); section 334 of the Water Resources Development (1) all project costs incurred as a result of the and Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to au- discovery of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of (3) by inserting after clause (vii) the fol- thorize the Secretary— the Corps of Engineers are a Federal responsi- lowing: (1) to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the bility; and ‘‘(viii) rural water systems; and’’. weir originally constructed in the vicinity of the (2) the Secretary shall not seek further obliga- (b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 907(a) of the mouth of Nonconnah Creek; and tion or responsibility for removal of the vessel Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 (2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in COMSTOCK, or costs associated with a delay Stat. 2712) is amended in the first sentence by the future so that the weir functions properly. due to the discovery of the sunken vessel COM- striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. SEC. 3098. OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUM- STOCK, from the Port of Freeport. SEC. 3094. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI BERLAND RIVER, TENNESSEE. (b) COST SHARING.—This section does not af- RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. (a) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, fect the authorized cost sharing for the balance Section 514 of the Water Resources Develop- RESERVATIONS.—With respect to land conveyed of the project described in subsection (a). ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is by the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of SEC. 3103. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. amended— Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Devel- (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as (commonly known as ‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’) opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) subsections (h) and (i), respectively; at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland (2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by para- is amended— River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the Flood graph (1)), by striking paragraph (1) and insert- (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), the rever- ing the following: end; sionary interests and the use restrictions relat- ‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of ing to recreation and camping purposes are ex- the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and the cost of projects may be provided— tinguished. (3) by adding the following: (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as ‘‘(i) in cash; ‘‘(5) the project for flood control, Upper White practicable after the date of enactment of this ‘‘(ii) by the provision of land, easements, Oak Bayou, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) Act, the Secretary shall execute and file in the rights-of-way, relocations, or disposal areas; of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 ‘‘(iii) by in-kind services to implement the appropriate office a deed of release, amended (100 Stat. 4125).’’. project; or deed, or other appropriate instrument effec- ‘‘(iv) by any combination of the foregoing. tuating the release of interests required by sub- SEC. 3104. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, ‘‘(B) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.—Land needed for a section (a). VERMONT. project under this authority may remain in pri- (c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Con- vate ownership subject to easements that are— this section affects any remaining right or inter- trol Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), with re- ‘‘(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and est of the Corps of Engineers with respect to an spect to the study entitled ‘‘Connecticut River ‘‘(ii) necessary to assure achievement of the authorized purpose of any project. Restoration Authority’’, dated May 23, 2001, a project purposes.’’; SEC. 3099. SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TEN- nonprofit entity may act as the non-Federal in- (3) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by para- NESSEE. terest for purposes of carrying out the activities graph (1)), by striking ‘‘for the period of fiscal (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry described in the agreement executed between years 2000 and 2001.’’ and inserting ‘‘per year, out a project for flood damage reduction under The Nature Conservancy and the Department of and that authority shall extend until Federal section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 the Army on August 5, 2005. fiscal year 2015.’’; and U.S.C. 701s) at Sandy Creek, Jackson County, SEC. 3105. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT. (4) by inserting after subsection (e) the fol- Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that the Section 543 of the Water Resources Develop- lowing: project is technically sound, environmentally ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2673) is amended— ‘‘(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 acceptable, and economically justified. (1) in subsection (a)— (b) RELATIONSHIP TO WEST TENNESSEE TRIBU- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any project under- TARIES PROJECT, TENNESSEE.—Consistent with end; taken under this section, a non-Federal interest the report of the Chief of Engineers dated (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at may include a regional or national nonprofit March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee Tribu- the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and entity with the consent of the affected local gov- taries project— (C) by adding at the end the following: ernment. (1) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be ‘‘(g) COST LIMITATION.—Not more than ‘‘(4) may carry out measures to restore, pro- an authorized channel of the West Tennessee $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted tect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by a Tributaries Project; and dam described in subsection (b).’’; and under this section for a project at any single lo- (2) the Sandy Creek flood damage reduction cality.’’ (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the project shall not be considered to be part of the following: SEC. 3095. ANDERSON CREEK, JACKSON AND West Tennessee Tributaries Project. MADISON COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. ‘‘(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick. SEC. 3100. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry ‘‘(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly. out a project for flood damage reduction under Section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources De- ‘‘(13) Curtis Pond, Calais. section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 velopment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended ‘‘(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield. U.S.C. 701s) at Anderson Creek, Jackson and by striking ‘‘except that the project is author- ‘‘(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury. Madison Counties, Tennessee, if the Secretary ized only for construction of a navigation chan- ‘‘(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall. determines that the project is technically sound, nel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide’’ and inserting ‘‘(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam. environmentally acceptable, and economically ‘‘except that the project is authorized for con- ‘‘(18) Lake Fairlee. justified. struction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet ‘‘(19) West Charleston Dam.’’. (b) RELATIONSHIP TO WEST TENNESSEE TRIBU- deep by 100 feet wide’’. SEC. 3106. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, TARIES PROJECT, TENNESSEE.—Consistent with SEC. 3101. DENISON, TEXAS. WATER CHESTNUT, AND OTHER NON- the report of the Chief of Engineers dated (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may offer to NATIVE PLANT CONTROL, VERMONT. March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee Tribu- convey at fair market value to the city of Under authority of section 104 of the River taries project— Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city), all and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Sec- (1) Anderson Creek shall not be considered to right, title, and interest of the United States in retary shall revise the existing General Design be an authorized channel of the West Tennessee and to the approximately 900 acres of land lo- Memorandum to permit the use of chemical Tributaries Project; and cated in Grayson County, Texas, which is cur- means of control, when appropriate, of Eur- (2) the Anderson Creek flood damage reduc- rently subject to an Application for Lease for asian milfoil, water chestnuts, and other non- tion project shall not be considered to be part of Public Park and Recreational Purposes made by native plants in the Lake Champlain basin, the West Tennessee Tributaries Project. the city of Denison, dated August 17, 2005. Vermont. SEC. 3096. HARRIS FORK CREEK, TENNESSEE AND (b) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.— SEC. 3107. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN KENTUCKY. The exact acreage and description of the real WETLAND RESTORATION, VERMONT Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the property referred to in subsection (a) shall be AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 determined by a survey paid for by the city of (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera- U.S.C. 579a), the project for flood control, Har- Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city), that tion with the States of Vermont and New Hamp- ris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, au- is satisfactory to the Secretary. shire, shall carry out a study and develop a thorized by section 102 of the Water Resources (c) CONVEYANCE.—On acceptance by the city strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c note; 90 of Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city), of and water conservation practices, and non- Stat. 2920) shall remain authorized to be carried an offer under subsection (a), the Secretary may structural measures to reduce flood damage, im- out by the Secretary for a period of 7 years be- immediately convey the land surveyed under prove water quality, and create wildlife habitat ginning on the date of enactment of this Act. subsection (b) by quitclaim deed to the city of in the Upper Connecticut River watershed. SEC. 3097. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TEN- Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city). (b) COST SHARING.— NESSEE. SEC. 3102. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS. (1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the The project for flood control, Nonconnah (a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, cost of the study and development of the strat- Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by section egy under subsection (a) shall be 65 percent.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.074 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7885

(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal (c) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the ‘‘(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster share of the cost of the study and development cost of any project carried out under this section hatcheries; and of the strategy may be provided through the shall not be less than 65 percent. ‘‘(v) activities relating to increasing the out- contribution of in-kind services and materials. (d) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—A nonprofit or- put of native oyster broodstock for seeding and (c) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—A nonprofit or- ganization may serve as the non-Federal inter- monitoring of restored sites to ensure ecological ganization with wetland restoration experience est for a project carried out under this section. success. may serve as the non-Federal interest for the (e) CREDITING.— ‘‘(3) RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION AC- study and development of the strategy under (1) FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall provide TIVITIES.—The restoration and rehabilitation this section. credit, including credit for in-kind contributions activities described in paragraph (2)(D) shall (d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In con- of up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share, be— ducting the study and developing the strategy for work (including design work and materials) ‘‘(A) for the purpose of establishing perma- under this section, the Secretary may enter into if the Secretary determines that the work per- nent sanctuaries and harvest management 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide formed by the non-Federal interest is integral to areas; and technical assistance to appropriate Federal, the product. ‘‘(B) consistent with plans and strategies for State, and local agencies and nonprofit organi- (2) FOR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Fed- guiding the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay zations with wetland restoration experience, in- eral interest shall receive credit for land, ease- oyster resource and fishery.’’; and cluding assistance for the implementation of ments, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal (4) by adding at the end the following: wetland restoration projects and soil and water areas, and relocations necessary to implement ‘‘(5) DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS.—In conservation measures. the projects. this subsection, the term ‘ecological success’ (e) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall (f) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying means— carry out development and implementation of out this section, the Secretary may enter into 1 ‘‘(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native the strategy under this section in cooperation or more cooperative agreements to provide fi- oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994 with local landowners and local government of- nancial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, baseline; and ficials. or local governments or nonprofit agencies, in- ‘‘(B) the establishment of a sustainable fish- (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— cluding assistance for the implementation of ery as determined by a broad scientific and eco- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry projects to be carried out under subsection (b). nomic consensus.’’. out this section $5,000,000, to remain available (g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— SEC. 3111. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA. until expended. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Devel- SEC. 3108. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN out this section $20,000,000, to remain available opment Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, until expended. by striking ‘‘at a total cost of $1,200,000, with an VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. SEC. 3109. