Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7813-S7894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 728, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 728) 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to start off by making a
general statement about the amendments we are going to offer, and I
assume that time will come off the time of the amendment I will offer,
the amendment on independent peer review. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that is the case.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will make a few remarks, and then I
would like to turn to the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, my friend, Senator Jeffords, for a few remarks. Then after
he has talked, I will offer the amendment.
Mr. President, today the Senate will consider two tremendously
important amendments to the Water Resources Development Act. Those
amendments are the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins
independent peer review amendment and the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-
Feinstein prioritization amendment.
As many know, I have tried to work for a long time to modernize the
Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that this Federal agency is best
situated to serve our great Nation. I have worked alongside Senator
McCain in these efforts, and I thank him for his dedication to helping
me bring attention to the need for congressional leadership to address
what many have noted as fundamental problems with the Corps.
I want to be clear about my intentions with the amendments we will
offer this morning, as well as our other efforts involving the Corps.
We just want to get this agency back on track to serve the interests of
all Americans. That is what it is about, period.
As many have noted over the past few days, I have been trying to
bring up this issue for quite some time. In fact, I have waited 6 long
years to come down to the floor of the Senate to push for meaningful
reform of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Back in 2000, during debate on final passage of the last enacted
WRDA, the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee
and the current ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, my
friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, made a commitment to me to address
the issues that plagued the Corps.
At that time I sought to offer an amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an
independent peer review process for the Army Corps. In response to my
amendment, the bill managers adopted language to authorize the National
Academy of Sciences to study peer review. This study has long been
complete, and the final recommendation was clear. In a 2002 report--
Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning--the National Academy of
Sciences recommended creation of a formalized process to independently
review costly or controversial Corps projects.
Four years later, and with Corps reform bills in the 106th, 107th,
108th, and 109th Congresses, we are still trying to enact such a
mechanism.
I would just like to note that I am pleased to see my friend involved
in this issue, particularly given the role he played in 2000. My only
hope is, after 6 years of work on this issue, we can go home tonight
knowing we did right by the taxpayers, by the citizens of our country
who rely on sound Corps projects to protect their families, their
property, and the natural systems they want to protect for future
generations.
Yes, Corps reform has been a work in progress. In 2001, I introduced
a stand-alone bill to modernize the Corps. Later that Congress, I
cosponsored a bill with Senator Smith from New Hampshire, Senator
Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Ensign of Nevada, and Senator McCain,
the senior Senator from Arizona. In March 2004 I introduced another
stand-alone Corps reform bill along with Senator Daschle and Senator
McCain. Then in the spring of 2005, Senator McCain and I offered
another bill detailing the changes we hoped to see in the agency. And,
finally, this spring we introduced another stand-alone bill.
What these efforts have been about is restoring credibility and
accountability to this Federal agency that has been rocked by scandal,
overextended to the tune of a 35-year backlog, and constrained by a
gloomy fiscal picture. We can do that today. We can restore credibility
and accountability to the Corps by passing the amendments that my
friend, the Senator from Arizona, and I will be offering.

Some have said I have an ax to grind with the Corps. That is not
true. The reason I am dedicated to improving this embattled agency is
that I care about the Corps, and I want it to succeed. My home State of
Wisconsin and numerous other States across our country rely on the
Corps. From the Great Lakes to the Mississippi, the Corps is involved
in providing aid to navigation, environmental restoration, flood
control, and many other valuable services.
I want to improve the way this agency operates, so that not only
Wisconsinites but all Americans--particularly those who help pay for
Corps projects either through their Federal tax dollars or, in many
cases, through taxes they pay at a local level as part of a non-Federal
cost-sharing arrangement--can rest easy knowing that their flood
control projects are not going to fail them, their ecosystem
restoration projects are going to protect our environmental treasures,
and their navigation projects are based on sound economics and reliable
traffic projections.
Much of the work that has gone into reforming the Corps was done
before our Nation saw a major U.S. city laid to waste. When Hurricane
Katrina rocked New Orleans, none of us imagined the horrors that would
ensue. None of us imagined that much of the flooding--much of the
flooding--that occurred could have possibly been prevented had some of
the reforms we will be discussing today been in place decades ago.
Despite every wish to the contrary, the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina exposed serious problems that this body will be addressing for
years to come. Many have stood on this floor and in their States and
talked about what must be done to responsibly move forward in a post-
Katrina landscape. And many of those discussions have, of course,
centered, appropriately, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I am here to say that if you were outraged by FEMA's poor response,
like me, then you should be equally outraged by problems with the Corps
and the process that has determined where limited Federal resources are
spent.
While any hurricane that makes landfall will leave some level of
destruction behind, the country has been shocked to learn that there
were engineering flaws in the New Orleans levees, and that important
information was ignored by the Corps. According to one of the
independent reviewers looking into what happened with the levee
failures, the causes of the failures ``are firmly founded in
organizational and institutional failures that are primarily focused in
the Corps of Engineers.''
Now, I had the chance to visit New Orleans a little over a week ago,
and I can attest that the sentiment toward the Corps is anything but
cordial. There is a lot of anger toward the Corps down there, and we
have a responsibility in Congress to address it.
Additionally, following the hurricane, we have faced questions from
our constituents about where the Corps was spending its limited budget
and why. We have a responsibility to address those legitimate concerns,
too.
The Times-Picayune of New Orleans recently said the following:

Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, are critical for
this state [meaning Louisiana, of course] which--after the
levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the
poster child [the poster child] for the Corps' shortcomings.

[[Page S7814]]

The best chance for changing the way the Corps operates is
through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ
Feingold.

And finally,

Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in
changing the way the Corps does business. The McCain-Feingold
amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the
main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe
and Kit Bond. What those Senators offer as reform is
meaningless, however . . . Sham reform won't do anything
to restore confidence in the Corps and the Congress must
do better.

I agree that this body must do better than sham reform. Today Senator
McCain and I will be offering amendments that we believe are the
minimum changes this body must accept as we look to the future and
reflect on the past. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in
demonstrating that the Senate can respond to over 10 years of
Government reports--from the Government Accountability Office, the
National Academy of Sciences, and even the Army Inspector General--on
the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and provide the leadership
to move the Army Corps into the 21st century.
I want to publicly recognize the EPW Committee chairman and ranking
member, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, as well as the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure chairman and ranking member, Senators
Bonds and Baucus. Late this spring those offices approached Senator
McCain and me and indicated a willingness to talk about some of our
interest with respect to the Corps. From those discussions came real
compromise on both sides. The result is that the underlying WRDA bill
does include significant language to ensure periodic updating of the
principles and guidelines that form the foundation of every Corps
project but which have not been updated since 1983.
The language also includes a minimum mitigation standard for Corps
civil works projects. The Corps' track record on mitigation suggests
that the Nation would be better served through the standard described
in the underlying bill. As WRDA moves through conference, I look
forward to the EPW Committee standing by the language we agreed on and
included in the underlying bill in sections 2006 and 2008 so that it is
included in any bill that comes out of Congress.
I will now give some of my time on the amendment to my friend, a
distinguished leader in this area, the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 4681

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from
Vermont, I will offer the amendment, if there is no objection. I have
an amendment at the desk numbered 4681 regarding independent peer
review.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Carper, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Collins, proposes
an amendment numbered 4681.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

Amendment No. 4681, as Modified

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up a modified version of the
amendment which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 4681), as modified, is as follows:

Strike section 2007 and insert the following:

SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

[[Page S7815]]

