[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1354-S1359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 2288. A bill to modernize water resources planning, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources 
Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our 
water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined 
in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We 
have worked together for some time to modernize the Army

[[Page S1355]]

Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued 
commitment to this issue.
  While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have 
introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the 
tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed 
adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire 
process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are 
developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal 
resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to 
authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and 
passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From 
ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect 
our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national 
priority.
  As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few 
years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands 
pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer 
dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to 
endorse such approaches and such collaborations.
  The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents 
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and 
significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed 
or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way 
to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support 
from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, 
Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife 
Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for 
Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the 
bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.
  Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review 
of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000 
debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies 
from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability 
Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission 
on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also 
had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted 
problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.
  The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be 
broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying 
vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning 
guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and 
valuing our natural resources.
  Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To 
address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources 
Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing 
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects 
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The 
prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the 
public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, 
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied 
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the 
prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the 
tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing 
public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable 
improvements to the status quo.
  Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be 
a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources 
Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's 
vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to 
human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the 
country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements 
to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better 
address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a 
government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are 
available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we 
must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such 
action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a 
response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the 
recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 
days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have 
this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage 
reduction programs, languish like others before it.
  The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water 
projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps' 
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not 
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water 
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of 
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning 
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.
  Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of 
a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and 
the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple 
steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project 
costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project 
should move forward.
  To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill 
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over 
$25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those 
which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a 
significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has 
found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review 
should not increase the length of time required for project planning 
but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive 
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.
  We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as 
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to 
buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our 
water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water 
Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps' 
water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required 
by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted 
stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I 
feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live 
up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not 
completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that 
mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are 
accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track 
the progress of mitigation projects.
  Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help 
restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal 
and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the 
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, 
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress 
ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further 
prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for 
actual reform is stronger than ever.
  My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock 
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do 
not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of 
those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management 
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can 
continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without 
wasting taxpayer dollars.
  I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but 
unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need 
for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects 
produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, 
and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the 
corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of 
Congress

[[Page S1356]]

on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the 
environment deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2288

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources Planning and 
     Modernization Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Water 
     Resources Council established under section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION 
                   POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States that all water 
     resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers 
     shall--
       (1) reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction, 
     navigation, and ecosystem restoration; and
       (2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains, minimize 
     vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be 
     used, protect and restore the extent and functions of natural 
     systems, and mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural 
     systems.

     SEC. 4. MEETING THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES.