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and an esti- (a) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOP- VERMONT AND NEW YORK. mated non-Federal cost of $300,000.’’ and insert- MENT.— Section 542 of the Water Resources Develop- ing ‘‘at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an esti- (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera- ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671) is amended— mated Federal cost of $2,400,000 and an esti- tion with the Secretary of Agriculture and in (1) in subsection (b)(2)— mated non-Federal cost of $600,000.’’. (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘or’’ at consultation with the States of Vermont and SEC. 3112. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint the end; WAHKIAKUM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as sub- Commission, shall conduct a study and develop (a) IN GENERAL.—The Lower Columbia River a general management plan for ecosystem res- paragraph (G); and levees and bank protection works authorized by (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the toration of the Upper Connecticut River eco- section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 following: system for the purposes of— Stat. 178) is modified with regard to the ‘‘(E) river corridor assessment, protection, (A) habitat protection and restoration; Wahkiakum County diking districts No. 1 and 3, management, and restoration for the purposes of (B) streambank stabilization; but without regard to any cost ceiling author- ecosystem restoration; (C) restoration of stream stability; ized before the date of enactment of this Act, to ‘‘(F) geographic mapping conducted by the (D) water quality improvement; direct the Secretary to provide a 1-time place- (E) invasive species control; Secretary using existing technical capacity to ment of dredged material along portions of the (F) wetland restoration; produce a high-resolution, multispectral satellite Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, (G) fish passage; and imagery-based land use and cover data set; or’’; Washington, between river miles 38 to 47, and (H) natural flow restoration. (2) in subsection (e)(2)— the shoreline of Westport Beach, Clatsop Coun- (2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the gen- (A) in subparagraph (A)— ty, Oregon, between river miles 43 to 45, to pro- eral management plan, the Secretary shall de- (i) by striking ‘‘The non-Federal’’ and insert- tect economic and environmental resources in pend heavily on existing plans for the restora- ing the following: the area from further erosion. tion of the Upper Connecticut River. ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal’’; and (b) COORDINATION AND COST-SHARING RE- (b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (ii) by adding at the end the following: QUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall carry out (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may partici- ‘‘(ii) APPROVAL OF DISTRICT ENGINEER.—Ap- pate in any critical restoration project in the proval of credit for design work of less than subsection (a)— Upper Connecticut River Basin in accordance $100,000 shall be determined by the appropriate (1) in coordination with appropriate resource with the general management plan developed district engineer.’’; and agencies; under subsection (a). (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘up to 50 (2) in accordance with all applicable Federal law (including regulations); and (2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration percent of’’; and project shall be eligible for assistance under this (3) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ (3) at full Federal expense. UTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— section if the project— and inserting ‘‘$32,000,000’’. (c) A There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (A) meets the purposes described in the gen- SEC. 3110. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORA- eral management plan developed under sub- TION, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND. out this section $1,000,000. section (a); and Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Devel- SEC. 3113. LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON. (B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amend- (a) EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTER- River and Upper Connecticut River watershed, ed— ESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS.—With respect to consists of— (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para- property covered by each deed described in sub- (i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tribu- graph (4); section (b)— taries, and streams; (2) in paragraph (1)— (1) the reversionary interests and use restric- (ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird (A) in the second sentence, by striking tions relating to port or industrial purposes are habitat restoration; ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and extinguished; (iii) soil and water conservation; (B) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘Such (2) the human habitation or other building (iv) restoration of natural flows; projects’’ and inserting the following: structure use restriction is extinguished in each (v) restoration of stream stability; ‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—Such projects’’; area in which the elevation is above the stand- (vi) implementation of an intergovernmental (3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesig- ard project flood elevation; and agreement for coordinating ecosystem restora- nated by paragraph (2)(B)) and inserting the (3) the use of fill material to raise low areas tion, fish passage installation, streambank sta- following: above the standard project flood elevation is au- bilization, wetland restoration, habitat protec- ‘‘(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of thorized, except in any low area constituting tion and restoration, or natural flow restora- habitat for fish, including native oysters, in the wetland for which a permit under section 404 of tion; Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in Virginia the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 (vii) water quality improvement; and Maryland, including— U.S.C. 1344) would be required for the use of fill (viii) invasive species control; ‘‘(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs; material. (ix) wetland restoration and migratory bird ‘‘(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal (b) DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in sub- habitat restoration; habitat; section (a) are as follows: (x) improvements in fish migration; and ‘‘(iii) the use of appropriate alternative sub- (1) Auditor’s File Numbers 432576, 443411, (xi) conduct of any other project or activity strate material in oyster bar and reef construc- 499988, and 579771 of Whitman County, Wash- determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. tion; ington.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 (2) Auditor’s File Numbers 125806, 138801, continue operation of the Madame Dorian (3) by adding at the end the following: 147888, 154511, 156928, and 176360 of Asotin Recreation Area for public use and boater ac- ‘‘(24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility County, Washington. cess. Project (County Grounds), Milwaukee County, (c) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in (e) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The United Wisconsin.’’. this section affects any remaining rights and in- States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be respon- SEC. 3121. OCONTO HARBOR, WISCONSIN. terests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized sible for all survey, environmental compliance, (a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project project purposes in or to property covered by a and other administrative costs required to imple- for navigation, Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, au- deed described in subsection (b). ment the transfer of administrative jurisdiction thorized by the Act of August 2, 1882 (22 Stat. SEC. 3114. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NA- under subsection (a). 196, chapter 375), and the Act of June 25, 1910 TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, WASH- SEC. 3115. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON (36 Stat. 664, chapter 382) (commonly known as INGTON AND IDAHO. AND IDAHO. the ‘‘River and Harbor Act of 1910’’), consisting (a) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDIC- The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for of a 15-foot-deep turning basin in the Oconto TION.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land the Lower Snake River, Washington and Idaho, River, as described in subsection (b), is no acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam Project as authorized by section 101 of the Water Re- longer authorized. and managed by the United States Fish and sources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), (b) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—The project re- Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement is amended to authorize the Secretary to con- ferred to in subsection (a) is more particularly Number DACW68–4–00–13 with the Corps of En- duct studies and implement aquatic and ripar- described as— gineers, Walla Walla District, is transferred ian ecosystem restorations and improvements (1) beginning at a point along the western from the Secretary to the Secretary of the Inte- specifically for fisheries and wildlife. limit of the existing project, N. 394,086.71, E. rior. SEC. 3116. WHATCOM CREEK WATERWAY, BEL- 2,530,202.71; (b) EASEMENTS.—The transfer of administra- LINGHAM, WASHINGTON. (2) thence northeasterly about 619.93 feet to a tive jurisdiction under subsection (a) shall be That portion of the project for navigation, point N. 394,459.10, E. 2,530,698.33; subject to easements in existence as of the date Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Wash- (3) thence southeasterly about 186.06 feet to a of enactment of this Act on land subject to the ington, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 point N. 394,299.20, E. 2,530,793.47; transfer. (36 Stat. 664, chapter 382) (commonly known as (4) thence southwesterly about 355.07 feet to a (c) RIGHTS OF SECRETARY.— the ‘‘River and Harbor Act of 1910’’) and the point N. 393,967.13, E. 2,530,667.76; (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para- River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), con- (5) thence southwesterly about 304.10 feet to a graph (3), the Secretary shall retain rights de- sisting of the last 2,900 linear feet of the inner point N. 393,826.90, E. 2,530,397.92; and scribed in paragraph (2) with respect to the land portion of the waterway, and beginning at sta- (6) thence northwesterly about 324.97 feet to for which administrative jurisdiction is trans- tion 29+00 to station 0+00, shall not be author- the point of origin. ferred under subsection (a). ized as of the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 3122. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RES- (2) RIGHTS.—The rights of the Secretary re- SEC. 3117. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIR- ERVOIRS. ferred to in paragraph (1) are the rights— GINIA. Section 21 of the Water Resources Develop- (A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to The project for flood control at Milton, West ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027) is amended— the standard project flood elevation; Virginia, authorized by section 580 of the Water (1) in subsection (a)— (B) to manipulate the level of the McNary Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. (A) by striking ‘‘1276.42’’ and inserting Project Pool; 3790), as modified by section 340 of the Water ‘‘1278.42’’; (C) to access such land described in subsection Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. (B) by striking ‘‘1218.31’’ and inserting (a) as may be required to install, maintain, and 2612), is modified to authorize the Secretary to ‘‘1221.31’’; and inspect sediment ranges and carry out similar construct the project substantially in accord- (C) by striking ‘‘1234.82’’ and inserting activities; ance with the draft report of the Corps of Engi- ‘‘1235.30’’; and (D) to construct and develop wetland, ripar- neers dated May 2004, at an estimated total cost (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the ian habitat, or other environmental restoration of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of following: features authorized by section 1135 of the Water $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.— Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. $11,375,000. ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources SEC. 3118. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. above the maximum water levels established Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330); (a) IN GENERAL.—The McDowell County non- under subsection (a) in accordance with water (E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and structural component of the project for flood control regulation manuals (or revisions to those (F) to carry out management actions for the control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy manuals) developed by the Secretary, after con- purpose of reducing the take of juvenile and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Vir- sultation with the Governor of Minnesota and salmonids by avian colonies that inhabit, before, ginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section affected tribal governments, landowners, and on, or after the date of enactment of this Act, 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development commercial and recreational users. any island included in the land described in Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modi- ‘‘(2) EFFECTIVE DATE OF MANUALS.—The water subsection (a). fied to direct the Secretary to take measures to (3) COORDINATION.—Before exercising a right control regulation manuals referred to in para- provide protection, throughout McDowell Coun- described in any of subparagraphs (C) through graph (1) (and any revisions to those manuals) ty, West Virginia, from the reoccurrence of the (F) of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall coordi- shall be effective as of the date on which the greater of— nate the exercise with the United States Fish (1) the April 1977 flood; Secretary submits the manuals (or revisions) to and Wildlife Service. (2) the July 2001 flood; Congress. (d) MANAGEMENT.— (3) the May 2002 flood; or ‘‘(3) NOTIFICATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The land described in sub- (4) the 100-year frequency event. ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub- section (a) shall be managed by the Secretary of (b) UPDATES AND REVISIONS.—The measures paragraph (B), not less than 14 days before op- the Interior as part of the McNary National under subsection (a) shall be carried out in ac- erating any headwaters reservoir below the min- Wildlife Refuge. cordance with, and during the development of, imum or above the maximum water level limits (2) CUMMINS PROPERTY.