(ii) Deadline for project planning review panel studies.--
An independent panel of experts established under this
subsection shall complete its review of the project study and
submit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 days
after the date of establishment of the panel, or not later
than 90 days after the close of the public comment period on
a draft project study that includes a preferred alternative,
whichever is later. The Secretary may extend these deadlines
for good cause.
(iii) Failure to complete review and report.--If an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection does not submit to the Secretary a report by the
deadline established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers
may continue project planning without delay.
(iv) Duration of panels.--An independent panel of experts
established under this subsection shall terminate on the date
of submission of the report by the panel. Panels may be
established as early in the planning process as deemed
appropriate by the Director of Independent Review, but shall
be appointed no later than 90 days before the release for
public comment of a draft study subject to review under
subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days after a
determination that review is necessary under subsection
(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D).
(E) Effect on existing guidance.--The project planning
review required by this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy
any external review required by Engineering Circular 1105-2-
408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision Documents.
(d) Safety Assurance.--
(1) Projects subject to safety assurance review.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the construction activities for
any flood damage reduction project shall be reviewed by an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection if the Director of Independent Review makes a
determination that an independent review is necessary to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare on any project--
(A) for which the reliability of performance under
emergency conditions is critical;
(B) that uses innovative materials or techniques;
(C) for which the project design is lacking in redundancy,
or that has a unique construction sequencing or a short or
overlapping design construction schedule; or
(D) other than a project described in subparagraphs (A)
through (C), as the Director of Independent Review determines
to be appropriate.
(2) Safety assurance review panels.--At the appropriate
point in the development of detailed engineering and design
specifications for each water resources project subject to
review under this subsection, the Director of Independent
Review shall establish an independent panel of experts to
review and report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
construction activities for the project. An independent panel
of experts under this subsection shall be composed of not
less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts selected from
among individuals who are distinguished experts in
engineering, hydrology, or other pertinent disciplines. The
Director of Independent Review shall apply the National
Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee members
to ensure that panel members have no conflict with the
project being reviewed. An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate
of pay to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be
allowed travel expenses.
(3) Deadlines for safety assurance reviews.--An independent
panel of experts established under this subsection shall
submit a written report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
the construction activities prior to the initiation of
physical construction and periodically thereafter until
construction activities are completed on a publicly available
schedule determined by the Director of Independent Review for
the purposes of assuring the public safety. The Director of
Independent Review shall ensure that these reviews be carried
out in a way to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, while not causing unnecessary delays in construction
activities.
(4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a
written report from an independent panel of experts
established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) take into consideration recommendations contained in
the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations
not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation
available to the public on the Internet; and
(B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(e) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of
experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a
Federal expense and shall not exceed--
(A) $250,000, 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, at the written request of the
Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost
limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any authority of the Secretary to cause
or conduct a peer review of the engineering, scientific, or
technical basis of any water resources project in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
I offer this independent peer review amendment on behalf of myself,
Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Collins. As we all know,
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, through their leadership of the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, have done an
extensive investigation into all aspects of the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. I applaud their leadership and am proud they are cosponsoring
this amendment, as I think it is a testament to the importance of
implementing the changes included in this amendment. Additionally,
Senator Jeffords has consistently pushed, through his position as
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many
of the provisions of this amendment. I publicly thank him for all his
attention to this matter.
Finally, Senator Carper has seen the need for an independent peer
review amendment through both his Homeland Security Committee
membership and his EPW Committee membership, and I appreciate his
support in moving this issue forward.
Before I explain exactly what my amendment does, let me take a few
minutes to talk about what various Government reports have said about
the Corps' study process, as these reports have been the basis of my
efforts over the last 6 years.
More than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences,
the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army inspector general,
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and other independent experts have
revealed a pattern of stunning flaws in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
project planning and implementation and urged substantial changes to
the Corps' project planning process. Most recently, in June of this
year, a report entitled ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Performance
Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane
Protection System Draft Final Report on the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force'' acknowledged that the New Orleans levees failed
catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina because of poor design and
flawed construction. In planning the system, the Corps did not take
into account poor soil quality and failed to account for the sinking of
land which caused sections to be as much as 2 feet lower than other
sections.
Breaches in four New Orleans canals were caused by foundation
failures that were ``not considered in the original design.'' The
system was designed to protect against a relatively low-strength
hurricane, and the Corps did not respond to repeated warnings from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that a stronger
hurricane should have been the standard. The Corps also did not
reexamine the heights of the levees after it had been warned about
significant subsidence.
In discussing this report, the Corps' chief of engineers acknowledged
that the agency must change, telling reporters that ``words alone will
not restore trust in the Corps.''
Also, in June of this year, a report issued by the American Society
of Civil Engineers, ``Project Engineering Peer Review Within the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers,'' recommends that Congress enact legislation
to mandate external, independent peer reviews for all major Corps
projects that would include reviews of the feasibility report,
subsequent design and engineering reports, the project plans, and
specifications and construction. Reviews should be carried out by
experts who have no connection to the Corps, to the local project
sponsor, or to the particular project contract.
In May of this year, we got ``A Nation Still Unprepared,'' a report
that resulted from the excellent work of my friend from Maine, Senator
Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor of our independent peer review
amendment, and Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking member of the committee,
and another cosponsor of our amendment.

[[Page S7816]]

That report recommends independent peer review of levee systems that
protect population centers throughout the country. I don't know if
Senator Collins or Senator Lieberman will have time to elaborate more
on the thorough investigation their committee conducted and on their
key findings and recommendations, but the report in many ways speaks
volumes on its own.
One of the most striking reports, conducted by R.B. Seed in May of
this year, ``Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood
Protection Systems and Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, Draft
Final Report,'' finds that the catastrophic failure of the New Orleans
regional flood protection system was the result of ``engineering
lapses, poor judgments, and efforts to reduce costs at the expense of
system reliability.'' The Corps failed to design the system with
appropriate safety standards, failed to adequately address the complex
geology of the region, failed to provide adequate design oversight, and
engaged in ``a persistent pattern of attempts to reduce costs of
constructed works at the price of corollary reduction in safety and
reliability.''
These failings led to the ``single most costly catastrophic failure
of an engineered system in history'' that caused the deaths of more
than 1,290 people and some $100 to $150 billion in damages to the
greater New Orleans area.
I could go on, and I will. I want my colleagues to know what is at
stake. In March 2006, the Government Accountability Office testified
that ``the Corps' track record of providing reliable information that
can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.'' Four recent
Corps studies examined by GAO were ``fraught with errors, mistakes, and
miscalculations and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' These
studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking.'' The
recurring problems ``clearly indicate that the Corps' planning and
project management processes cannot ensure that national priorities are
appropriately established across the hundreds of civil works projects
that are competing for scarce federal resources.'' Problems at the
agency are ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the
Corps' Civil Works portfolio'' so that effectively addressing these
issues ``may require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the
Corps' planning and project management processes rather than a
piecemeal approach.''
I commend to my coleagues this damning testimony before the House
Energy and Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform
by Ann Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO.
In March of 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers External
Review Panel for the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force
letter to the Corps' chief of engineers found that decisions made
during the original design phase led to the failure of the 17th Street
canal floodwall in New Orleans and are representative of ``an overall
pattern of engineering judgment inconsistent with that required for
critical structures.'' These problems pose ``significant implications
for the current and future safety offered by levees, floodwalls and
control structures in New Orleans, and perhaps elsewhere.'' The
External Review Panel recommends a number of immediate actions to
improve Corps planning for ``levees and floodwalls in New Orleans and
perhaps everywhere else in the nation,'' including external peer review
of the Corps' design process for critical life safety structures.

In September 2005, the GAO issued a report which backs up our call
for prioritization. ``Army Corps of Engineers, Improved Planning and
Financial Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions
to Manage Project Funds'' finds that the Corps' excessive use of
reprogramming funds is being used as a substitute for an effective
priority-setting system for the civil works program and as a substitute
for sound fiscal and project management.
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Corps reprogrammed funds over
7,000 times and moved over $2.1 billion among projects within the
investigations and constructions account.
In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a
report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.'' This report recommends that the
National Ocean Council review and recommend changes to the Corps' civil
works program to ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of
coastal projects; provide greater transparency to the public; enforce
requirements for mitigating the impacts of coastal projects; and
coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts.
The report also recommends that Congress modify its current
authorization and funding processes to encourage the Corps to monitor
outcomes from past projects and study the cumulative and regional
impacts of its activities within coastal watersheds and ecosystems.
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a slew of reports:
The ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New
Opportunity for Service'' recommends modernizing the Corps's
authorities, planning approaches, and guidelines to better match
contemporary water resources management challenges.
``Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning''
recommends needed changes to ensure effective use of the adaptive
management by the Corps for its civil works projects.
``River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers'' describes the challenges to water resources
planning at the scale of river basins and coastal systems and
recommends needed changes to the Corps' current planning practices.
``Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Planning''
recommends needed changes to the Corps' ``Principles and Guidelines''
in planning guidance policies.
In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission's ``America's Living Oceans,
Charting a Course for Sea Change, A Report to the Nation,
Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy'' recommends enactment of
``substantial reforms'' of the Corps, including legislation to ensure
that Corps projects are environmentally and economically sound and
reflect national priorities. The Pew report recommends development of
uniform standards for Corps participation in shoreline restoration
projects and transformation of the Corps over the long term into a
strong and reliable force for environmental restoration. The report
also recommends that Congress direct the Corps and other Federal
agencies to develop a comprehensive floodplain management policy that
emphasizes nonstructural control measures.
In May 2002, the GAO found in its report ``Scientific Panel's
Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance'' that the Corps
has proposed no mitigation for almost 70 percent of its projects. And
for those few projects where the Corps does perform mitigation, 80
percent of the time it does not carry out the mitigation concurrently
with project construction.
In response to language that was included in the WRDA 2000 bill, the
National Academy of Sciences, in ``Review Procedures for Water
Resources Planning'' issued in 2002, recommends creation of a
formalized process to independently review costly or controversial
Corps projects. And in one of the most disturbing of the numerous
reports on the Corps and the problems endemic in this agency, in
November 2000, the Department of the Army Inspector General issued a
report entitled ``Investigation of Allegations Against the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Involving Manipulation of Studies Related to the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Systems.''
Their report found that the Corps deceptively and intentionally
manipulated data in an attempt to justify a $1.2 billion expansion of
locks on the upper Mississippi River and that the Corps has an
institutional bias for constructing costly, large-scale structural
projects.
Back in 1999--yes, 7 years ago--the National Academy of Sciences, in
their report titled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' recommends key changes to the Corps'
planning process and examines the length of time and cost of Corps
studies in comparison with similar studies carried out by the private
sector.