       (a) Report on the Nation's Flood Risks.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Council 
     shall submit to the President and Congress a report 
     describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage 
     from flooding and related storm damage, including the risk to 
     human life, the risk to property, and the comparative risks 
     faced by different regions of the country. The report shall 
     assess the extent to which the Nation's programs relating to 
     flooding are addressing flood risk reduction priorities and 
     the extent to which those programs may unintentionally be 
     encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone 
     areas, and shall provide recommendations for improving those 
     programs in reducing and responding to flood risks. Not later 
     than 90 days after the report required by this subsection is 
     published in the Federal Register, the Administration shall 
     submit to Congress a report that responds to the 
     recommendations of the Council and includes proposals to 
     implement recommendations of the Council.
       (b) Prioritization of Water Resources Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to Congress 
     an initial report containing a prioritized list of each water 
     resources project of the Corps of Engineers that is not being 
     carried out under a continuing authorities program, 
     categorized by project type and recommendations with respect 
     to a process to compare all water resources projects across 
     project type. The Council shall submit to Congress a 
     prioritized list of water resources projects of the Corps of 
     Engineers every 2 years following submission of the initial 
     report. In preparing the prioritization of projects, the 
     Council shall endeavor to balance stability in the rankings 
     from year to year with recognizing newly authorized projects. 
     Each report prepared under this paragraph shall provide 
     documentation and description of any criteria used in 
     addition to those set forth in paragraph (2) for comparing 
     water resources projects and the assumptions upon which those 
     criteria are based.
       (2) Project prioritization criteria.--In preparing a report 
     under paragraph (1), the Council shall prioritize each water 
     resource project of the Corps of Engineers based on the 
     extent to which the project meets at least the following 
     criteria:
       (A) For flood damage reduction projects, the extent to 
     which such a project--
       (i) addresses the most critical flood damage reduction 
     needs of the United States as identified by the Council;
       (ii) does not encourage new development or intensified 
     economic activity in flood prone areas and avoids adverse 
     environmental impacts; and
       (iii) provides significantly increased benefits to the 
     United States through the protection of human life, property, 
     economic activity, or ecosystem services.
       (B) For navigation projects, the extent to which such a 
     project--
       (i) produces a net economic benefit to the United States 
     based on a high level of certainty that any projected trends 
     upon which the project is based will be realized;
       (ii) addresses priority navigation needs of the United 
     States identified through comprehensive, regional port 
     planning; and
       (iii) minimizes adverse environmental impacts.
       (C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to 
     which such a project--
       (i) restores the natural hydrologic processes and spatial 
     extent of an aquatic habitat;
       (ii) is self-sustaining; and
       (iii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
       (3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that to 
     promote effective prioritization of water resources projects, 
     no project should be authorized for construction unless a 
     final Chief's report recommending construction has been 
     submitted to Congress, and annual appropriations for the 
     Corps of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Programs should be 
     distributed by the Corps of Engineers to those projects with 
     the highest degree of design merit and the greatest degree of 
     need, consistent with the applicable criteria established 
     under paragraph (2).
       (c) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Council, in coordination with the National Academy of 
     Sciences, shall propose revisions to the planning principles 
     and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of 
     Engineers to improve the process by which the Corps of 
     Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects.
       (2) Public participation.--The Council shall solicit public 
     and expert comment and testimony regarding proposed revisions 
     and shall subject proposed revisions to public notice and 
     comment.
       (3) Revisions.--Revisions proposed by the Council shall 
     improve water resources project planning through, among other 
     things--
       (A) focusing Federal dollars on the highest water resources 
     priorities of the United States;
       (B) requiring the use of modern economic principles and 
     analytical techniques, credible schedules for project 
     construction, and current discount rates as used by all other 
     Federal agencies;
       (C) discouraging any project that induces new development 
     or intensified economic activity in flood prone areas, and 
     eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to 
     low-income communities, including fully accounting for the 
     prevention of loss of life as required by section 904 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);
       (D) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage 
     the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources 
     development and management, and fully accounting for the 
     flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
       (E) utilizing a comprehensive, regional approach to port 
     planning;
       (F) promoting environmental restoration projects that 
     reestablish natural processes;
       (G) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent 
     studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters 
     such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of 
     1993; and
       (H) ensuring the effective implementation of the National 
     Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy established 
     by this Act.
       (d) Revision of Planning Guidelines.--Not later than 180 
     days after submission of the proposed revisions required by 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement the 
     recommendations of the Council by incorporating the proposed 
     revisions into the planning principles and guidelines, 
     regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers. These 
     revisions shall be subject to public notice and comment 
     pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Administrative Procedure Act''). Effective beginning on the 
     date on which the Secretary carries out the first revision 
     under this paragraph, the Corps of Engineers shall not be 
     subject to--
       (1) subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17); and
       (2) any provision of the guidelines entitled ``Economic and 
     Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 
     Land Resources Implementation Studies'' and dated 1983, to 
     the extent that such a provision conflicts with a guideline 
     revised by the Secretary.
       (e) Availability.--Each report prepared under this section 
     shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to 
     the Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (f) Water Resources Council.--Section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a) is amended in the 
     first sentence by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental 
     Quality,'' after ``Secretary of Transportation,''.
       (g) Funding.--In carrying out this section, the Council 
     shall use funds made available for the general operating 
     expenses of the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE PROJECT PLANNING.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'' means a 
     State that is located, in whole or in part, within the 
     drainage basin in which a water resources project is carried 
     out and that would be economically or environmentally 
     affected as a result of the project.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     Independent Review appointed under subsection (c).
       (3) Study.--The term ``study'' means a feasibility report, 
     general reevaluation report,

[[Page S1357]]