— the updates and revisions under section specified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall (A) RETENTION OF CREDITS.—Habitat unit 2006(e)(2). submit to Congress a notice of intent to operate credits described in the memorandum entitled SEC. 3119. GREEN BAY HARBOR PROJECT, GREEN the headwaters reservoir. ‘‘Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER SNAKE BAY, WISCONSIN. ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Notice under subparagraph RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSA- The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal (A) shall not be required in any case in which— TION PLAN, Wildlife Compensation and Fish- navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor ‘‘(i) the operation of a headwaters reservoir is ing Access Site Selection, Letter Supplement No. project, authorized by the first section of the Act necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the the safety of a dam; or WALLULA HMU’’ provided for the Lower construction, repair, and preservation of certain ‘‘(ii) the drawdown of the water level of the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation public works on rivers and harbors, and for reservoir is in anticipation of a flood control op- Plan through development of the parcel of land other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1884 (com- eration.’’. formerly known as the ‘‘Cummins property’’ monly known as the ‘‘River and Harbor Act of SEC. 3123. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM shall be retained by the Secretary despite any 1884’’) (23 Stat. 136, chapter 229), from Station AND RIVERFRONT INTERPRETIVE changes in management of the parcel on or after 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to a width SITE. the date of enactment of this Act. of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet. Section 103(c)(2) of the Water Resources De- velopment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is amended (B) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The United SEC. 3120. UNDERWOOD CREEK DIVERSION FA- States Fish and Wildlife Service shall obtain CILITY PROJECT, MILWAUKEE COUN- by striking ‘‘property currently held by the Res- prior approval of the Washington State Depart- TY, WISCONSIN. olution Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the ment of Fish and Wildlife for any change to the Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Develop- Mississippi River Bridge’’ and inserting ‘‘river- previously approved site development plan for ment Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended— front property’’. the parcel of land formerly known as the (1) in paragraph (22), by striking ‘‘and’’ at SEC. 3124. PILOT PROGRAM, MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI ‘‘Cummins property’’. the end; RIVER. (3) MADAME DORIAN RECREATION AREA.—The (2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at (a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and project for navigation, Mississippi River between

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7887 the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating poses of the Missouri River Mainstem System as (iii) Federal asset management. Works), Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the authorized by section 10 of the Act of December (c) FEDERAL OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, chapter 382) 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ‘Flood Control Secretary may provide assistance for a project (commonly known as the ‘‘River and Harbor Act Act of 1944’) (58 Stat. 897).’’. under this section only if the project is federally of 1910’’), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. SEC. 3127. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECO- owned. 1010, chapter 47) (commonly known as the SYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM. (d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.— ‘‘River and Harbor Act of 1927’’), and the Act of (a) GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), the Secretary shall RESTORATION.—Section 506(c) of the Water Re- into local cooperation agreements with non-Fed- carry out over at least a 10-year period a pilot sources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. eral interests to provide for the design, construc- program to restore and protect fish and wildlife 1962d–22(c)) is amended— tion, installation, and operation of the projects habitat in the middle Mississippi River. (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as to be carried out under the program. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; (2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation (1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the pilot program (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol- agreement entered into under this subsection carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary lowing: shall include the following: LAN shall conduct any activities that are necessary ‘‘(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Before plan- (A) P .—Development by the Secretary, in to improve navigation through the project re- ning, designing, or constructing a project under consultation with appropriate Federal and State ferred to in subsection (a) while restoring and paragraph (3), the Secretary shall carry out a officials, of a navigation improvement project, protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the mid- reconnaissance study— including appropriate engineering plans and dle Mississippi River system. ‘‘(A) to identify methods of restoring the fish- specifications. (B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.— (2) INCLUSIONS.—Activities authorized under ery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great paragraph (1) shall include— Lakes; and Establishment of such legal and institutional (A) the modification of navigation training ‘‘(B) to determine whether planning of a structures as are necessary to ensure the effec- structures; project under paragraph (3) should proceed.’’; tive long-term operation of the project. (3) COST SHARING.—Total project costs under (B) the modification and creation of side and each local cooperation agreement shall be cost- channels; (3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by shared in accordance with the formula relating (C) the modification and creation of islands; paragraph (1)), by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and to the applicable original construction project. (D) any studies and analysis necessary to de- inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’. (4) EXPENDITURES.— velop adaptive management principles; and (b) COST SHARING.—Section 506(f) of the (A) IN GENERAL.—Expenditures under the pro- (E) the acquisition from willing sellers of any Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 gram may include, for establishment at feder- land associated with a riparian corridor needed U.S.C. 1962d–22(f)) is amended— ally-owned property, such as locks, dams, and (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through to carry out the goals of the pilot program. bridges— (c) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.—The cost- (5) as paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively; (i) transmitters; sharing requirement required under the Act of (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol- (ii) responders; June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, chapter 382) (com- lowing: (iii) hardware; monly known as the ‘‘River and Harbor Act of ‘‘(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Any recon- (iv) software; and 1910’’), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, naissance study under subsection (c)(2) shall be (v) wireless networks. chapter 47) (commonly known as the ‘‘River and carried out at full Federal expense.’’; (B) EXCLUSIONS.—Transmitters, responders, Harbor Act of 1927’’), and the Act of July 3, 1930 (3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by para- hardware, software, and wireless networks or (46 Stat. 918), for the project referred to in sub- graph (1)), by striking ‘‘(2) or (3)’’ and inserting other equipment installed on privately-owned section (a) shall apply to any activities carried ‘‘(3) or (4)’’; and vessels or equipment shall not be eligible under out under this section. (4) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by the program. SEC. 3125. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM EN- paragraph (1)), by striking ‘‘subsection (c)(2)’’ (e) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, VIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRO- and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(3)’’. 2007, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a GRAM. SEC. 3128. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION report on the results of the pilot program carried (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 221 PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDI- out under this section, together with rec- of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. ATION. ommendations concerning whether the program 1962d–5b), for any Upper Mississippi River fish Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Develop- or any component of the program should be im- and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhance- ment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 plemented on a national basis. ment project carried out under section 1103(e) of note) is amended by striking ‘‘through 2006’’ (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and inserting ‘‘through 2011’’. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry (33 U.S.C. 652(e)), with the consent of the af- SEC. 3129. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS. out this section $3,100,000, to remain available fected local government, a nongovernmental or- Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources De- until expended. ganization may be considered to be a non-Fed- velopment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is TITLE IV—STUDIES eral interest. amended by striking ‘‘through 2006’’ and insert- SEC. 4001. EURASIAN MILFOIL. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section ing ‘‘through 2011’’. Under the authority of section 104 of the River 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Develop- SEC. 3130. UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Sec- ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)) is NAVIGATION SYSTEM NEW TECH- retary shall carry out a study, at full Federal amended by inserting before the period at the NOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM. expense, to develop national protocols for the end the following: ‘‘, including research on (a) DEFINITION OF UPPER OHIO RIVER AND use of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for bio- water quality issues affecting the Mississippi TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM.—In this sec- logical control of Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of River, including elevated nutrient levels, and tion, the term ‘‘Upper Ohio River and Tribu- Vermont and other northern tier States. the development of remediation strategies’’. taries Navigation System’’ means the Allegheny, SEC. 4002. NATIONAL PORT STUDY. SEC. 3126. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER. Kanawha, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta- (a) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding the En- (b) ESTABLISHMENT.— tion with the Secretary of Transportation, shall ergy and Water Development Appropriations (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish conduct a study of the ability of coastal or deep- Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247), a pilot program to evaluate new technologies water port infrastructure to meet current and funds made available for recovery or mitigation applicable to the Upper Ohio River and Tribu- projected national economic needs. activities in the lower basin of the Missouri taries Navigation System. (b) COMPONENTS.—In conducting the study, River may be used for recovery or mitigation ac- (2) INCLUSIONS.—The program may include the Secretary shall— tivities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, the design, construction, or implementation of (1) consider— including the States of Montana, Nebraska, innovative technologies and solutions for the (A) the availability of alternate transpor- North Dakota, and South Dakota. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation tation destinations and modes; (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The matter System, including projects for— (B) the impact of larger cargo vessels on exist- under the heading ‘‘MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION, (A) improved navigation; ing port capacity; and MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA’’ of sec- (B) environmental stewardship; (C) practicable, cost-effective congestion man- tion 601(a) of the Water Resources Development (C) increased navigation reliability; and agement alternatives; and Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), as modified by sec- (D) reduced navigation costs. (2) give particular consideration to the bene- tion 334 of the Water Resources Development (3) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program fits and proximity of proposed and existing port, Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is amended by adding shall be, with respect to the Upper Ohio River harbor, waterway, and other transportation in- at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary may and Tributaries Navigation System— frastructure. carry out any recovery or mitigation activities (A) to increase the reliability and availability (c) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the in the upper basin of the Missouri River, includ- of federally-owned and federally-operated navi- date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary ing the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Da- gation facilities; shall submit to the Committee on Environment kota, and South Dakota, using funds made (B) to decrease system operational risks; and and Public Works of the Senate and the Com- available under this heading in accordance with (C) to improve— mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. (i) vessel traffic management; the House of Representatives a report that de- 1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project pur- (ii) access; and scribes the results of the study.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 SEC. 4003. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER port prepared by the city of St. Helena, Cali- (1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and NAVIGATION CHANNEL. fornia, and certified by the city to be in compli- (2) to determine whether specific selenium (a) IN GENERAL.—To determine with improved ance with the California Environmental Quality measures studied should be recommended for use accuracy the environmental impacts of the Act on February 24, 2004. in demonstration projects. project on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River (2) ACTION ON DETERMINATION.