[[Page S7817]]

Twelve years ago, in June of 1994, the Interagency Floodplain
Management Review Committee report, ``Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain
Management Into the 21st Century,'' a Report to the Administration
Floodplain Management Task Force--often referred to as the Galloway
Report after the report's primary author, BG Gerald Galloway--
recommends changes to the Nation's water resources policies based on
lessons learned from the great Midwest Flood of 1993, including
modernizing the Corps' Principles and Guidelines, requiring the Corps
to give full consideration to nonstructural flood damage reduction
alternatives, requiring periodic reviews of completed Corps projects,
adopting floodplain management guidelines that would minimize impacts
to floodplains land reduce vulnerabilities to population centers and
critical infrastructure, and reinstituting the Water Resources Council
to facilitate improvement in Federal water resources planning.
Lastly, but certainly not least, in 1994 that very busy National
Academy of Sciences issued yet another scathing report, ``Restoring and
Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology,''
which finds, among other things, that the Corps and all Federal
agencies with responsibility for marine habitat management should
revise their policies and procedures to increase use of restoration
technologies; take into account which natural functions can be restored
or facilitated; improve coordination concerning marine resources;
include environmental and economic benefits derived from nonstrucural
measures in benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat projects; and examine
the feasibility of improving economic incentives for marine habitat
restoration. It has been a long recitation of these reports, but it is
an amazing record.
Over 12 years of analysis on how we can improve the Corps of
Engineers. During that time, WRDA bills passed in 1996, 1999, and 2000,
with the only reform coming in the NAS study I got included in the 2000
bill. That is why today is the day to implement the knowledge we have
from all of this expert consideration of the Corps. Today is the day
for action.
With that history in mind, let me describe what our independent peer
review amendment does: No. 1, it requires independent review of
projects that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety.
Under my amendment Corps project planning will be independently
reviewed if the project costs more than $40 million, a Governor
requests a review, a Federal agency finds the project will have a
significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the Army determines
that the project is controversial; No. 2, it ensures truly independent
review panels by implementing National Academy of Sciences criteria
about who would be eligible to provide expert review; No. 3, if
implements the recommendation of the 2002 National Academy of Sciences
report on peer review that said that independent reviewers should be
given the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of
decisionmakers; No. 4, it includes strict deadlines for reviews.
Reviews are subject to a strict timeline that requires independent
review panels to complete the review 180 days after being impaneled or
90 days following the close of public comment, whichever provides the
most time. This timeline balances the need to not delay the planning
process with the need to ensure that the panel will be able to review
the full draft study and to consider any relevant public comments; and
No. 5, it implements recommendations from the Senate Homeland Security
and Government Affairs Committee's Katrina report by requiring review
of the more detailed technical design and construction work for Corps
flood control projects where failure could jeopardize the public
safety.
In a nutshell, that is what the amendment does.
Mr. President, when you have worked on an issue as long as I have
worked on Corps reform, you are likely to hear your intentions
mischaracterized.
I wish to address at some point today some of the myths out there
about what we are trying to do here. At this point, I inquire whether
my cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona, is interested in addressing
this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak
first.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, Mr. President, I think the ranking member of the
committee would like to make a short statement, and then it would be
fine for Senator McCain to go and, after that, Senator Bond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold-McCain
amendment on the Army Corps of Engineers' independent peer review,
which I am proud to cosponsor.
For years, we have heard from a variety of reports about the need for
reforming the Corps, reports that Senator Feingold has elaborated on in
his statement.
I thank him for his leadership in this issue. In fact, Senator
Feingold has been a leader on this issue for many years. Through his
efforts, an amendment was included in the last water resources bill in
2000 directing the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a 1-year
study on peer review. In the 107th Congress, Senator Feingold
introduced a comprehensive Corps reform bill and the Environment and
Public Works Committee held a hearing on it.
While development of the bill before the Senate today was a bi-
partisan effort, independent reviews, mitigation and planning, and
issues considered Corps reform, were not negotiated by the bill's
managers.
However, in the previous Congress, the managers were able to reach a
compromise agreement on these issues, including peer review, which I
offered during committee consideration of this bill, but it did not
prevail.
Since committee consideration of the bill, some improvements have
been made to the planning provisions of the bill, due to the work of
Senator Feingold, and I want to thank him for working with the managers
to incorporate those revisions.
I think many believe there should be independent peer review of Corps
projects, the debate is over what form that review should take and
which projects should be reviewed.
In fact, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Woodley, on March
31, 2004, in testimony before the Environment and Public Works
Committee stated:

The concept of requiring a peer review is something that
should be addressed. We are supportive of requiring outside
independent peer review of certain Corps projects. Peer
review, where appropriate, would be a very useful tool and
add significant credibility to the Corps project analyses and
to our ability to judge the merits of a project.

I think the Feingold-McCain amendment provides the strong, truly
independent peer review that is needed to assure that taxpayer dollars
are being spent on projects that have had the utmost scrutiny and
unbiased review. The Inhofe/Bond amendment does not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feingold,
Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords in sponsoring the amendment. This
amendment has been described already by my friend from Wisconsin. I
will point out again that it establishes a truly independent system for
conducting peer review of certain Army Corps projects.
As my colleagues know, the Corps comes under intense scrutiny by
Government watchdog agencies and taxpayer groups, including the
Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences.
Investigation after investigation into the Corps' project review
practices has revealed serious problems with the quality, objectivity,
and credibility of the Corps when reporting on the economic and
environmental feasibility of proposed water projects. One GAO report
concluded in 2006 that the Corps' planning studies ``were fraught with
errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and
outdated data.'' The same GAO report cited several examples of the
Corps' failure to properly analyze projects.
These include the Sacramento flood protection project. According to
the GAO, the Corps didn't fully analyze likely cost increases for the
Sacramento flood protection project or report cost overruns to Congress
in a

[[Page S7818]]

timely manner. The GAO found that the estimated cost of the project
originally totaled about $114 million but increased to about $500
million by 2002. By the time the Corps reported those cost increases to
Congress in 2002, it had already spent or planned to spend more than
double its original estimated cost.
The Delaware deepening project: The GAO found that the Corps
substantially overstated the projected economic benefits of the
Delaware River channel-deepening project. Whereas the Corps estimated
the benefits to be $40.1 million per year in 1998, the GAO projected
only $13.3 million per year. The GAO urged the Corps to reanalyze the
project, which later revealed it could be built for $56 million less
than the Corps estimated.
The list goes on and on of these projects that have been understated
in cost, not properly justified. There is not a proper prioritization.
Regarding the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty project,
according to the GAO, the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty
project, issued in 2001, failed to ``consider alternatives to the
proposed project, used outdated data to estimate benefits to fishing
trawlers, and did not account for the effects on smaller fishing
vessels.''
In 2005, the Corps adopted guidelines for conducting external reviews
of projects. It sounds like a good idea. The current guidelines give
the Corps virtually complete discretion to decide what projects should
be reviewed from outside the Corps. The so-called peer reviewers
themselves are selected by the Corps and in some circumstances can even
be Corps employees. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Corps officials have identified approximately 25 engineering
studies as eligible for outside peer review since the peer review
guidelines were enacted over a year ago, but the Corps has not been
able to point to any study where an external review was actually
carried out.
Clearly, the system needs to be fixed. According to this amendment,
Corps studies would be subject to peer review if the project cost more
than $40 million, the Governor of an affected State requests a review,
a Federal agency with statutory authority to review a project finds
that it will have significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the
Army determines that the project is controversial.
This kind of issue hits home pretty much when we have a situation
such as the catastrophe in New Orleans.
According to a March 25, 2006, article in the Washington Post:

An organization of civil engineers yesterday questioned the
soundness of large portions of New Orleans' levee system,
warning that the city's federally designed flood walls were
not built to standards stringent enough to protect a large
city.
The group faulted the agency responsible for the levees,
the Army Corps of Engineers, for adapting safety standards
that were ``too close to the margin'' to protect human life.
It also called for an urgent reexamination of the entire
levee system, saying there are no assurances that the miles
of concrete ``I-walls'' in New Orleans will hold up against
even a moderate hurricane.

We have just experienced an incredible disaster and, apparently, the
Corps of Engineers is not taking the proper measures to repair it.

Corps officials said they had already taken steps to
address problems identified in the letter, starting with an
effort to replace miles of I-walls with sturdier structures.
But agency officials insisted the Corps was not solely to
blame for weaknesses in the system.
``We have done the best things we could have done. We live
here,'' spokeswoman Susan J. Jackson said. . . .
The American Society of Civil Engineers panel is one of
three independent teams investigating the failure of the New
Orleans levees, and until now it has been the most cautious
in its public criticisms. The other investigating teams
quickly endorsed its findings.
``We agree that every single foot of the I-walls is
suspect,'' said Ivor van Heerden, leader of a Louisiana-
appointed team of engineers. ``When asked, we have constantly
urged anyone returning to New Orleans to exercise caution . .
.

We are talking about a pretty serious situation here.
On May 14, 2006, an article entitled ``A Flood of Bad Projects,'' was
written by Mr. Michael Grunwald who is a Washington Post staff writer.
He goes on to say:

In 2000, when I was writing a 50,000-word Washington Post
series about dysfunction at the Army Corps of Engineers, I
highlighted a $65 million flood control project in Missouri
as Exhibit A. Corps documents showed that the project would
drain more acres of wetlands than all U.S. developers do in a
typical year, but wouldn't stop flooding in the town it was
meant to protect. FEMA'S director called it ``a crazy idea'';
the Fish and Wildlife Service's regional director called it
``absolutely ridiculous.''
Six years later, the project hasn't changed--except for its
cost, which has soared to $112 million.