     or environmental impact statement prepared by the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each study 
     for each water resources project described in paragraph (2) 
     is subject to review by an independent panel of experts 
     established under this section.
       (2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project 
     shall be subject to review under this section if--
       (A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
       (B) the Governor of an affected State requests in writing 
     to the Secretary the establishment of an independent panel of 
     experts for the project;
       (C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the 
     project determines that the project is likely to have a 
     significant adverse impact on cultural, environmental, or 
     other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and 
     requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an 
     independent panel of experts for the project; or
       (D) the Secretary determines that the project is 
     controversial based upon a finding that--
       (i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size, 
     nature, or effects of the project;
       (ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic 
     or environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
       (iii) there is a significant dispute regarding the 
     potential benefits to communities affected by the project of 
     a project alternative that was not fully considered in the 
     study.
       (3) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any 
     party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether a project is controversial.
       (c) Director of Independent Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Army shall 
     appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a 
     Director of Independent Review. The term of a Director 
     appointed under this subsection shall be 6 years, and an 
     individual may serve as the Director for not more than 2 
     nonconsecutive terms.
       (2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army 
     shall select the Director from among individuals who are 
     distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, biology, 
     economics, or another discipline relating to water resources 
     management. The Inspector General of the Army shall not 
     appoint an individual to serve as the Director if the 
     individual has a financial interest in or close professional 
     association with any entity with a financial interest in a 
     water resources project that, on the date of appointment of 
     the Director, is under construction, in the preconstruction 
     engineering and design phase, or under feasibility or 
     reconnaissance study by the Corps of Engineers. The Inspector 
     General of the Army may establish additional criteria if 
     necessary to avoid a conflict of interest between the 
     individual appointed as Director and the projects subject to 
     review.
       (3) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of 
     experts to review each water resources project that is 
     subject to review under subsection (b).
       (d) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days before the release 
     of a draft study subject to review under subsection 
     (b)(2)(A), and not later than 30 days after a determination 
     that a review is necessary under subparagraph (B), (C), or 
     (D) of subsection (b)(2), the Director shall establish a 
     panel of experts to review the draft study. Panels may be 
     convened earlier on the request of the Chief of Engineers.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the 
     Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5 
     nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more 
     engineers, hydrologists, biologists, and economists) who 
     represent a range of areas of expertise.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall apply 
     the National Academy of Science's policy for selecting 
     committee members to ensure that members of a review panel 
     have no conflict with the project being reviewed.
       (4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the 
     National Academy of Sciences in developing lists of 
     individuals to serve on panels of experts under this section.
       (5) Notification.--To ensure that the Director is able to 
     effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this 
     section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing 
     not later than 120 days before the release of a draft study 
     for a project costing more than $25,000,000 or for which a 
     preliminary assessment suggests that a panel of experts may 
     be required.
       (6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of 
     experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of 
     pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
       (7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under 
     this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an 
     employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     the duties of the panel.
       (e) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a 
     water resources project under this section shall--
       (1) review each draft study prepared for the project;
       (2) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and 
     environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the 
     project and assess whether the best available economic and 
     scientific data and methods of analysis have been used;
       (3) assess the extent to which the study complies with the 
     National Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy 
     established by this Act;
       (4) evaluate the engineering assumptions and plans for any 
     flood control structure whose failure could result in 
     significant flooding;
       (5) receive from the public written and oral comments 
     concerning the project;
       (6) submit an Independent Review Report to the Secretary 
     that addresses the economic, engineering, and environmental 
     analyses of the project, including the conclusions of the 
     panel, with particular emphasis on areas of public 
     controversy, with respect to the study; and
       (7) submit a Final Assessment Report to the Secretary that 
     briefly provides the views of the panel on the extent to 
     which the final study prepared by the Corps adequately 
     addresses issues or concerns raised by the panel in the 
     Independent Review Report.
       (f) Deadlines for Panel Reports.--A panel shall submit its 
     Independent Review Report under subsection (e)(6) to the 
     Secretary not later than 90 days after the close of the 
     public comment period or not later than 180 days after the 
     panel is convened, whichever is later. A panel shall submit 
     its Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7) to the 
     Secretary not later than 30 days after release of the final 
     study. The Director may extend these deadlines for good cause 
     shown.
       (g) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by secretary.--If the Secretary receives 
     an Independent Review Report on a water resources project 
     from a panel of experts under subsection (e)(6), the 
     Secretary shall, at least 30 days before releasing a final 
     study for the project, take into consideration any 
     recommendations contained in the report, prepare a written 
     explanation for any recommendations not adopted, and make 
     such written explanations available to the public, including 
     through posting on the Internet.
       (2) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
     Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are 
     inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel 
     of experts under this section shall not be entitled to 
     deference in a judicial proceeding.
       (3) Submission to congress and public availability.--After 
     receiving an Independent Review Report under subsection 
     (e)(6) or a Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7), 
     the Secretary shall immediately make a copy of the report 
     available to the public. The Secretary also shall immediately 
     make available to the public any written response by the 
     Secretary prepared pursuant to paragraph (1). Copies of all 
     independent review panel reports and all written responses by 
     the Secretary also shall be included in any report submitted 
     to Congress concerning the project.
       (h) Record of Decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a 
     record of decision or a report of the Chief of Engineers for 
     a water resources project subject to review under this 
     section until, at the earliest, 14 days after the deadline 
     for submission of the Final Assessment Report required under 
     subsection (e)(7).
       (i) Public Access to Information.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that information relating to the analysis of any water 
     resources project by the Corps of Engineers, including all 
     supporting data, analytical documents, and information that 
     the Corps of Engineers has considered in the justification 
     for and analysis of the project, is made available to the 
     public on the Internet and to an independent review panel, if 
     a panel is established for the project. The Secretary shall 
     not make information available under this paragraph if the 
     Secretary determines that the information is a trade secret 
     of any person that provided the information to the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (j) Costs of Review.--
       (1) In general.--The cost of conducting a review of a water 
     resources project under this section shall not exceed--
       (A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the 
     project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive these cost limitations 
     if the Secretary determines that the waiver is appropriate.
       (k) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to 
     a panel of experts established under this section.