—If the Sec- (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— Navigation Channel (referred to in this section retary determines under paragraph (1) that the There is authorized to be appropriated to carry as the ‘‘MKARN’’), the Secretary shall carry project is economically justified, technically out this section $5,000,000. out the measures described in subsection (b) in sound, and environmentally acceptable, the Sec- SEC. 4013. PROMONTORY POINT THIRD-PARTY RE- a timely manner. retary is authorized to carry out the project at VIEW, CHICAGO SHORELINE, CHI- (b) SPECIES STUDY.— a total cost of $30,000,000, with an estimated CAGO, ILLINOIS. (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in conjunc- Federal cost of $19,500,000 and an estimated (a) REVIEW.— tion with Oklahoma State University, shall con- non-Federal cost of $10,500,000. (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized vene a panel of experts with acknowledged ex- (b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for the to conduct a third-party review of the Prom- pertise in wildlife biology and genetics to review project described in subsection (a) shall be in ac- ontory Point project along the Chicago Shore- the available scientific information regarding cordance with section 103 of the Water Re- line, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed the genetic variation of various sturgeon species sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. $450,000. and possible hybrids of those species that, as de- 2213). (2) JOINT REVIEW.—The Buffalo and Seattle termined by the United States Fish and Wildlife SEC. 4008. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO- Districts of the Corps of Engineers shall jointly Service, may exist in any portion of the SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, SHERMAN IS- conduct the review under paragraph (1). MKARN. LAND, CALIFORNIA. (3) STANDARDS.—The review shall be based on (2) REPORT.—The Secretary shall direct the The Secretary shall carry out a study of the the standards under part 68 of title 36, Code of panel to report to the Secretary, not later than feasibility of a project to use Sherman Island, Federal Regulations (or successor regulation), 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act California, as a dredged material rehandling fa- for implementation by the non-Federal sponsor and in the best scientific judgment of the cility for the beneficial use of dredged material for the Chicago Shoreline Chicago, Illinois, panel— to enhance the environment and meet other project. (A) the level of genetic variation between pop- water resource needs on the Sacramento-San (b) CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall ac- ulations of sturgeon sufficient to determine or Joaquin Delta, California, under section 204 of cept from a State or political subdivision of a establish that a population is a measurably dis- the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 State voluntarily contributed funds to initiate tinct species, subspecies, or population segment; (33 U.S.C. 2326). the third-party review. and SEC. 4009. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORE- (c) TREATMENT.—While the third-party review (B) whether any pallid sturgeons that may be LINE STUDY, CALIFORNIA. is of the Promontory Point portion of the Chi- found in the MKARN (including any tributary (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coopera- cago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, project, the of the MKARN) would qualify as such a distinct tion with non-Federal interests, shall conduct a third-party review shall be separate and distinct species, subspecies, or population segment. study of the feasibility of carrying out a project from the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, SEC. 4004. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION for— project. STUDY, CALIFORNIA. (1) flood protection of South San Francisco (d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this sec- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina- Bay shoreline; tion affects the authorization for the Chicago tion with the city of Los Angeles, shall— (2) restoration of the South San Francisco Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, project. (1) prepare a feasibility study for environ- Bay salt ponds (including on land owned by SEC. 4014. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA. mental ecosystem restoration, flood control, other Federal agencies); and The Secretary shall conduct a study to deter- recreation, and other aspects of Los Angeles (3) other related purposes, as the Secretary de- mine the feasibility of carrying out a project for River revitalization that is consistent with the termines to be appropriate. navigation improvement at Vidalia, Louisiana. goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization (b) INDEPENDENT REVIEW.—To the extent re- SEC. 4015. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN. Master Plan published by the city of Los Ange- quired by applicable Federal law, a national The Secretary shall study the feasibility of les; and science panel shall conduct an independent re- storm damage reduction and beach erosion pro- (2) consider any locally-preferred project al- view of the study under subsection (a). tection and other related purposes along Lake ternatives developed through a full and open (c) REPORT.— Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. evaluation process for inclusion in the study. (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after SEC. 4016. MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, (b) USE OF EXISTING INFORMATION AND MEAS- the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary MIDDLE BASS ISLAND, OHIO. URES.—In preparing the study under subsection shall submit to Congress a report describing the The Secretary shall carry out a study of the (a), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum ex- results of the study under subsection (a). feasibility of a project for navigation improve- tent practicable— (2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph ments, shoreline protection, and other related (1) information obtained from the Los Angeles (1) shall include recommendations of the Sec- purposes, including the rehabilitation the har- River Revitalization Master Plan; and retary with respect to the project described in bor basin (including entrance breakwaters), in- (2) the development process of that plan. subsection (a) based on planning, design, and terior shoreline protection, dredging, and the (c) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.— land acquisition documents prepared by— development of a public launch ramp facility, (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized (A) the California State Coastal Conservancy; for Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass to construct demonstration projects in order to (B) the Santa Clara Valley Water District; Island, Ohio. provide information to develop the study under and SEC. 4017. JASPER COUNTY PORT FACILITY subsection (a)(1). (C) other local interests. STUDY, SOUTH CAROLINA. (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the SEC. 4010. SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED RESTORA- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may deter- cost of any project under this subsection shall TION, CALIFORNIA. mine the feasibility of providing improvements be not more than 65 percent. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall com- to the Savannah River for navigation and re- (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— plete work as expeditiously as practicable on the lated purposes that may be necessary to support There is authorized to be appropriated to carry San Pablo watershed, California, study author- the location of container cargo and other port out this subsection $12,000,000. ized by section 209 of the Flood Control Act of facilities to be located in Jasper County, South SEC. 4005. NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, 1962 (76 Stat. 1196) to determine the feasibility of Carolina, near the vicinity of mile 6 of the Sa- CALIFORNIA. opportunities for restoring, preserving, and pro- vannah Harbor Entrance Channel. The Secretary shall carry out a study for tecting the San Pablo Bay Watershed. (b) CONSIDERATION.—In making a determina- bank stabilization and shore protection for (b) REPORT.—Not later than March 31, 2008, tion under subsection (a), the Secretary shall Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report take into consideration— under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 that describes the results of the study. (1) landside infrastructure; U.S.C. 426g). SEC. 4011. FOUNTAIN CREEK, NORTH OF PUEBLO, (2) the provision of any additional dredged SEC. 4006. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, SHORELINE COLORADO. material disposal area for maintenance of the SPECIAL STUDY. Subject to the availability of appropriations, ongoing Savannah Harbor Navigation project; Section 414 of the Water Resources Develop- the Secretary shall expedite the completion of and ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) is amended by the Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado, (3) the results of a consultation with the Gov- striking ‘‘32 months’’ and inserting ‘‘44 watershed study authorized by a resolution ernor of the State of Georgia and the Governor months’’. adopted by the House of Representatives on Sep- of the State of South Carolina. SEC. 4007. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION tember 23, 1976. SEC. 4018. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS. PROJECT, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA. SEC. 4012. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO. The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility (a) FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT.— (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consulta- study to determine the technical soundness, eco- (1) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review the tion with State water quality and resource and nomic feasibility, and environmental accept- project for flood control and environmental res- conservation agencies, shall conduct regional ability of the plan prepared by the city of Ar- toration at St. Helena, California, generally in and watershed-wide studies to address selenium lington, Texas, as generally described in the re- accordance with Enhanced Minimum Plan A, as concentrations in the State of Colorado, includ- port entitled ‘‘Johnson Creek: A Vision of Con- described in the final environmental impact re- ing studies— servation, Arlington, Texas’’, dated March 2006.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7889 SEC. 4019. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL STUDY, (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘(including (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)— VERMONT AND NEW YORK. monitoring)’’ after ‘‘services’’; (A) by inserting ‘‘and other information com- (a) DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.—The Sec- (4) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by inserting ‘‘long- piled under section 107’’ after ‘‘this title’’; and retary shall determine, at full Federal expense, term’’ before ‘‘maintenance’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. the feasibility of a dispersal barrier project at (5) in subsection (g)— (h) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—Section 110 of the the Lake Champlain Canal. (A) by striking ‘‘In carrying’’ and inserting Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) (b) CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPER- the following: is amended— ATION.—If the Secretary determines that the ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying’’; and (1) in subsection (b)(1)— project described in subsection (a) is feasible, (B) by adding at the end the following: (A) by inserting ‘‘or contracts’’ after ‘‘agree- the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and op- ‘‘(2) SMALL PROJECTS.— ments’’; and erate a dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain ‘‘(A) DEFINITION.—Small projects carried out (B) by inserting ‘‘, nongovernmental organiza- Canal at full Federal expense. under this Act shall have a Federal share of less tions,’’ after ‘‘agencies’’; and than $1,000,000. TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (2) by striking subsections (d) and (e). ‘‘(B) DELEGATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTA- SEC. 5001. LAKES PROGRAM. SEC. 5003. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, TION.—In carrying out this section, the Sec- DELAWARE AND MARYLAND. Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Devel- retary, on recommendation of the Council, shall (a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; consider delegating implementation of the small technical assistance to the Secretary of Agri- 113 Stat. 295) is amended— project to— (1) in paragraph (18), by striking ‘‘and’’ at culture for use in carrying out the Conservation ‘‘(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting Corridor Demonstration Program established the end; through the Director of the United States Fish (2) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Wildlife Service); and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 the end and inserting a semicolon; and ‘‘(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and At- (3) by adding at the end the following: note; 116 Stat. 275). mosphere of the Department of Commerce; (b) COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION.—In car- ‘‘(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, ‘‘(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental rying out water resources projects in the States removal of silt and aquatic growth and meas- Protection Agency; or on the Delmarva Peninsula, the Secretary shall ures to address excessive sedimentation; ‘‘(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture. coordinate and integrate those projects, to the ‘‘(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, re- ‘‘(C) FUNDING.—Small projects delegated to moval of silt and aquatic growth and measures another Federal department or agency may be maximum extent practicable, with any activities to address excessive sedimentation; funded from the responsible department or ap- carried out to implement a conservation corridor ‘‘(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt propriations of the agency authorized by section plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and aquatic growth and measures to address ex- 109(a)(1). under section 2602 of the Farm Security and cessive sedimentation; ‘‘(D) AGREEMENTS.—The Federal department Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 ‘‘(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt or agency to which a small project is delegated note; 116 Stat. 275). and aquatic growth and measures to address ex- shall enter into an agreement with the non-Fed- SEC. 5004. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND PO- cessive sedimentation; and eral interest generally in conformance with the TOMAC RIVER BASINS, DELAWARE, ‘‘(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Caro- MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND criteria in subsections (d) and (e). Cooperative VIRGINIA. lina, removal of silt and excessive nutrients and agreements may be used for any delegated restoration of structural integrity.’’