Remember, Mr. President, originally, it was $65 million.

Larry Prather, chief of legislative management for the
Corps, privately described it in a 2002 e-mail as an
``economic dud with huge environmental consequences.''
Another Corps official called it ``a bad project. Period.''
But the Corps still wants to build it.
``Who can take this seriously?'' Prather asked in his e-
mail. That's a good thing question to ask about the entire
civil works program of the Corps.

It goes on to say:

Somehow, America has concluded that the scandal of Katrina
was the government's response to the disaster, not the
government's contribution to the disaster. The Corps has
eluded the public's outrage--even though a useless Corps
shipping canal intensified Katrina's surge,--

Remember that, we have come to the shipping canal intensified
Katrina's surge--

even though poorly designed Corps floodwalls collapsed just a
few feet from an unnecessary $750 million Corps navigation
project, even though the Corps had promoted development in
dangerously low-lying New Orleans floodplains and had helped
destroy the vast marshes that [surround it.]

There have been many studies and views of what happened in New
Orleans. We all know that canal intensified the damage. We all know
that the levees were not well built. Some of them, according to other
news reports, had already been turned over to the local authorities.
What we are asking for is rather modest. I am going to be astonished
at the response of my dear friends from Missouri and Oklahoma about
this because basically all this says is that there would be a peer
review if a project costs more than $40 million, and if the Governor of
an affected State--which seems to be a fairly good Republican principle
to me--requests a review that it should be allowed, and a Federal
agency with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will
have a significant adverse impact or the Secretary of the Army
determines that the project is controversial.
The timing of the review is flexible, but the duration is strictly
limited in order to not delay the process. Reviewers will be able to
consider all the data, facts, and models used.
Finally, the amendment establishes an independent safety assurance
review for flood control projects where the public safety could be at
risk should the project fail.
By the way, that was recommended in the Senate Homeland Security
Committee's report on Hurricane Katrina.
I would think that the Members of this body, knowing the intense
criticism that the Corps of Engineers has come under for years and
these dramatic cost overruns time after time--I later may submit for
the Record the very long list of cost overruns that have been incurred
due to bad estimates to start with--that we would want to have greater
oversight, that we would want to have a peer review system that would
only apply to projects over $40 million each and if a Governor of a
State requests it.
If I were in the Corps of Engineers, maybe I would like to continue
to do business as usual, but I think we showed in New Orleans that we
are not talking about just cost overruns. We are not just talking about
featherbedding in bureaucracies. We are talking about the lives of our
citizens and catastrophes that could take place.

I hope my colleagues will understand that this amendment is meant to
try to improve the image of the Corps of Engineers, to give greater
confidence to the taxpayers of America that their tax dollars are being
wisely spent, and that we will do everything we can to prevent the kind
of construction and failing that took place in New Orleans which caused
so much damage, including the construction of a canal that aggravated
dramatically the disaster that took place.
I might add, it was also the Corps of Engineers' projects which
depleted the wetlands which have been the natural barrier to hurricanes
for hundreds of years, which are disappearing as we

[[Page S7819]]

speak. As we speak, the wetlands south of Louisiana are being eroded on
a daily basis.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his
involvement in this issue. I hope my colleagues will understand,
considering the rather significant shortfalls and shortcomings we have
found involved in the Corps of Engineers, that we would want to support
an effort for greater accountability and greater transparency and more
involvement by local government.
I also remind my colleagues that there are many projects which are on
the boards, in planning stages. We will be discussing that when I
propose my amendment for a process of prioritization for these
projects.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add the
following cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond amendment: Senators Cochran,
Domenici, and Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, also, I am going to announce what we are
doing. We are going to be considering these two amendments, and after
the time has expired for both amendments under the time agreement, then
we will actually be voting on them side by side. That will take place
and people will have a choice.
I also want to mention that the Senator from Wisconsin and the
Senator from Arizona acknowledge that the underlying substitute
amendment does improve this situation. I don't think anyone is saying
that what we have had in the past is acceptable. It is not acceptable.
We are talking about making major changes, and the underlying
substitute amendment does that as well as either of the amendments we
are considering now.
Before I forget to do this, I wish to repeat something I said a
couple of days ago. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and all
the members of our committee for working closely together so that this
very significant legislation could come to the floor. I think,
regardless of what amendments are adopted, we are going to have a
dramatic improvement over the current system.
Speaking of thanking people, I thank Senator Bond. He is the one who
has been a driving force in this committee. I yield to him at this time
whatever time he wants to consume on our amendment or on the Feingold-
McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. I just did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the chairman of the
committee for giving me this opportunity to respond.
I was very pleased that my friend from Arizona finally called
attention to the St. John's Bayou-New Madrid floodway project. This is
a very important project. I invite the Senator out to see it sometime
because this area, a large area of southeast Missouri, was converted to
cropland in the early 1900s.
One can argue whether that was a good idea, but for over a century,
it has been farmed and farmed successfully. They are not wetlands.
There are no wetlands being drained there. This is cropland, and it is
farmed. Some of the farming is done by very low economic people.
Minority communities are located there. The minority community of
Pinhook holds many of the farmers who farm this land.
We have had very compelling testimony before the Environment and
Public Works Committee. When the late Jimmy Robbins, one of the leaders
of Pinhook, came up and explained that without closing the St. John's
Bayou-New Madrid floodway, every time the river comes up, the river
floods Pinhook. The entire community is covered in floodwater. They
have to get out high-wheel tractors and large farm tractors to ferry
their children to school, to ferry them back and forth to work, to take
care of their basic needs.
Do we want to subject these people to continued flooding?
My predecessor, Senator Tom Eagleton, back in 1976, proposed bringing
relief to the minority communities living in the area that floods when
the Mississippi River rises. Guess what. That was a mere 30 years ago
because his project had been reviewed, re-reviewed, replanned,
challenged, re-reviewed, re-reviewed, and the people of Pinhook
continued to be flooded.
This is not about draining wetlands. This is a problem of what
happens to the people who actually live there.
The purpose of the project is to protect communities, farmlands, and
wildlife in a flood-prone area. No wetlands will be drained. The
majority of the land has been leveled, improved, irrigated and is not
functioning as wetlands habitat but is functioning as farmland.
The Corps has reevaluated operations for fishery habitat for the area
and determined that this project still exceeds the 1-to-1 benefit-to-
cost ratio. I can tell you it is a whole lot more expensive than it
would have been had the project been done in a timely fashion after
1976. That is what happens when you study, when you threaten to
bankrupt local communities trying to pay their share. You put the State
at great expense to continue these operations.
Yes, we should study, and the amendment that has been proposed by
Senator Inhofe and me provides for review to make sure the review is
accurate. But to provide the additional bureaucracy, the additional
hassle that the Feingold-McCain amendment provides does not in any way
assure that the taxpayers will get a better deal, the environment will
be better or that the needs of the people in the communities will be
better satisfied.
I want to discuss, very briefly, the technical and scientific
independent review amendment offered by Senator Inhofe and me and the
peer review amendment offered by Senators McCain and Feingold. Although
the difference between independent review and independent peer review
appears to be semantic and minor, when you look at what is in them, you
see the difference. Both proposed amendments address Corps reform and
both address external review. Nobody is arguing to say there shouldn't
be review, that we shouldn't take a look and see what needs to be done
and how it needs to be done better. Everybody can focus on the problems
of New Orleans. Well, when you look at the problems of New Orleans,
there are many factors that go into account. We are not going to
address those here. But you take a look at how money was spent locally
that was supposed to be spent on levees, and you take a look at the
decisions made along the way that were not well made.

Senator Inhofe and I have offered an amendment which is before us
that is going to require an independent review by qualified, interested
experts, compiled by the National Academy of Sciences, and the review
will occur throughout the entire process. In other words, people such
as representatives from the National Academy of Sciences, the IRC, the
American Society of Civil Engineers, will be focusing on the project as
it is developed. There are many stages in the development of these
projects, and they need to be reviewed to make sure the work that is
being done by the Corps is being done accurately.
This is a general operation of what happens before you go to a
decision to move forward. There is the chief's report; it is referred.
There are letters, OSA reviews, the Office of Management and Budget
reviews, the Office of Management and Budget has to clear it, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army recommends it to Congress, and then
Congress approves it. All of these steps--there are about 103 separate
steps that have to be followed. So it comes to the Congress as a
policymaker to decide whether it is an appropriate policy. But all
along that path, we want to have people who are scientifically
qualified to make sure that if they are building a levee, they build a
levee that will hold as projected. If they are building a lock, they
want to make sure it will hold water, that it will be sound, that it
will be safe, whether it is a levee or a lock.
As a result of the admission from the Corps that some of the problems
existed with the planning and construction of the New Orleans levees,
no one--not even the Corps--is denying that realistic reform is an
important component of this WRDA bill. The challenge is to enact
realistic reform that provides sufficient project review without
creating unnecessary costs.

