[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3300-S3302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Thune, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Obama, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Talent, Mr. Cornyn, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 728. A bill to provide for the consideration and development of 
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators 
Inhofe, Vitter, Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Thune, Murkowski, Obama, 
Landrieu, Grassley, Harkin, Talent, Cornyn, Cochran, Domenici, and 
Coleman, the 2005 Water Resources Development Act.
  The programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are 
invaluable to this Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power 
production, river transportation, environmental protection and 
restoration, protection from floods, emergency response, and 
recreation. Few agencies in the Federal Government touch so many 
citizens and they do it on a relatively small budget. They provide one-
quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output; operate 456 lakes in 
43 States hosting 33 percent of all freshwater lake fishing; move 630 
million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our 
inland system; manage over 12 million acres of land and water; provide 
3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and business; 
and have prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the 
past 25 years with an investment one-seventh that value. During the 
1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was 
prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time. Our ports 
move over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade by weight and 75 percent by 
value. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased 24 
fold, and 70 percent since 1994. That was an average annual growth rate 
of 10.2 percent, which was nearly double the pace of the Gross Domestic 
Product growth during the same period. Unfortunately, the American 
Society of Civil Engineers grades navigable waterways infrastructure D- 
with over 50 percent of the locks ``functionally obsolete'' despite 
increased demand.
  This bipartisan bill is one that traditionally is produced by the 
Congress

[[Page S3301]]

every two years, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000 and 
the longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more 
complicated the demands upon the bill become making it harder and 
harder to win approval. For some, this bill is too small and for 
others, too big. For some, the new regulations are too onerous and for 
others, the new regulations are not onerous enough. Nevertheless, I 
believe we have struck a balance here that disciplines the new projects 
to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water 
resources priorities.
  With the new regulations, we have embraced a common sense bipartisan 
proposal by Senators Landrieu and Cochran similar to the bi-partisan 
House agreement that requires major projects to be subject to 
independent peer review and requires that necessary mitigation for 
projects be completed at the same time the project is completed, or, in 
special cases, no longer than one year after project completion. This 
will impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller communities, 
but it is not as onerous as the new regulations proposed last year 
which ultimately prevented a final agreement from being reached between 
the House and Senate.
  The commanding feature of the bill is its landmark environmental and 
ecosystem restoration authorities. Nearly 60 percent of the bill 
authorizes such efforts, including environmental restoration of the 
Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay, Missouri River, Long 
Island Sound, Salton Sea, Upper Connecticut, and the Illinois and 
Mississippi Rivers, and others.
  Additionally, it is important to understand the budget implications 
of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult 
budget realities currently and it is critical that we be mindful of 
those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that 
supports the people in our nation who make and grow and buy and sell 
things so that we can grow our economy, create jobs, and secure our 
future. This is an authorization bill. It does not spend one dollar. I 
repeat, it does not spend one dollar. It makes projects eligible for 
funding through the appropriations process that operates within the 
restrictions of the budget Congress provides it. With the allocation 
provided, the Appropriations Committee and the Congress and the 
President will fund such projects deemed of the highest priority and 
those remaining will not be funded because the budget will not permit 
it. This WRDA process simply permits project consideration during the 
process of appropriations and I expect some will measure up and others 
will not. I hear some suggest that we should not authorize anything new 
until all other previously-authorized projects are funded. That, of 
course, is nonsense because it assumes falsely that all projects 
authorized five and 10 and 50 years ago are higher priority than those 
in this package. We have de-authorized a great number of projects in 
this bill and I expect there will be more added as we proceed and then 
the remainder will have to face the stingy budget process that will 
prioritize the rest.

  While the majority of this legislation is for environmental 
protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic initiative we 
include provides transportation efficiency and environmental 
sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
  As the world becomes more competitive, we must also. In the 
heartland, the efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of our 
transportation options are critical--often make-or-break. In Missouri 
alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities with a combined value 
of more than $4 billion which include coal, petroleum, aggregates, 
grain, chemicals, iron, steel, minerals and other commodities.
  As we look 50 years into the future, and as we anticipate and try to 
promote commercial and economic growth, we have to ask ourselves a 
fundamental question: should we have a system that permits and promotes 
growth, or should we be satisfied to restrict our growth to the 
confines of a transportation straight jacket designed not for 2050, but 
for 1950 for paddle wheel boats?
  Further, we must ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made 
to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these 
great waterways. In both cases, the answer is, ``Of course we should 
modernize and improve.''
  We have a system which is in environmental and economic decline. Jobs 
and markets and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife are 
at stake. We cannot be for increased trade, commercial growth, and job 
creation without supporting the basic transportation infrastructure 
necessary to move goods from buyers to sellers. New efficiency helps 
give our producers an edge that can make or break opportunities in the 
international marketplace.
  Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the 
Mississippi River was not justified. Congress decided that its role was 
not to try to predict the future but to shape the future and decided to 
invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million tons per year 
later, it is clear that the decision was wise.
  Now, that system that was designed for paddlewheel boats and to last 
50 years is nearly 70 years old and we must make decisions that will 
shape the next 50-70 years. As we look ahead, we must promote growth 
policies that help Americans who produce and employ.