. (a) EX OFFICIO MEMBER.—Notwithstanding project.’’. section 3001(a) of the 1997 Emergency Supple- SEC. 5002. ESTUARY RESTORATION. (d) ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RES- mental Appropriations Act for Recovery From (a) PURPOSES.—Section 102 of the Estuary TORATION COUNCIL.—Section 105(b) of the Estu- Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peace- Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is ary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2904(b)) is keeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 amended— amended— Stat. 176) and sections 2.2 of the Susquehanna (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–575) and semicolon the following: ‘‘by implementing a co- the semicolon; ordinated Federal approach to estuary habitat (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law restoration activities, including the use of com- the end and inserting a semicolon; and 87–328), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and each mon monitoring standards and a common system (3) by adding at the end the following: fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, for tracking restoration acreage’’; ‘‘(6) cooperating in the implementation of the North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers— (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and imple- strategy developed under section 106; (1) shall be the ex officio United States mem- ment’’ after ‘‘to develop’’; and ‘‘(7) recommending standards for monitoring ber under the Susquehanna River Basin Com- (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘through for restoration projects and contribution of pact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and cooperative agreements’’ after ‘‘restoration project information to the database developed the Potomac River Basin Compact; projects’’. under section 107; and (2) shall serve without additional compensa- (b) DEFINITION OF ESTUARY HABITAT RES- ‘‘(8) otherwise using the respective agency au- tion; and (3) may designate an alternate member in ac- TORATION PLAN.—Section 103(6)(A) of the Estu- thorities of the Council members to carry out ary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. this title.’’. cordance with the terms of those compacts. (b) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOCATE.—The Sec- 2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘Federal or (e) MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RES- retary shall allocate funds to the Susquehanna State’’ and inserting ‘‘Federal, State, or re- TORATION PROJECTS.—Section 107(d) of the Estu- River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin gional’’. ary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2906(d)) is Commission, and the Interstate Commission on (c) ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PRO- amended by striking ‘‘compile’’ and inserting the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin GRAM.—Section 104 of the Estuary Restoration ‘‘have general data compilation, coordination, Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is amended— and analysis responsibilities to carry out this Compact (Public Law 91–407)) to fulfill the equi- (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘through title and in support of the strategy developed table funding requirements of the respective the award of contracts and cooperative agree- under this section, including compilation of’’. interstate compacts. ments’’ after ‘‘assistance’’; (f) REPORTING.—Section 108(a) of the Estuary (c) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STOR- (2) in subsection (c)— Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is AGE, DELAWARE RIVER BASIN.— (A) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ‘‘or amended by striking ‘‘third and fifth’’ and in- (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter State’’ after ‘‘Federal’’; and serting ‘‘sixth, eighth, and tenth’’. into an agreement with the Delaware River (B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ‘‘or ap- (g) FUNDING.—Section 109(a) of the Estuary Basin Commission to provide temporary water proach’’ after ‘‘technology’’; Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is supply and conservation storage at the Francis (3) in subsection (d)— amended— E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period (A) in paragraph (1)— (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subpara- during which the Commission has determined (i) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the fol- graphs (A) through (D) and inserting the fol- that a drought warning or drought emergency lowing: lowing: exists. ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and ‘‘(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of (2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide (ii) by adding at the end the following: fiscal years 2006 through 2010; that the cost for water supply and conservation ‘‘(ii) MONITORING.— ‘‘(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the ‘‘(I) COSTS.—The costs of monitoring an estu- through the Director of the United States Fish incremental operating costs associated with pro- ary habitat restoration project funded under and Wildlife Service), $2,500,000 for each of fis- viding the storage. this title may be included in the total cost of the cal years 2006 through 2010; (d) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STOR- estuary habitat restoration project. ‘‘(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and AGE, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN.— ‘‘(II) GOALS.—The goals of the monitoring Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce, (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter are— $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through into an agreement with the Susquehanna River ‘‘(aa) to measure the effectiveness of the res- 2010; Basin Commission to provide temporary water toration project; and ‘‘(D) to the Administrator of the Environ- supply and conservation storage at Federal fa- ‘‘(bb) to allow adaptive management to ensure mental Protection Agency, $2,500,000 for each of cilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the project success.’’; fiscal years 2006 through 2010; and Susquehanna River Basin, during any period in (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or ap- ‘‘(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 which the Commission has determined that a proach’’ after ‘‘technology’’; and for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.’’; and drought warning or drought emergency exists.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.075 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide ‘‘SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL has jurisdiction over fish and wildlife activities that the cost for water supply and conservation DISPERSAL BARRIER, ILLINOIS. on the land. storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated (f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding incremental operating costs associated with pro- such sums as are necessary to carry out the section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 viding the storage. Barrier II project of the project for the Chicago U.S.C. 1962d–5b), with the consent of the af- (e) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STOR- Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illi- fected local government, a nonprofit entity may AGE, POTOMAC RIVER BASIN.— nois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the be included as a non-Federal interest for any (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 project carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A). into an agreement with the Potomac River U.S.C. 2294 note; 100 Stat. 4251).’’. (g) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.— Basin Commission to provide temporary water SEC. 5007. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MAN- (1) WATER LAW.—Nothing in this section pre- supply and conservation storage at Federal fa- AGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, empts any State water law. cilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS. (2) COMPACTS AND DECREES.—In carrying out Potomac River Basin for any period during (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited this section, the Secretary shall comply with the which the Commission has determined that a as the ‘‘Rio Grande Environmental Management Rio Grande Compact, and any applicable court drought warning or drought emergency exists. Act of 2006’’. decrees or Federal and State laws, affecting (2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: water or water rights in the Rio Grande Basin. that the cost for water supply and conservation (1) RIO GRANDE COMPACT.—The term ‘‘Rio (h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the Grande Compact’’ means the compact approved There is authorized to be appropriated to the incremental operating costs associated with pro- by Congress under the Act of May 31, 1939 (53 Secretary to carry out this section $25,000,000 for viding the storage. Stat. 785, chapter 155), and ratified by the fiscal year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal year. SEC. 5005. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF CO- States. SEC. 5008. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LUMBIA AND MARYLAND. (2) RIO GRANDE BASIN.—The term ‘‘Rio Grande MITIGATION, RECOVERY AND RES- (a) COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN.—Not later Basin’’ means the Rio Grande (including all TORATION, IOWA, KANSAS, MIS- than 1 year after the date of enactment of this tributaries and their headwaters) located— SOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, (A) in the State of Colorado, from the Rio NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the AND WYOMING. Grande Reservoir, near Creede, Colorado, to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor (a) STUDY.—The Secretary, in consultation of Maryland, the county executives of Mont- New Mexico State border; (B) in the State of New Mexico, from the Colo- with the Missouri River Recovery and Imple- gomery County and Prince George’s County, mentation Committee established by subsection Maryland, and other stakeholders, shall develop rado State border downstream to the Texas State border; and (b)(1), shall conduct a study of the Missouri and make available to the public a 10-year com- River and its tributaries to determine actions re- prehensive action plan to provide for the res- (C) in the State of Texas, from the New Mex- ico State border to the southern terminus of the quired— toration and protection of the ecological integ- (1) to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial Rio Grande at the Gulf of Mexico. rity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries. habitat; (3) STATES.—The term ‘‘States’’ means the (b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—On completion of (2) to recover federally listed species under the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. the comprehensive action plan under subsection Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); (c) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.— (a), the Secretary shall make the plan available and (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry to the public. (3) to restore the ecosystem to prevent further out, in the Rio Grande Basin— SEC. 5006. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL declines among other native species. (A) a program for the planning, construction, DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT, IL- (b) MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTA- LINOIS. and evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife TION COMMITTEE.— habitat rehabilitation and enhancement; and (a) TREATMENT AS SINGLE PROJECT.—The Chi- (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than June 31, (B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, cago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier 2006, the Secretary shall establish a committee to computerized data inventory and analysis, ap- Project (Barrier I) (as in existence on the date be known as the ‘‘Missouri River Recovery Im- plied research, and adaptive management pro- of enactment of this Act), constructed as a dem- plementation Committee’’ (referred to in this gram. onstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the section as the ‘‘Committee’’). (2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention (2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall in- 2008, and not later than December 31 of every and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), clude representatives from— and Barrier II, as authorized by section 345 of sixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consulta- (A) Federal agencies; the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, tion with the Secretary of the Interior and the (B) States located near the Missouri River 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352), shall States, shall submit to Congress a report that— Basin; and be considered to constitute a single project. (A) contains an evaluation of the programs (C) other appropriate entities, as determined (b) AUTHORIZATION.— described in paragraph (1); by the Secretary, including— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting (B) describes the accomplishments of each pro- (i) water management and fish and wildlife through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized gram; agencies; and directed, at full Federal expense— (C) provides updates of a systemic habitat (ii) Indian tribes located near the Missouri (A) to upgrade and make permanent Barrier I; needs assessment; and River Basin; and (B) to construct Barrier II, notwithstanding (D) identifies any needed adjustments in the (iii) nongovernmental stakeholders. the project cooperation agreement with the State authorization of the programs. (3) DUTIES.—The Commission shall— of Illinois dated June 14, 2005; (d) STATE AND LOCAL CONSULTATION AND CO- (A) with respect to the study under subsection (C) to operate and maintain Barrier I and OPERATIVE EFFORT.—For the purpose of ensur- (a), provide guidance to the Secretary and any Barrier II as a system to optimize effectiveness; ing the coordinated planning and implementa- other affected Federal agency, State agency, or (D) to conduct, in consultation with appro- tion of the programs described in subsection (c), Indian tribe; priate Federal, State, local, and nongovern- the Secretary shall— (B) provide guidance to the Secretary with re- mental entities, a study of a full range of op- (1) consult with the States and other appro- spect to the Missouri River recovery and mitiga- tions and technologies for reducing impacts of priate entities in the States the rights and inter- tion program in existence on the date of enact- hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the ests of which might be affected by specific pro- ment of this Act, including recommendations re- Barriers; and gram activities; and lating to— (E) to provide to each State a credit in an (2) enter into an interagency agreement with (i) changes to the implementation strategy amount equal to the amount of funds contrib- the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the from the use of adaptive management; and uted by the State toward Barrier II. direct participation of, and transfer of funds to, (ii) the coordination of the development of (2) USE OF CREDIT.