[[Page S7820]]

The Inhofe-Bond amendment proposed does just that. It provides reform
that will establish greater accountability and assure us that
scientific, technical standards are observed without adding unjustified
delays and costs.
The peer review panels in the Feingold-McCain amendment are not
clearly restricted to reviewing the scientific and engineering basis.
The panels are permitted to get into policy, value, public controversy,
and make the decisions that Congress and the local community are
supposed to make. The local community decides whether to support it.
Congress makes a policy decision. Congress has provided already for
public hearings, public comment. Yesterday I went through the process
of the number of meetings that had been held with Governors, with
public hearings on the locks projects on the upper Mississippi, with
the number of comments, the number of people who participated. There is
tremendous public participation and input. Setting up a separate body
to judge that input, rather than the Congress, is not, I think, good
policy. We are supposed to make the policy based on the best scientific
recommendations we can get. OMB has a crack at the policy when they
send it up. But these policy reviews would be second-guessing the
scientific decisions.
Let's think about how this would play out in the transition. Once the
comment period moves beyond the technicality and the science, what
independent experts are dictating the project approval? We should not
dilute public review by giving technocrats a larger role in policy
recommendations than is given to the general public. There is a reason
why we rely upon the appropriate training and expertise of the people
who are generating the process to develop and construct our
infrastructure and safety needs.
Let's take a look at the local cost share that would go into the
Feingold-McCain process. It doesn't even provide for integration of
peer review until the end of the process. Making sure that the
independent review begins as the process goes forward is the way that
we assure the process is better. We want integration of the review all
throughout before you make a major mistake and go off in the wrong
direction. When you wait to have end-of-the-line peer review--does it
make any sense to wait until a car is coming off of an assembly line,
is rolled off the assembly line, to test to make sure that the lights
work and the switches work? You test them before you put them into the
car. That is what we are doing, we test along the line to make sure
that what you are putting into the process works. You don't want to put
components into a car only to find out, Hey, the lights don't work, the
switches don't work, and then have to start tearing the car apart.
That is what the Feingold-McCain amendment does. It is end-of-the-
line peer review. It invites multiple passes through the study process
with unacceptable expense and delay, and it would, in effect, become a
second study process. The first go-round, the local cost share, would
increase, because they have to pay for it, the locals have to pay for
it. It takes 1 to 3 years to go through the process in the first place,
and then you start a peer review at the end and it could take another
period of time, and if they send it back, you start it 1 to 3 years
over. That becomes extremely expensive for the local cosponsors. It
becomes extremely expensive for the taxpayers who are paying for the
tab if you redo it without reviewing the project as you go forward.
Doubling the time and moving the costs of a project outside of the
realm of the local community's ability to pay makes no sense.
Now, of course, beyond the peer review process, there is the
congressional process. Congress must authorize and fund studies on each
project and then authorize and appropriate funds to construct each
project. As we all know, the congressional process does take years. If
my ancient memory serves me, this is the 2002 Water Resources
Development Act. This was the bill that was due in 2002. Here we are 4
years later. Don't let anybody tell you that Congress doesn't review it
and review it and review it and review it until it is lying on the
floor gasping for breath.
The amendment Senator Inhofe and I propose establishes a peer review
panel that provides a safety net. We are elected to represent the
interests of constituents. We are not appointed bureaucrats. The
amendment takes away our authority to act on behalf of our constituents
and meet the needs of our local communities. It removes the checks and
balances set forth in our Constitution by shifting power away to other
people.

Now, why do we wait until the end of the line to do this peer review
in the first place? The collaborative solutions to urgent flood and
storm control and other important questions would be moved to the end
of the process and sent back to the drawing board.
Let's try another analogy. We test our schoolchildren throughout each
grade level and assess their progress. If a child has difficulty
reading, it is flagged, and intervention and extra help should be
provided. We do not wait until students reach the end of the eighth
grade and then test them to see if they have learned to read in the
first grade and send them back to the first grade. You ought to be
testing them each year to make sure they are proficient, and you ought
to be testing the hypotheses of this process throughout.
Common sense says that independent review is effective only if it is
used throughout the process. Can you imagine an employee working on a
project and planning for several years, and then during the end-of-the-
line review finding a technical error and having to go back to the
beginning? Not only is that unnecessarily delaying and expensive, but
it kills the motivation of employees, and it delays. I, along with
Senator Inhofe, propose independent peer review during this study
process.
One other thing, the inclusion of the expectation of litigation.
Their amendment talks about judicial review and invites judicial
review. Well, that is another cost adder that will continue to impose
burdens on communities and delay the effectiveness of the ability to
construct needed projects. With the clear-cut incentives to litigate,
we are going to see more lawsuits and less projects. Clear-cut
opportunities to litigate, if the committee is unhappy with the chief's
report, will only complicate the cost-benefit analysis, when it is
already too challenging to place a value on human life and the economic
lifeline of the country. The Corps study process already takes too long
and will be too expensive, and it will continue to delay the progress
we need.
Media reports and editorials have criticized what went on, and they
play the blame game--they burden the Corps with the blame. But Senators
should understand that the Corps needs to have an improved process, and
we are going to do our best to make sure that process is driven by
sound science throughout the process.
About 80 of our colleagues signed a letter saying, Bring this bill to
the floor. The 80 colleagues who are signed on to that letter believe
they have projects in their communities, in their States, that are
important. If you wish to continue to delay the passage of the WRDA
bill for another 2, 4, 6, 8 years, then forget about the environmental
benefits--the environmental benefits which are more than half of the
authorization of this project, and the environmental benefits which the
Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and other responsible
environmental groups say need to happen. Trying to delay the bill or
trying to delay the process of implementation of Corps studies and
recommendations is very costly and denies us the ability to accomplish
things that are important for the safety, the well-being of our
communities and the people who live in them.
Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to oppose the Feingold-McCain
amendment and to support the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we had a list of people wanting to be
heard. It is my understanding the Senator from Montana wants to be
heard, and that would come from the minority time on general debate.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over 70 years ago one of Montana's most
renowned political figures, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, attended a
meeting

[[Page S7821]]

with President Franklin D. Roosevelt where be proposed building the
Fort Peck Dam in Central Montana. Fort Peck would be the largest
hydraulic earth-filled dam in the world requiring over 11,000 workers
at peak construction. At a pricetag of $75 million, the cost of
construction was large even by today's standards. Fifteen minutes after
Senator Wheeler's meeting with President Roosevelt had begun, Senator
Wheeler walked out with a promise from President Roosevelt to have the
Army Corps of Engineers build Fort Peck Dam. Construction began in
1933.
While it has taken this Congress significantly longer than it did
Senator Wheeler to advance the water resource needs of the Nation, I am
pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Jeffords,
and Bond--to bring the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 to the
floor.
It has been nearly 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into
law. Protection of public safety, continued growth of the economy, and
the restoration of the environment depend on our timely action.
Much has changed since the Corps constructed Fort Peck Dam. Today
much of the Corps work in Montana is focused on ecosystem restoration.
That is why I included a provision in this bill that will allow the
Corps to plan conservation projects on the Yellowstone River that are
identified in the course of the Yellowstone River Cumulative Effects
Study. A cumulative effects study has been ongoing along the
Yellowstone River for several years, authorized by WRDA 1999. This
study has been very successful, and has involved close collaboration
with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District
Council, and local conservation districts, among many others. The
provision included in the bill today would provide the Corps with the
authority to move forward with planning, design and construction of
ecosystem restoration projects along the Yellowstone as they are
identified by the cumulative effects study. It is so important. All
these factors work together. It provides for public participation in
the selection of projects, and consultation with the State of Montana,
the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and others.

The Yellowstone is the longest free flowing river in the county. Much
of southern and eastern Montana depends on the health of the
Yellowstone River. It irrigates fields, provides world-class fishing,
sustains the tourism sector, and supplies clean drinking water. It is a
source of great pride and economic strength for all Montana. This
provision will protect the Yellowstone and Montana's recreational
heritage for generations to come.
While the Corps' mission has evolved to include ecosystem
restoration, part of the Corps' central mission is to develop our water
resources to maintain our economic competitiveness. Economic
development and ecosystem restoration used to be thought of as mutually
exclusive. No more. This view is needlessly divisive. This bill
includes a provision that has brought together both irrigators and
environmentalists. The Intake project on the Yellowstone River will
authorize the Corps to work with the Bureau of Reclamation in the
design and construction of a dam and diversion works that will help
both farmers and endangered fish. Rebuilding the dam at Intake will
guarantee farmers water for their crops and allow the endangered
sturgeon to pass through the dam, opening 238 miles of river habitat
for the endangered fish.