     SEC. 6. MITIGATION.

       (a) Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to the Congress'' and 
     inserting ``to Congress, and shall not choose a project 
     alternative in any final record of decision, environmental 
     impact statement, or environmental assessment,'', and by 
     inserting in the second sentence ``and other habitat types'' 
     after ``bottomland hardwood forests''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S1358]]

       ``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
       ``(A) Mitigation.--To mitigate losses to flood damage 
     reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a 
     water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     mitigation for each water resources project complies fully 
     with the mitigation standards and policies established by 
     each State in which the project is located. Under no 
     circumstances shall the mitigation required for a water 
     resources project be less than would be required of a private 
     party or other entity under section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
       ``(B) Mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a detailed plan to monitor mitigation implementation 
     and ecological success, including the designation of the 
     entities that will be responsible for monitoring;
       ``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the 
     mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful, 
     prepared in consultation with the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director of the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each 
     State in which the project is located;
       ``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in 
     land to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a 
     determination that land and interests are available for 
     acquisition;
       ``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation 
     sites, and types and amount of restoration activities to be 
     conducted, to permit a thorough evaluation of the likelihood 
     of the ecological success and aquatic and terrestrial 
     resource functions and habitat values that will result from 
     the plan; and
       ``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if 
     monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not 
     achieving ecological success as described in the ecological 
     success criteria.
       ``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
       ``(A) In general.--Mitigation under this subsection shall 
     be considered to be successful at the time at which 
     monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation has met the 
     ecological success criteria established in the mitigation 
     plan.
       ``(B) Evaluation and reporting.--The Secretary shall 
     consult annually with the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service and the Director of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each State in which 
     the project is located, on each water resources project 
     requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation 
     monitoring for that project demonstrates that the project is 
     achieving, or has achieved, ecological success. Not later 
     than 60 days after the date of completion of the annual 
     consultation, the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or the Director of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, as appropriate, shall, and each State in 
     which the project is located may, submit to the Secretary a 
     report that describes--
       ``(i) the ecological success of the mitigation as of the 
     date of the report;
       ``(ii) the likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 
     ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan;
       ``(iii) the projected timeline for achieving that success; 
     and
       ``(iv) any recommendations for improving the likelihood of 
     success.

     The Secretary shall respond in writing to the substance and 
     recommendations contained in such reports not later than 30 
     days after the date of receipt. Mitigation monitoring shall 
     continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation 
     has met the ecological success criteria.''.
       (b) Mitigation Tracking System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources 
     project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary 
     and for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
       (A) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat 
     types affected by the project, project operation, or 
     permitted activity;
       (B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the 
     project, project operation, or permitted activity;
       (C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been 
     completed for the project, project operation, or permitted 
     activity; and
       (D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out 
     for the project, project operation, or permitted activity.
       (2) Required information and organization.--The 
     recordkeeping system shall--
       (A) include information on impacts and mitigation described 
     in paragraph (1) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
       (B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application, 
     and zip code.
       (3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make 
     information contained in the recordkeeping system available 
     to the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 7. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Chief's Reports.--The Chief of Engineers shall not 
     submit a Chief's report to Congress recommending construction 
     of a water resources project until that Chief's report has 
     been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army.
       (b) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique 
     tracking number to each water resources project, to be used 
     by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.
       (c) Report Repository.--The Secretary shall maintain at the 
     Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study, 
     final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation 
     report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared 
     by the Corps of Engineers. These documents shall be made 
     available to the public for review, and electronic copies of 
     those documents shall be permanently available, through the 
     Internet website of the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold 
in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 
2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to 
Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective 
system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to 
protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and 
other natural disasters.
  Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When 
Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy 
beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six 
months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early 
stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road 
ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the 
reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations 
and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from 
this tragedy.
  One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the 
Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not 
always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can 
end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects 
with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a 
new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned 
from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army 
Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American 
taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and 
efficient manner.
  The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps 
related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina 
tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any 
measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must 
account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the 
American public.
  Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many 
billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of 
the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the 
modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more 
critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that 
will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need 
for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but 
never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as 
crucial as it is now.
  The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as 
the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can 
be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program 
analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts 
to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously 
introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator 
Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been 
such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these 
overdue reforms.
  Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a 
process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval 
procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives. 
Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national 
prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial 
projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of 
environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and 
monitored.
  With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National 
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, 
National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense,

[[Page S1359]]

Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World 
Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact.
  Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to 
our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the 
common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______