—A State may apply a the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, credit received under paragraph (1)(E) to any any other agency or bureau of the Department projects, activities, and priorities for the pro- cost sharing responsibility for an existing or fu- of the Interior for the planning, design, imple- gram; ture Federal project with the Corps of Engineers mentation, and evaluation of those programs. (C) exchange information regarding programs, in the State. (e) COST SHARING.— projects, and activities of the agencies and enti- (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of ties represented on the Committee to promote the (1) NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PRE- the cost of a project carried out under sub- goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitiga- VENTION AND CONTROL.—Section 1202(i)(3)(C) of section (c)(1)(A)— tion program; the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention (A) shall be 35 percent; (D) establish such working groups as the Com- and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)(C)), (B) may be provided through in-kind services mittee determines to be necessary to assist in is amended by striking ‘‘, to carry out this para- or direct cash contributions; and carrying out the duties of the Committee, in- graph, $750,000’’ and inserting ‘‘such sums as (C) shall include provision of necessary land, cluding duties relating to public policy and sci- are necessary to carry out the dispersal barrier easements, relocations, and disposal sites. entific issues; demonstration project under this paragraph’’. (2) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The costs (E) facilitate the resolution of interagency (2) BARRIER II AUTHORIZATION.—Section 345 of of operation and maintenance of a project lo- and intergovernmental conflicts between entities the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, cated on Federal land, or land owned or oper- represented on the Committee associated with 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352), is ated by a State or local government, shall be the Missouri River recovery and mitigation pro- amended to read as follows: borne by the Federal, State, or local agency that gram;

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7891

(F) coordinate scientific and other research Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust ‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and associated with the Missouri River recovery and Fund, respectively, established under section after the date on which the Fund is fully cap- mitigation program; and 604, to be used to carry out the plans for terres- italized, amounts in the interest account of the (G) annually prepare a work plan and associ- trial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by Fund shall be invested and reinvested in eligible ated budget requests. the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower obligations having the shortest maturity then (4) COMPENSATION; TRAVEL EXPENSES.— Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, after the respec- available until the amounts are withdrawn and (A) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Com- tive tribe certifies to the Secretary of the Treas- transferred to fund the activities authorized mittee shall not receive compensation from the ury that the funds to be disbursed will be used under subsection (d)(3). Secretary in carrying out the duties of the Com- in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only ‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be mittee under this section. after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.’’. paid for eligible obligations purchased as invest- (B) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses in- (b) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE OF ments of the principal account shall not exceed curred by a member of the Committee in car- SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RES- the par value of the obligations so that the rying out the duties of the Committee under this TORATION TRUST FUND.—Section 603 of the amount of the principal account shall be pre- section shall be paid by the agency, Indian Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 served in perpetuity. tribe, or unit of government represented by the Stat. 388) is amended— ‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obliga- member. (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the tions having the same maturity and purchase (c) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY following: price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the COMMITTEE ACT.—The Federal Advisory Com- ‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.— obligation having the highest yield. mittee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the ‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding ‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obliga- Committee. any other provision of law, the Secretary of the tions purchased shall generally be held to their SEC. 5009. LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited maturities. RESTORATION, NEBRASKA. under subsection (b) and the interest earned on ‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVI- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting those amounts only in interest-bearing obliga- TIES.—Not less frequently than once each cal- through the Chief of Engineers, may cooperate tions of the United States issued directly to the endar year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall with and provide assistance to the Lower Platte Fund. review with the State of South Dakota the re- River natural resources districts in the State of ‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— sults of the investment activities and financial Nebraska to serve as local sponsors with respect ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the status of the Fund during the preceding 12- to— Treasury shall invest the Fund in accordance month period. (1) conducting comprehensive watershed plan- with all of the requirements of this paragraph. ‘‘(4) AUDITS.— ning in the natural resource districts; ‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the State (2) assessing water resources in the natural AND INTEREST.— of South Dakota (referred to in this subsection resource districts; and ‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts de- as the ‘State’) in carrying out the plan of the (3) providing project feasibility planning, de- posited in the Fund under subsection (b) shall State for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration sign, and construction assistance for water re- be credited to an account within the Fund (re- under section 602(a) shall be audited as part of source and watershed management in the nat- ferred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal ac- the annual audit that the State is required to ural resource districts, including projects for en- count’) and invested as provided in subpara- prepare under the Office of Management and vironmental restoration and flood damage re- graph (C). Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor circula- duction. ‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned tion). (b) FUNDING.— from investing amounts in the principal account ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An audi- (1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the of the Fund shall be transferred to a separate tor that conducts an audit under subparagraph cost of carrying out an activity described in sub- account within the Fund (referred to in this (A) shall— section (a) shall be 65 percent. paragraph as the ‘interest account’) and in- ‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the (2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal vested as provided in subparagraph (D). State under this section during the period cov- share of the cost of carrying out an activity de- ‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from ered by the audit were used to carry out the scribed in subsection (a)— investing amounts in the interest account of the plan of the State in accordance with this sec- (A) shall be 35 percent; and Fund shall be credited to the interest account. tion; and (B) may be provided in cash or in-kind. ‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— ‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount de- (i) in the written findings of the audit. There is authorized to be appropriated to the posited in the principal account of the Fund ‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIRE- Secretary to carry out this section $12,000,000. shall be invested initially in eligible obligations MENTS.— SEC. 5010. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, having the shortest maturity then available ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND until the date on which the amount is divided Treasury determines that meeting the require- TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT into 3 substantially equal portions and those ments under paragraph (2) with respect to the RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA. portions are invested in eligible obligations that investment of a Fund is not practicable, or (a) DISBURSEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE are identical (except for transferability) to the would result in adverse consequences for the OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND THE CHEYENNE RIVER next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations Fund, the Secretary shall modify the require- SIOUX TRIBE AND THE LOWER BRULE SIOUX having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, ments, as the Secretary determines to be nec- TRIBE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RES- and a 10-year maturity, respectively. essary. TORATION TRUST FUNDS.—Section 602(a)(4) of ‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2- ‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a re- the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation ma- quirement under subparagraph (A), the Sec- (113 Stat. 386) is amended— tures, the principal of the maturing eligible obli- retary of the Treasury shall consult with the (1) in subparagraph (A)— gation shall also be invested initially in the State regarding the proposed modification.’’; (A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘and the Sec- shortest-maturity eligible obligation then avail- (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ‘‘of the retary of the Treasury’’ after ‘‘Secretary’’; and able until the principal is reinvested substan- Treasury’’ after Secretary’’; and (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the tially equally in the eligible obligations that are (3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: identical (except for transferability) to the next- following: ‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notifica- issued publicly issued Treasury obligations hav- ‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are tion in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary ing 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities. authorized to be appropriated, out of any money of the Treasury shall make available to the ‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUANCE OF ISSUANCE OF OBLI- in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to State of South Dakota funds from the State of GATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay expenses South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Res- discontinues issuing to the public obligations associated with investing the Fund and audit- toration Trust Fund established under section having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the ing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the 603, to be used to carry out the plan for terres- principal of any maturing eligible obligation Fund— trial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by shall be reinvested substantially equally in eligi- ‘‘(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 the State of South Dakota after the State cer- ble obligations that are identical (except for and 2007; and tifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the transferability) to the next-issued publicly ‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each sub- funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance issued Treasury obligations of the maturities sequent fiscal year.’’. with section 603(d)(3) and only after the Trust longer than 1 year then available. (c) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS FOR THE CHEY- Fund is fully capitalized.’’; and ‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.— ENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) ‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the SIOUX TRIBE TRUST FUNDS.—Section 604 of the and inserting the following: date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 ‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notifica- amounts in the interest account of the Fund Stat. 389) is amended— tion in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary shall be invested in eligible obligations that are (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the of the Treasury shall make available to the identical (except for transferability) to publicly following: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower issued Treasury obligations that have maturities ‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.— Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne that coincide, to the maximum extent prac- ‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restora- ticable, with the date on which the Fund is ex- any other provision of law, the Secretary of the tion Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux pected to be fully capitalized. Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006