This bill also includes urgently needed hurricane protection and
coastal restoration projects for the State of Louisiana. Indeed, this
bill authorizes the Corps in consultation with the Governor of
Louisiana to create a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for
Louisiana to rehabilitate coastal barrier islands and wetlands that
serve as natural hurricane barriers.
Unfortunately, some things at the Corps have not changed. In 1938 the
Fort Peck Dam tragically failed. Thirty-four workers were swept away in
a landslide. Eight lost their lives. The landslide was the result of
inaccurate soils and foundation analysis. If we do not learn the
lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
Sixty-seven years later as Hurricane Katrina bared down on the city
of New Orleans, floodwalls around New Orleans failed because of faulty
soils analysis. What makes this event even more tragic is that an
internal Corps study predicted exactly how the floodwalls would fail,
and it went unread. The underlying bill does not go far enough to
ensure that the Corps learns from the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. The Corps needs a robust program of independent peer review and
project prioritization. The Corps currently has a $58 billion project
backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget. At that pace it would
take the Corps roughly 30 years just to work through the backlog of
projects. With limited Federal resources, it is important that the
Corps separate the wheat from the chaff.
In fact I would like to see the prioritization framework extended to
cover not only construction projects but ongoing operational activities
of the Corps as well. Recreation on the Missouri River generates nearly
$85 million a year, while the barge industry provides only $9 million a
year. Despite this disparity, the Corps continues to maintain at least
a 6-month navigation season on the Missouri unless total water system
storage on the Missouri drops below 31 million acre feet. That is dryer
than a dust bowl drought. It makes no sense to waste precious taxpayer
and water resources to maintain a navigation season on the Missouri in
drought years. That is why I was pleased to work with Senators Feingold
and McCain to include a provision in their project prioritization
amendment that directs the Water Resources Planning Coordinating
Committee to recommend to Congress a process for prioritizing ongoing
operational activities of the Corps.
I am proud of the work my colleagues and I have done on this bill.
It's been nearly 6 years in the making, but it has a solid base. This
bill keeps our economy competitive. It restores fisheries along the
Yellowstone River so our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. It protects
the gulf coast from the ravages of hurricanes. But it can do more. With
the right amendments, it can reform the way the Corps does business to
rebuild the floodwalls of New Orleans and the public's trust in the
Corps.
I very much hope this amendment succeeds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield time to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the Inhofe-Bond
amendment. I would like to make it very clear that the Inhofe-Bond
amendment is not an independent review amendment. In fact, it is
business as usual.
We have an expansion of a system that has never worked before and
will continue to fail in the future because we are putting the fox in
charge of the hen house. We are putting the Corps of Engineers in
charge of reviewing their own work.
To begin with, I hesitate to call it an independent peer review
amendment, considering that the amendment directs the Chief of
Engineers to select the panels, guaranteeing that the panels will not
be independent. The amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final
arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. The Corps
gets to select the reviewers. There are no criteria at all for ensuring
independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps
has control over whether, how, and who will review the projects. Their
version, according to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, would be prepared by
the Corps, controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and
reported by the Corps, locking out input from other relevant water
resources agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security.
Putting the structure of the review aside, let's look more closely at
what requirements would need to be met in order to trigger a review of
a Corps project. According to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, it gives the
Corps complete discretion to avoid review of most projects. Review is
mandatory only for projects costing more than $100 million. Inhofe-Bond
lets the Corps ignore Governor and agency requests for review. Inhofe-
Bond prohibits review of the Corps' project proposal. Reviews could
only examine scientific, engineering or technical bases of the

[[Page S7822]]

decision or recommendation but not the recommendations resulting from
that data. The environment review accompanying a feasibility study
would not be subject to review.
The Inhofe-Bond amendment prohibits reassessment of key models and
data. This permanent moratorium guarantees that the Corps will continue
to use models that are widely recognized as inaccurate and flawed.
Mr. President, I think events of New Orleans cry out for independent
review and outside scrutiny. It is alarming what we have found out,
after some of the hubbub concerning Katrina has died down.

After Katrina, the Corps of Engineers said that all of its
failed flood walls had been overtopped by a hurricane too
powerful for the Category 3 protection authorized by
Congress, while [the President's] critics said the
administration budget cuts had hamstrung the Corps.
Both were wrong. Katrina was no stronger than Category 2
when it hit New Orleans, and many corps [flood walls]
collapsed even though they were not overtopped. [President]
Bush's proposed budget cuts were largely ignored, and were
mostly irrelevant to the city's flood protection. New Orleans
was betrayed by the Corps and its friends in Congress.
The Corps helped set the stage for the disaster decades ago
by imprisoning the Mississippi River behind giant levees.
Those levees helped protect St. Louis, Memphis and even New
Orleans from river flooding, but they reduced the amount of
silt the river carries to its delta, curtailing the land-
building process that creates marshes and swamps along the
Louisiana coast. Those wetlands serve as hurricane speed
bumps--in Katrina, levees with natural buffers had much
higher survival rates--but they have been vanishing at a rate
of 24 square miles per year.

Mr. President, the record of the Corps of Engineers cries out for
independent review and scrutiny and a prioritization of projects. I
quote from the Washington Post editorial of Wednesday, June 7, 2006:

Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted
responsibility for much of the destruction of New Orleans. It
was not true, as the Corps initially had claimed, that its
defenses failed because Congress had authorized only Category
3 protection, with the result that Hurricane Katrina
overtopped the city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no
stronger than a Category 2 storm by the time it came ashore,
and many of the floodwalls let water in because they
collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the
Corps' own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous
mistakes of design. Its network of pumps, walls and levees
was ``a system in name only.'' It failed to take into account
the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its ears
when people pointed out these problems. The result was a
national tragedy.

I hope my colleagues will do everything in their power to make sure
we never see a repeat of this. There are admitted failures in the
process, and I respect the effort of my colleagues from Oklahoma and
Missouri to make some changes. But our argument is it is not enough. It
is not enough. Virtually every environmental organization in America
supports this amendment. Virtually every outside organization supports
this amendment. The administration supports this amendment.

I hope that we would make sure that we can tell our constituents and
the people who live in areas that may be buffeted by hurricanes or
other natural disasters, particularly as we enter another what is
predicted to be a heavy hurricane season, that at least in future
projects, we have installed a proper system of scrutiny and oversight--
not only so their tax dollars aren't wasted but, far more important,
that they don't experience an unnecessary disaster.
I urge we adopt the amendment of Senator Feingold and myself and
reject the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from
Iowa is here, but I don't see him. Let me do this. We don't have any
other speakers requesting time.
Yesterday, Senator Bond had printed in the Record the National
Waterways Alliance letter that we received, dated June 30 of this year,
wherein they were strongly requesting the passage of the WRDA bill
which--I think we all are in agreement on that. We have not had a
reauthorization since the year 2000.
They also say they want us to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment and
reject the Feingold-McCain Corps reform. I bring this up because the
distinguished Senator from Arizona commented about a lot of groups that
were in favor of their amendment. But there are 288 organizations--
labor organizations, Chamber organizations, waterway organizations of
the National Waterway Alliance. I will go ahead and read a few:
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Shore and Beach
Preservation Association, Arkansas Basin Development Association--this
is kind of interesting. A lot of people don't realize my State of
Oklahoma is navigable. We have a port. It comes up through the Arkansas
River, comes across from the Mississippi into Arkansas and up to my
home town of Tulsa, OK. Obviously, they are in support of this, too.
The California Coastal Coalition, the Carpenters' District Council of
Greater Saint Louis and Vicinity, Grain & Feed Association of Illinois,
the Harris County Flood Control District of Texas, the Illinois Chamber
of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, and many of the
Illinois--almost every organization in Illinois, I believe; the
International Union of Operating Engineers, Iowa Corn Growers
Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Renewable Fuels
Association, Johnson Terminal in Muskogee, OK, Kansas Corn Growers,
Kentucky Corn Growers, the Long Island Coastal Alliance, Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development, Maritime Association of
the Port of New York and New Jersey, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware
River and Bay, the Mid-Central Illinois Regional Council of Carpenters,
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Mississippi Welders Supply,
Incorporated, the Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Levee &
Drainage District Association, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Waterfront Employees, National Corn Growers
Association, National Grain & Feed Association, National Grain Trade
Council, National Grange, National Heavy & Highway Alliance, Laborers'
International Union of North America, International Union of Operating
Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Works
of America, Operative Plasterers' & Cement Mason International
Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the
International Union, Brickyard Layers & Allied Craftworkers.

The list goes on and on, including, of course, our State of Oklahoma
Department of Transportation.
I guess what I am saying here is most States--the National Farm
Bureau as well as the American Farm Bureau and individual State farm
bureaus--are all in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment and they are
all opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I don't want people to
think these organizations are ambivalent. They are strongly in support
of our approach.
Again, we all agree on one thing: that is, the need to make some
improvements. We like our peer review system better, and we will have
ample time to talk about that.
I understand Senator Grassley is here. I yield whatever time he wants
to take and suggest it come off the general debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Oklahoma.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss the issue of the
Water Resources Development Act and particularly that part of the act
that deals with the improvement of transportation on the Mississippi
River because that improvement is very essential not only to the
economy of Iowa but to the economy of the whole Midwest, and in turn
that relates to the economy of the United States.
Most importantly, it affects the economy--meaning the economic
competitiveness of our industry and agriculture, and primarily
agriculture with competition around the world, and particularly that,
as I see it, of Brazil. Brazil is becoming very much a competitor with
the Midwest of the United States in the production of a lot of grains,
particularly soybeans.
I owe a thank you, particularly to Senators Bond and Inhofe, for
their strong leadership in moving this legislation forward.