  We must work for policies that promote economic growth, job creation, 
and environmental sustainability. We know that trade and economic 
growth can be fostered or it can be discouraged by policies and other 
realities which include the quality of our transportation 
infrastructure.
  So in 20 and 30 and 40 and 50 years, where will the growth in 
transportation occur to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial 
shipping? The Department of Transportation suggests that congestion on 
our roads and rails will double in the next quarter century. The fact 
of the matter is that the great untapped capacity is on our water.
  This is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is 
safe, it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. 
One medium-sized barge tow can carry the freight of 870 trucks. That 
fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water. If we can, would we 
rather have 870 diesel engines on the roads of downtown St. Louis, or 
two diesel engines on the water.
  The veteran Chief Economist at USDA testified that transportation 
efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets are higher prices 
are ``fundamentally related.'' He predicts that corn exports over the 
next 10 years will rise 45 percent, 70 percent of which will travel 
down the Mississippi.
  Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the Upper Mississippi 
River has more than tripled. The system currently carries 60 percent of 
our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean 
exports and it does so at two-thirds the cost of rail--when rail is 
available.
  Over the previous 12 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have 
spent $70 million completing a six year study. During that period, 
there have been 35 meetings of the Governors Liaison Committee, 28 
meetings on the Economic Coordinating Committee, among the States along 
the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways, and there have been 44 
meetings of the Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee. 
Additionally, there have been 130 briefings for special interest 
groups, 24 newsletters. There have been six sets of public meetings in 
46 locations with over 4,000 people in attendance. To say the least, 
this has been a very long, very transparent, and very representative 
process.
  However, while we have been studying, our competitors have been 
building. Given the extraordinary delay so far, and given the reality 
that large scale construction takes not weeks or months, but decades, 
further delay is no longer an option. This is why I am pleased to be 
joined by a bipartisan group of Senators who agree that we must improve 
the efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great 
resources.
  This plan gets the Corps back in the business of building the future, 
rather than just haggling about predicting the future. More will need 
to be done later on ecosystem and lock expansions further upstream, but 
this begins the improvement schedule underway.

[[Page S3302]]

  In this legislation, we authorize $1.58 billion for ecosystem 
restoration-almost 2 times the federal cost of lock capacity expansion 
which we authorize on locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and Peoria 
and LaGrange on the Illinois. The new 1,200 foot locks on the 
Mississippi River will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region 
below the 1,200 foot lock 19 at Keokuk and above locks 26 and 27 near 
St. Louis. Half the cost of the new locks will be paid for by private 
users who pay into the Inland Waterways Trust fund. Additional funds 
will be provided for mitigation and small scale and nonstructural 
measures to improve efficiency.
  As we look ahead, the locks at 14-18 will have to be addressed as 
will further investments to ecosystem restoration efforts.
  This effort is supported by a broad-based group of the States, farm 
groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay taxes into the Trust Fund 
for improvements. Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support 
from the carpenters, corngrowers, farm bureau, soybeans, the diverse 
membership of MARC2000.
  I thank my colleagues and their staff for the hard work devoted to 
this difficult matter and I thank particularly chairman Inhofe for his 
forbearance. I believe that if members work cooperatively and aim for 
the center and not the fringe, that we can get a bill completed this 
year. If demands exist that the bill be away from the center toward the 
fringe, we will go another Congress without completing our work as we 
witnessed last year.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Bond 
for the leadership he and his subcommittee staff have demonstrated in 
bringing this piece of legislation together.
  I have great hopes for getting a WRDA bill passed this session. We 
have not enacted a WRDA bill since 2000, and the water resources are in 
much need of this authorization. We made great progress and were very 
close to finishing a bill at the end of the 108th Congress. That effort 
has provided a great stepping stone toward quick completion this year.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has provided a valuable service to the 
Nation for over 200 years. It has been instrumental in creating one of 
the most dynamic inland waterway systems in the world. For example, the 
Corps activities have provided Tulsa, OK with one of the Nation's most 
inland ports and provides the dredging needed to keep the San Francisco 
Bay navigable. There is not a State in the Union that does not reap the 
benefits of the Army Corps.
  I am well aware of the stacks of requests that have come in from 
every State for projects to be included in the bill. While it is 
important that we insure the Corps is capable of meeting our future 
water resource needs, it is also very important that we do not demand 
more of the Corps than it is capable of providing. No Federal agency 
could complete all of the projects requested by all of the Senators. 
Considering the limited staff and budget of the Corps, an ``authorize 
everything'' approach may leave everyone with nothing. While I know 
that each Senator has his or her own priorities, we all must understand 
the limitations with which we reside. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure that we give clear direction to the Corps to focus 
on completing the highest priority and most beneficial projects.
                                 ______