under subsection (b) and the interest earned on ‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obliga- authorized by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. those amounts only in interest-bearing obliga- tions purchased shall generally be held to their 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow tions of the United States issued directly to the maturities. Mill River and described in subsection (b), is not Funds. ‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVI- authorized. ‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— TIES.—Not less frequently than once each cal- (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.—The project re- ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the endar year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ferred to in subsection (a) is described as begin- Treasury shall invest each of the Funds in ac- review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and ning at a point along the eastern limit of the ex- cordance with all of the requirements of this the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this isting project, N. 123,649.75, E. 481,920.54, thence paragraph. subsection as the ‘Tribes’) the results of the in- running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a ‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL vestment activities and financial status of the point N. 123,683.03, E. 481,879.75, thence running AND INTEREST.— Funds during the preceding 12-month period. northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N. ‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts de- ‘‘(4) AUDITS.— 125,030.08, E. 482,394.96, thence running north- posited in each Fund under subsection (b) shall ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the Tribes easterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the be credited to an account within the Fund (re- in carrying out the plans of the Tribes for ter- east limit of the existing channel, N. 125,133.87, ferred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal ac- restrial wildlife habitat restoration under sec- E. 482,488.19, thence running southwesterly count’) and invested as provided in subpara- tion 602(a) shall be audited as part of the an- about 1,588.98 feet to the point of origin. graph (C). nual audit that the Tribes are required to pre- SEC. 6004. BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT. ‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned pare under the Office of Management and The project for environmental infrastructure, from investing amounts in the principal account Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor circula- Bridgeport, Connecticut, authorized by section of each Fund shall be transferred to a separate tion). 219(f)(26) of the Water Resources Development account within the Fund (referred to in this ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An audi- Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336), is not paragraph as the ‘interest account’) and in- tor that conducts an audit under subparagraph authorized. vested as provided in subparagraph (D). (A) shall— SEC. 6005. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT. ‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from ‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the The project for environmental infrastructure, investing amounts in the interest account of Tribes under this section during the period cov- Hartford, Connecticut, authorized by section each Fund shall be credited to the interest ac- ered by the audit were used to carry out the 219(f)(27) of the Water Resources Development count. plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336), is not ‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— with this section; and authorized. ‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount de- ‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause posited in the principal account of each Fund (i) in the written findings of the audit. SEC. 6006. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. The project for environmental infrastructure, shall be invested initially in eligible obligations ‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIRE- New Haven, Connecticut, authorized by section having the shortest maturity then available MENTS.— until the date on which the amount is divided ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the 219(f)(28) of the Water Resources Development into 3 substantially equal portions and those Treasury determines that meeting the require- Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 336), is not portions are invested in eligible obligations that ments under paragraph (2) with respect to the authorized. are identical (except for transferability) to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, or SEC. 6007. INLAND WATERWAY FROM DELAWARE next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations would result in adverse consequences for the RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, PART II, INSTALLATION OF FENDER PROTEC- having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, Fund, the Secretary shall modify the require- TION FOR BRIDGES, DELAWARE AND and a 10-year maturity, respectively. ments, as the Secretary determines to be nec- MARYLAND. ‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2- essary. The project for the construction of bridge year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation ma- ‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a re- fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridge tures, the principal of the maturing eligible obli- quirement under subparagraph (A), the Sec- for the Inland Waterway of the Delaware River gation shall also be invested initially in the retary of the Treasury shall consult with the to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay, au- shortest-maturity eligible obligation then avail- Tribes regarding the proposed modification.’’; thorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 able until the principal is reinvested substan- and Stat. 1249), is not authorized. tially equally in the eligible obligations that are (2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the SEC. 6008. SHINGLE CREEK BASIN, FLORIDA. identical (except for transferability) to the next- following: The project for flood control, Central and issued publicly issued Treasury obligations hav- ‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are Southern Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, ing 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities. authorized to be appropriated, out of any money Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood ‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUATION OF ISSUANCE OF OBLI- in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is not author- GATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses ized. discontinues issuing to the public obligations associated with investing the Funds and audit- having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the ing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the SEC. 6009. BREVOORT, INDIANA. principal of any maturing eligible obligation Funds— The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indi- shall be reinvested substantially equally in eligi- ‘‘(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 ana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Con- ble obligations that are identical (except for and 2007; and trol Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1587), is not authorized. transferability) to the next-issued publicly ‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each sub- SEC. 6010. MIDDLE WABASH, GREENFIELD BAYOU, issued Treasury obligations of the maturities sequent fiscal year.’’. INDIANA. longer than 1 year then available. SEC. 5011. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT. The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by sec- ‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF THE INTEREST AC- (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall evalu- COUNT.— ate, design, and construct structural modifica- tion 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. ‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the tions at full Federal cost to the Union Village 649), is not authorized. date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland SEC. 6011. LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA. amounts in the interest account of the Fund Dam (Ottauquechee River), North Springfield The project for flood damage reduction, Lake shall be invested in eligible obligations that are Dam (Black River), Ball Mountain Dam (West George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section identical (except for transferability) to publicly River), and Townshend Dam (West River), 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of issued Treasury obligations that have maturities Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is not authorized. that coincide, to the maximum extent prac- mitigate downstream impacts on aquatic habitat SEC. 6012. GREEN BAY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DIS- ticable, with the date on which the Fund is ex- and fisheries. TRICT NO. 2, IOWA. pected to be fully capitalized. (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— The project for flood damage reduction, Green ‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and There is authorized to be appropriated to carry Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, after the date on which each Fund is fully cap- out this section $30,000,000. authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re- sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), italized, amounts in the interest account of the TITLE VI—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS Fund shall be invested and reinvested in eligible deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthor- obligations having the shortest maturity then SEC. 6001. LITTLE COVE CREEK, GLENCOE, ALA- ized by section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources BAMA. available until the amounts are withdrawn and Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4821), is not The project for flood damage reduction, Little transferred to fund the activities authorized authorized. Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized by under subsection (d)(3). SEC. 6013. MUSCATINE HARBOR, IOWA. the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 ‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be The project for navigation at the Muscatine Stat. 312), is not authorized. paid for eligible obligations purchased as invest- Harbor on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, ments of the principal account shall not exceed SEC. 6002. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIFORNIA. Iowa, authorized by section 101 of the River and the par value of the obligations so that the The project for flood control, Goleta and Vi- Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166), is not author- amount of the principal account shall be pre- cinity, California, authorized by section 201 of ized. the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826), is served in perpetuity. SEC. 6014. BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER ‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obliga- not authorized. AND RECREATIONAL AREA, KEN- tions having the same maturity and purchase SEC. 6003. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT. TUCKY AND TENNESSEE. price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the (a) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project The project for recreation facilities at Big obligation having the highest yield. for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, South Fork National River and Recreational

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE July 19, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7893 Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized by Maine, authorized by section 307 of the Water SEC. 6041. CLEVELAND HARBOR, UNCOMPLETED section 108 of the Water Resources Development Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. PORTION OF CUT #4, OHIO. Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43), is not authorized. 4841), is not authorized. The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor SEC. 6015. EAGLE CREEK LAKE, KENTUCKY. SEC. 6027. SAINT JOHN RIVER BASIN, MAINE. (uncompleted portion of Cut #4), Ohio, author- The project for flood control and water sup- The project for research and demonstration ized by the first section of the Act of July 24, ply, Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by program of cropland irrigation and soil con- 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595), is not author- section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 servation techniques, Saint John River Basin, ized. Stat. 1188), is not authorized. Maine, authorized by section 1108 of the Water SEC. 6042. COLUMBIA RIVER, SEAFARERS MEMO- SEC. 6016. HAZARD, KENTUCKY. Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. RIAL, HAMMOND, OREGON. The project for flood damage reduction, Haz- 4230), is not authorized. The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers ard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the SEC. 6028. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE. Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, title I of the Energy and Water Development Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water Re- Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078), is not sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621), of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, chapter 95), is authorized. is not authorized. not authorized. SEC. 6043. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA. SEC. 6017. WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KEN- SEC. 6029. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN. The project for navigation, Schuylkill River TUCKY. The project for navigation, Grand Haven Har- (Mouth to Penrose Avenue), Pennsylvania, au- The project for flood control, West Kentucky bor, Michigan, authorized by section 202(a) of thorized by section 3(a)(12) of the Water Re- Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), (100 Stat. 4093), is not authorized. is not authorized. section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 SEC. 6030. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI. SEC. 6044. TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYL- Stat. 1825), and section 401(b) of the Water Re- The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, VANIA. sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129), Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of the The project for flood control and recreation, is not authorized. Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, SEC. 6018. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, Stat. 4142), is not authorized. Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the LOUISIANA. SEC. 6031. PLATTE RIVER FLOOD AND RELATED Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313), is not The project for flood damage reduction, STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL, authorized. NEBRASKA. Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana, au- SEC. 6045. TAMAQUA, PENNSYLVANIA. thorized by section 3 of the of the Act of August The project for flood damage reduction, Platte The project for flood control, Tamaqua, Penn- 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 644, chapter 377), and section River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion sylvania, authorized by section 1(a) of the 1(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 1974 (88 Stat. 12), is not authorized. the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Stat. 14), is not authorized. SEC. 6019. BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE (100 Stat. 4149), is not authorized. JUMP, LOUISIANA. SEC. 6032. EPPING, NEW HAMPSHIRE. SEC. 6046. NARRAGANSETT TOWN BEACH, NARRA- GANSETT, RHODE ISLAND. The uncompleted portions of the project for The project for environmental infrastructure, navigation improvement for Bayou LaFourche Epping, New Hampshire, authorized by section The project for navigation, Narragansett and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana, authorized by 219(c)(6) of the Water Resources Development Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island, au- the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033, chapter Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835), is not authorized. thorized by section 361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861), is not 831), and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 SEC. 6033. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE. authorized. Stat. 481), are not authorized. The project for environmental infrastructure, SEC. 6020. EASTERN RAPIDES AND SOUTH-CEN- Manchester, New Hampshire, authorized by sec- SEC. 6047. QUONSET POINT-DAVISVILLE, RHODE TRAL AVOYELLES PARISHES, LOU- tion 219(c)(7) of the Water Resources Develop- ISLAND. ISIANA. ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836), is not author- The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides ized. Point-Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Lou- SEC. 6034. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT section 571 of the Water Resources Development isiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood CHANNELS, CLAREMONT TERMINAL, Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is not authorized. Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), is not author- JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY. SEC. 6048. ARROYO COLORADO, TEXAS. ized. The project for navigation, New York Harbor The project for flood damage reduction, Ar- SEC. 6021. FORT LIVINGSTON, GRAND TERRE IS- and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, royo Colorado, Texas, authorized by section LAND, LOUISIANA. Jersey City, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act The project for erosion protection and recre- 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is not authorized. ation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre Island, of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is not authorized. SEC. 6049. CYPRESS CREEK-STRUCTURAL, TEXAS. Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 13, SEC. 6035. EISENHOWER AND SNELL LOCKS, NEW The project for flood damage reduction, Cy- 1946 (commonly known as the ‘‘Flood Control YORK. press Creek-Structural, Texas, authorized by Act of 1946’’) (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.), is not au- The project for navigation, Eisenhower and section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Develop- thorized. Snell Locks, New York, authorized by section ment Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is not author- 1163 of the Water Resources Development Act of SEC. 6022. GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, ized. LAKE BORGNE AND CHEF MENTEUR, 1986 (100 Stat. 4258), is not authorized. SEC. 6050. EAST FORK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, LOUISIANA. SEC. 6036. OLCOTT HARBOR, LAKE ONTARIO, NEW INCREMENT 2, EAST FORK OF THE The project for the construction of bulkheads YORK. TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS. and jetties at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, The project for flood damage reduction, East Louisiana, as part of the Gulf Intercoastal Wa- Lake Ontario, New York, authorized by section Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East terway authorized by the first section of the 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 635), is of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is not authorized. not authorized. section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 SEC. 6037. OUTER HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW YORK. Stat. 1185), is not authorized. SEC. 6023. RED RIVER WATERWAY, SHREVEPORT, The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, LOUISIANA TO DAINGERFIELD, Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of SEC. 6051. FALFURRIAS, TEXAS. TEXAS. the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 The project for flood damage reduction, The project for the Red River Waterway, (106 Stat. 4817), is not authorized. Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(14) Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 SEC. 6038. SUGAR CREEK BASIN, NORTH CARO- authorized by section 101 of the River and Har- LINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA. (102 Stat. 4014), is not authorized. bor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is not authorized. The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar SEC. 6052. PECAN BAYOU LAKE, TEXAS. SEC. 6024. CASCO BAY, PORTLAND, MAINE. Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Caro- The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou The project for environmental infrastructure, lina, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Casco Bay in the Vicinity of Portland, Maine, Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742), is not authorized by section 307 of the Water Re- 4121), is not authorized. authorized. sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841), SEC. 6039. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1958 ACT, OHIO. SEC. 6053. LAKE OF THE PINES, TEXAS. is not authorized. The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor The project for navigation improvements af- SEC. 6025. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE. (uncompleted portion), Ohio, authorized by sec- fecting Lake of the Pines, Texas, for the portion The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, tion 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 of the Red River below Fulton, Arkansas, au- Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of Stat. 299), is not authorized. thorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 88, March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12, chapter 19), is not au- SEC. 6040. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1960 ACT, OHIO. chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24, thorized. The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor 1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May SEC. 6026. PENOBSCOT RIVER, BANGOR, MAINE. (uncompleted portion), Ohio, authorized by sec- 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163, chapter 188), and the River The project for environmental infrastructure, tion 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is not au- Penobscot River in the Vicinity of Bangor, Stat. 482), is not authorized. thorized.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 6333 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE S7894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 19, 2006 SEC. 6054. TENNESSEE COLONY LAKE, TEXAS. MORNING BUSINESS the current program—that even the The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I fur- sponsor, our respected former col- Lake, Trinity River, Texas, authorized by sec- league, Senator Bennett Johnston, tion 204 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 ther ask unanimous consent there now Stat. 1091), is not authorized. be a period of morning business with says is out of control—you could use that money from the current program, SEC. 6055. CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASH- Senators permitted to speak for up to INGTON. 10 minutes each. that wastes so much money, and get The portion of the project for navigation, City The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without some of that to these areas that have Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by objection, it is so ordered. been ravaged by Katrina. the first section of the Act of June 13, 1902 (32 There were two floods, in effect, that Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since Stat. 347), consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet the Congress must now confront. First, we will be proceeding to the Voting of the inner portion of the Waterway beginning we have to help rebuild the States of Rights Act tomorrow morning at 9:30, I at Station 70+00 and ending at Station 80+00, is Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama not authorized. thought you would be interested to that were destroyed by the storm surge SEC. 6056. KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WEST know, since you are on the Judiciary VIRGINIA. of August 29 of last year. But the sec- Committee, there will be no executive ond flood that needs to be stemmed is The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, committee meeting because Senator Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section the flood of billions of dollars of oil LEAHY and I cannot be in two places at 603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development royalties that have gone into the pock- Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is not authorized. the same time. There will be no execu- ets of the world’s largest oil companies Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the tive meeting tomorrow at 9:30. We will at a time when they have enjoyed ex- vote. try to have a meeting off the floor if we traordinary profits. They have enjoyed Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that can to pass out the judges. tremendous profits. We have seen ex- motion on the table. I yield the floor and suggest the ab- traordinary prices, and yet they con- The motion to lay on the table was sence of a quorum. tinue to get these great subsidies. agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The As I say, if we can clean up the cur- Mr. BOND. I thank all Senators for clerk will call the roll. rent royalty program, which is so inef- the passage of this very important bill. The assistant legislative clerk pro- ficient that even its sponsor thinks is There has been tremendous bipartisan ceeded to call the roll. out of control, we will have more cooperation. I especially thank Senator Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask money to help these flood-ravaged JEFFORDS and Catharine Ransom, Jo- unanimous consent that the order for areas of the gulf that are the legiti- Ellen Darcy, and the great leadership the quorum call be rescinded. mate concern of all of my colleagues of our chairman, Senator INHOFE. He The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without from those States. did an outstanding job, with the great objection, it is so ordered. The existing oil royalty giveaways help of Angie Giancarlo, Ruth Van Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask have grown over the years to become Mark and Stephen Aaron. unanimous consent to speak in morn- the biggest oil subsidy of all and one of On my staff I express a special ing business for up to 20 minutes. the largest boondoggles that wastes thanks to a fellow, Letmon Lee, who The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there taxpayer money of any Federal pro- has worked on this tirelessly for better objection? gram. than 2 years, Karla Klingner, on my Without objection, it is so ordered. The General Accountability Office staff, Brian Klippenstein, who worked The Senator is recognized for 20 min- estimates that at a minimum the Fed- so hard. I believe we have a product we utes. eral Government and the taxpayers are can take to the House. OIL ROYALTIES going to be out $20 billion in lost reve- It is long overdue that we pass the Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last nues. If the Government loses pending Water Resources Development Act. It week a group of Senators announced lawsuits, that amount could reach as was due to be passed in 2002. We have they had reached an agreement to open high as $80 billion. This comes at a finally done it. My thanks to both more offshore areas to oil drilling. For time when, according to the Congres- sides. the first time, they would allow nearby sional Research Service, the oil compa- Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Sen- States, under their proposal, to share nies are enjoying record profits. It will be very difficult to explain to ator for his statement. I concur with in the oil royalties from drilling in the American public how Congress can him wholeheartedly. Let’s get on with Federal waters. be proposing to allow additional bil- it. I have come to the floor tonight to Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a lions of dollars of royalty money to be say that while I am very hopeful the quorum. given away before it first puts a stop to Senate can come to agreement on a The PRESIDING OFFICER. The what is already going out the door. plan that provides significantly more clerk will call the roll. Now, in opening this discussion to- The legislative clerk proceeded to relief to the areas that have been rav- night—I expect the Senate will look at call the roll. aged by Hurricane Katrina, I am also this formally next week—I want to be Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous con- hopeful that the Senate will use this very clear in saying that I understand sent that the order for the quorum call opportunity to finally address a cur- the need of the gulf States to secure be rescinded. rent program, a current royalty relief Federal funds to restore their coast- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without program, that is out of control and is lines and rebuild their communities. objection, it is so ordered. diverting billions of dollars away from There is no question that Katrina and the Federal Treasury. f Rita flattened New Orleans and other What the Senate is going to confront, communities up and down the gulf UNANIMOUS CONSENT apparently next week, is the prospect coast, and that there is a clear need for AGREEMENT—H.R. 9 that while there is a royalty relief pro- all Americans, including my constitu- Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask gram now that needs to be fixed and ents at home in Oregon, to be part of unanimous consent that on Thursday has not been fixed, the Senate is going going to bat for our fellow Americans. at 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to Cal- to start a new royalty relief program. But I do hope, fervently, that as the endar No. 521, H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Usually, the first thing you do is fix Senate looks to find additional re- Act. I further ask there be 8 hours of the program that is not working today sources for these gulf States, the Sen- debate equally divided between the two before you start anything else. Appar- ate will not be given a false choice be- leaders or their designees with no ently, some would not be supportive of tween either aiding the gulf States or amendments in order to the bill, and that taking place. I am one who sees standing up for the public interest in that following the use or yielding of this otherwise. the face of the outrageous oil company time, the Senate proceed to a vote on I also think if you can fix the current windfalls now being paid for today. We passage without any intervening action royalty relief program, where the Gov- can and should do both. or debate. ernment Accountability Office says $20 Helping the victims of Katrina is not The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without billion to possibly $60 billion is being mutually exclusive from helping tax- objection, it is so ordered. wasted, you could use that money from payers. It is possible to do both. And as

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:53 Jul 20, 2006 Jkt 049060 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JY6.076 S19JYPT1 ycherry on PROD1PC64 with SENATE