[[Page S7823]]

This used to happen every 2 years, a bill called the Water Resources
Development Act. But we have not dealt with this issue since the year
2000. This bill is not only long overdue, but it is a very important
bill. Not only does the bill which is before us include many updates in
existing authorized projects, but it also authorizes new projects
throughout the country.
Several examples of these much-needed projects beyond the ones I am
going to emphasize are the coastal wetland restorations, but the one I
want to emphasize the improvement of is the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers. Coastal wetland restoration will help protect our
inland waterways. We think, maybe too often, of that as being an
environmental issue, but it is also about protecting our inland
waterways, making sure that there is a multiple use of the rivers,
recreation, food, as well as commerce.
In the process of the wetland restoration protecting our offshore
energy supply, we provide much-needed flood protection in the gulf
coast region. But for my State and the Midwest generally, the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River navigation and ecosystem investments are
also very vital because of the multipurpose use of the river. Of
course, Iowa is bounded on the east side by the Mississippi River for
the entire north and west distance of our State. And Iowa, as well as
the Nation, relies on the river to move both goods that are
domestically oriented and distributed as well as goods that are
internationally distributed.
The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production
worldwide. My State is also the No. 1 producer of corn, and usually we
are also the No. 1 producer of soybeans.
In regard to corn production, the per-ton cost of transporting corn
in the United States is lower than any other country. But our country
must not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to
deteriorate. Quite frankly, that is what this legislation is all about.
Because of deterioration, it needs to be enhanced, it needs to be
improved, and it needs to be kept up to date. Our international
competitors are making major investments in their transportation
systems.
In Brazil, surface transportation--meaning railroads and highways,
primarily highways--is very much inferior to ours. In March, I took a
trip to Brazil. I can tell you that when we were out in the
countryside, what we would call rural Brazil, we ran into more potholes
than you could count, something that farmers of Iowa would not
anticipate or tolerate from our local officials. You wonder how local
officials get reelected because they are not going to be reelected
because of filling potholes. But Brazil, on the other hand, as far as
their river transportation, brings into question the competitive
advantage the United States might have that we could be losing. Brazil
has made significant investments in its river infrastructure. They do
not have to have locks and dams, such as we do on the Mississippi, in
the case of the Amazon. I saw facilities on my trip to Brazil on the
Amazon that we could be very jealous of, the opportunity to bring
commercial seagoing ships up the Amazon to load in Brazil on the Amazon
and coming in this far with very major terminals for loading primarily
soybeans, but also they can go up the river as well.

There is a new facility being built at this point. I believe these
ships go even further up. But at least I wanted to be sure of here and
here that it is possible to load those ships at that point. They don't
have to use barges as we do from Iowa to New Orleans to load. This
would be the equivalent of our being able to take oceangoing ships up
to Memphis to load for soybeans.
You can understand then that we have this lock and dam situation that
makes it possible for us to use the Mississippi River for major
transportation. Keeping that up to date is very important if we are
going to be economically competitive with how they can move their
agricultural products--primarily soybeans--out of Brazil into the world
trade.
What they don't have that we have is very good roads, although they
are improving them. They don't have the railroad system we have in the
United States that makes it possible for us to get our grain very
easily to the Mississippi River or using railroads to get it down to
the gulf. But they are working on that. Right now we are competitive
because they do not have that land infrastructure we have. When they
get that, we will have a hard time competing.
That brings up the point of this legislation and getting it passed,
to make sure our Mississippi infrastructure is up to date. We must
invest in major improvements in all of our transportation
infrastructure. If we don't make these investments in our roads, our
rails and water, the U.S. agricultural industry and labor will pay the
price.
Last year we did a lot to help with surface transportation, primarily
referred to as the highway bill, although maybe not entirely highways.
We provided $295 billion for road, transit, and rail improvements in
that bill we passed last year. These funds will help facilitate the
movement of our goods. The surface transportation bill will help
alleviate congestion so our trucks can move more efficiently.
It also provides additional loan authority and tax credit to help
railroads invest in much-needed capital improvements and to help meet
the large demands for their services.
According to the Congressional Research Service, last year U.S.
exports of goods and services totaled $1.275 trillion compared to
$1.115 trillion in 2004 and $1.023 trillion in the year 2003.
You can see very much an enhancement in value of our exports from the
United States according to the Congressional Research Service. Of
course, our consumers and our manufacturers, and to some extent food
supply, rely upon importing goods into the United States. But whether
it is exports or imports, whether it is consumers or input into
manufacturing and agriculture, many of these goods travel on our inland
waterways.
Again, emphasizing the need to get this legislation passed, because
it is also forecast to beat our exports and imports are going to
continue to grow in the future, we must be able to efficiently and
economically move these goods.
When I get more parochial in my economic observance of the need of
this legislation, it is because nearly two-thirds of all grain as well
as soybean exports are moved through the Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers. According to one study, unless the Army Corps of Engineers
modernizes, which means Congress giving them the ability to do it,
unless we modernize the lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi
and the Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting just one commodity,
corn, to the export market would rise by 17 cents per bushel.
As a result, corn and soybean exports would decline by 68 million and
10 million bushels per year, respectively, and the decline in corn and
soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 million. This
highlights how important barge transportation is to the farmers but in
turn to the economy generally.
In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river
transportation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
towboats might have 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than either train
locomotives or our big semitrucks in transporting anything, but
particularly in regard to what I am talking about, the necessity of
moving grain. A color chart used by the Senator from Missouri shows the
same thing. I have a black-and-white chart. The information is the
same, but it is cheaper to make white charts than it is colored charts.

It shows one barge can move what 15 jumbo hopper cars of railroads
can move or what 58 large semis can move. Not only is that an
environmental issue, that is an issue of economy of moving a product.
Most importantly, when you are waiting for a long train at a crossing,
think in terms of fewer hopper cars because of what one barge can move.
Of all of the trucks you meet on the interstate or the two-lane
highways of the Midwest, think how many more there would be if we did
not have transportation to the gulf by barge. If you have 15 of these
barges being pushed by one motor, you would have 2.25 miles of train,
180 cars or, in this case, 870 large semis.
I hope everyone can see that moving a lot of merchandise to export on
the Mississippi River is taking an awful lot of pressure off the
highways, an awful lot of pressure off of the railroads. It is
environmentally sound in the process.

[[Page S7824]]

The Army Corps of Engineers data suggests that the Nation currently
saves $100 to $300 million in air pollution abatement when moving bulk
commodities by barge through the Mississippi River system. In these
times of high fuel prices and with the need to conserve energy, one
gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry one ton of freight 2.5 times
further than rail and nine times further than trucks.
Quoting the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimate, shifting
from barge to rail results in fuel usage emissions and probable
accident increases by the following percentages: 331-percent fuel
usage; 470 percent less emissions; and 290 percent less probable
accidents. Shifting traffic from barge to trucks increases fuel use 826
percent, emissions 709 percent, and probable accidents by 5.967
percent. In addition, another 1,333 heavy trucks would be added to our
already congested roads.
For these above reasons, we have this legislation before the Senate.
Several of my Senate colleagues for many years have been seeking
authorization for this lock and dam modernization as well as enhanced
environmental restoration of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. To
get that done, we have to get this bill to the President for his
signature.
I am very pleased the Committee on Environment and Public Works
included these important initiatives in this Water Resources
Development Act and that a truly bipartisan group of Senators is
advocating for this important modernization. If anyone believes it is
always Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking
Republicans, this is an ideal initiative that shows how widespread
bipartisan support and cooperation can be in this Senate when there is
a national emergency. That national emergency is environmental, the
national emergency is for our economy to be competitive, the national
emergency is safety on our highways, to relieve glut on our railroads.
It is all around.
This is a bipartisan effort to cooperate for the good of this Nation
because this lock-and-dam system of the Upper Mississippi River was
built in the late 1930s, I suppose over a period of a few decades. But
many lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot accommodate the
barges we are talking about used in the modern day to get things into
the international market. These structures require a modernization
because there is a tow configuration that needs a double lock to pass.
This adds to mounting delay time when we do not have the modernization.
It amounts to increased costs to the shippers, increased harm to our
environment with higher emissions and higher sediment suspensions in
the river channel, the loss of jobs when we are not competitive, and
lower wages when we are not competitive.
Increased traffic levels without these improvements will result in
gross farm revenue loss of over $105 million per year. This does not
take into account the huge cost of increased highway and rail
transportation.
We realize the authorization of the lock-and-dam improvements is a
first step in a lengthy process, but it is a necessary step and one
that a bipartisan group of Senators, an increasing number of Senators
in a bipartisan way, has been working on for a few years.
It is an important and necessary project for our Nation. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this balanced legislation, not to vote for any
amendments that are going to dilute it or harm it in any way. When we
get this number of Senators working together in a bipartisan fashion,
this ought to be a test of something that is needed, a test of
something that is good, something to move forward on. It is balanced
legislation and, of course, it is good for the country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
in support of the bill. The Senator from Iowa is in support of the
Inhofe-Bond amendment and opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I
remind him that virtually every organization in Iowa, including the
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa
Corn Growers Association, and others, are in support of the Bond-Inhofe
amendment.
I also make a request, and I am sure others will join, asking Members
to come to the Senate if they want to speak on either of the two
amendments that are being discussed right now.
I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Burns as a cosponsor of the
Inhofe-Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding Senator Hatch is going to be
making a request to be heard as if in morning business for 15 minutes.
Because of the time constrains we are operating under, I will ask that
time be taken off of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
New York, who will speak in morning business, but I understand the time
will be charged to my side of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague for
yielding time generously, as he always does, and note that I support
his amendment and look forward to voting on it.
(The remarks of Mr. SCHUMER are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 4682

(Purpose: To modify a section relating to independent reviews)

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4682.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] for himself, Mr.
Bond, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Thune, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Burns,
proposes an amendment numbered 4682.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:30 be for
concurrent debate on the pending Feingold-McCain amendment and the
pending Inhofe-Bond amendment and be equally divided between the bill
managers or their designees, and that at 2:30 the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to amendment No. 4681, to be followed by a vote in
relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. For clarification, I encourage Members to come down
because our time is running out. It is confusing when you have two
amendments that you are using the same time for. So essentially the
time that we would have in favor of the Inhofe-Bond amendment would be
the same as the time in opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I
appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin for his cooperation in moving
this along.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for
his continued cooperation in the way in which this debate is
proceeding. I will use a few minutes of my time to bring us back to the
debate on these two amendments that are before us. First, to make it
absolutely clear to people that the amendment that Senator McCain and I
are offering certainly would not slow down the bill in any way or
delude the bill; we have a time agreement. However, it turns out the
legislation will go forward and there is an obvious expectation that
the bill will pass. In light of the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, I
want to make it clear to people that this in no way is going to somehow
stop the bill from going through this body. We will let the chips fall
where they may based on the results of the

[[Page S7825]]

votes, but there is no slowing down of the bill.
Secondly, I was struck by the response to our amendment. Senator
McCain and I laid out some pretty damning evidence about what the Army
Corps of Engineers' role may have been in the Katrina disaster, which
everybody admits is one of the worst disasters in the history of our
country. I think the Senator from Missouri indicated that he didn't
think we ought to engage in a blame game. I wouldn't call it a blame
game, but somebody has to be held responsible. We have to acknowledge
what might have caused this horrendous problem, and the evidence is
overwhelming. Just as FEMA's performance was abysmal, so, too, was the
role of the Army Corps of Engineers in properly establishing levees and
other engineering that had to be done. And it may well have been
significantly responsible for the tragedy that occurred in New Orleans.
I don't know if they plan to mount a response to that, but I hope the
record makes it clear that this New Orleans situation is Exhibit A in
the kinds of problems that can occur if you don't have appropriate
review of these Army Corps of Engineers projects.
I wanted to also respond to some of the specific issues the Senator
from Missouri spoke about. He talked about what issues an independent
review group could consider. I want to make it very clear. Under my
amendment, which directly implements the recommendations of the 2002
National Academy of Sciences' report on peer review, independent panels
will ensure that the Corps' proposed approach to a problem will work to
resolve the identified problem and not cause unintended adverse
consequences. Independent review panels will not take away any
decisionmaking responsibilities. I want to be clear on that because a
couple of the comments today could at least be interpreted to suggest
that somehow this is going to take away the decisionmaking power from
those who have it. Under my amendment, no decisionmaking
responsibilities are taken away from the Army Corps of Engineers. The
amendment simply allows for independent experts to identify problems in
the best possible way.
Why would anyone not want to hear the important feedback from
independent experts?
I would like to talk a little more in detail about one of the biggest
differences between our independent review amendment and the Inhofe-
Bond alternative which will be voted on side by side starting at 2:30,
as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated. One of the very clear
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences' 2002 report on
peer review is that reviewers should have the flexibility to comment on
important issues to decisionmakers.
On this point, the two competing amendments are very different. I
want my colleagues to understand the importance and the potential
ramifications of the difference as they consider these two amendments.
My amendment implements the recommendations of the National Academy
of Sciences by allowing a thorough analysis of a Corps feasibility
study. The Inhofe-Bond amendment ignores this recommendation by sharply
limiting what independent reviewers would be allowed to consider. On
this point, it is good to give an example of why this matters. Many of
us know about the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO, in Louisiana. In
Louisiana, MRGO is what this project is referred as.
According to most scientists who have looked at it, MRGO, a Corps
navigation channel, greatly exacerbated the impact of Hurricane Katrina
by funneling and intensifying Katrina's storm surge directly into New
Orleans and by destroying 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands that could
have buffered the storm's surge. These same experts, including the
independent reviewers looking into what happened in New Orleans, have
said that the devastating flooding that overwhelmed St. Bernard Parish
and the lower ninth ward of New Orleans came from the MRGO. I was in
both of those parishes 10 days ago, and that is exactly what the
National Guard and other people and experts indicated to me while I was
physically looking at this destruction.
Only 52 of the 28,000 structures in St. Bernard Parish escaped
unscathed from Katrina. For years, community leaders, including the St.
Bernard Parish Council, activists, and scientists warned that the MRGO
was a hurricane highway and called for closing the outlet. This is not
merely an after-the-fact recognition that something was wrong. People
who lived and some who died in these communities were warning about
this potential disaster before it occurred.

Why is this relevant? Under the Inhofe-Bond limited review, the other
amendment, a panel would not have been able to examine the full
implications of constructing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet or MRGO
in New Orleans. While reviewers would have been able to assess whether
the Corps properly calculated the wetlands impact of the MRGO, they
would not have been able to comment on the fact that the recommended
plan would put New Orleans at risk by destroying wetlands vital for
buffering storm surge and by creating a funneling effect that would
intensify the storm surge. The Inhofe-Bond review also would not have
allowed any comment on the appropriateness of proceeding with the MRGO
in light of the increased danger to the city and the fact that traffic
projections were vastly overstated.
I think we can all agree that this example shows what can be at stake
if we don't allow reviewers some flexibility to bring up important
issues. This isn't the only example of where the Inhofe-Bond amendment
falls short, but I will try to say more about that later. This is a
timely and very serious example of the dramatic difference between the
amendment that Senator McCain and I have offered and the, frankly,
inadequate amendment that is offered as an alternative.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, let me make a couple of
observations. I think in the discussions we have had so far, there are
a lot of things we agree on. We agree that we need to change the system
we have right now. I don't really take issue with some of the things
that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have said
about existing problems with the way that the Corps of Engineers has
been working. I recognize also that the Senator from Wisconsin agrees
that the underlying substitute amendment does include some provisions
to require peer review, specifically for Corps of Engineers studies.
The Inhofe-Bond amendment gives additional detail and clarity to that
requirement as well as the Feingold-McCain amendment gives additional
detail and clarity to that amendment. So there are some areas where I
think we are in agreement.
Also, we are in agreement on the necessity of reauthorizing the Water
Resources Development Act. It has not been addressed since the year
2000.
Our amendment ensures that peer review is integrated into the Corps
study process. Most stakeholders agree that the current study process
is already too long and further delays are not advisable. That is not a
reason to ignore the critical role that peer review can play, but it is
a reason to demand that peer review not be an end of the process
addition or delay.
Our amendment clarifies that peer review panels are to review the
technical and scientific information that forms the basis of decisions,
but the decisions themselves are a function of the Government. It is
something the Government should be doing, not any independent peer
review. Decisions regarding how best to meet our Nation's water
resources needs all involve tradeoffs of some sort. No outside group or
distinct subject matter experts can truly be considered experts at
making those decisions.
I am sure they would all have opinions, but everyone has opinions.
Government officials, on the other hand, are specifically charged with
making the decision. They have that responsibility. I believe that is
one of the distinctions between the Inhofe-Bond amendment and the
approach taken by Senators Feingold and McCain.
Another aspect of the Inhofe-Bond amendment I would highlight is the
detailing of which project studies at a minimum should undergo peer
review. Independent reviews are required if the estimated total project
cost is more than $100 million. I believe the Feingold-McCain approach
is $40 million.

[[Page S7826]]

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

[[Page S7827]]

That panel will be fully independent of the Corps and made up of
anywhere from five to nine experts in engineering, hydrology, biology,
and economics. This panel will be able to review every aspect of a
proposed project, from the data and assumptions that went into the
Corps' analysis into the actual design of the final project that is
chosen.
Having such a review of the New Orleans levee system likely would
have drawn attention to the flaws in the Corps' design, including the
facts that they failed to account for the natural subsidence of the
city and that the flood walls were not properly anchored in the swampy
southern Louisiana ground.
We often talk about these proposals as ``Corps reform.'' But in a
real sense, they are also congressional reforms. That is because the
findings of the independent panels merely provide more information to
us, the Congress. They are not binding. It will still be up to us in
the Congress to decide how to proceed, and we will need to do a better
job ourselves in the future. But we cannot be expected to make good
decisions if we don't have good information.
Moreover, in these days of tighter budgets, we are not going to be
able to gather support of our constituents for big navigation projects
that they fear will destroy wetlands that are needed for flood
protection or for a flood control project that people don't believe
will work.
As the New Orleans Times-Picayune stated in a recent editorial:

Taxpayers shouldn't have to wonder if there's a rational
basis for spending billions of dollars.

I am reminded of something that LTG Carl Strock, who commands the
Army Corps of Engineers, said:

Words alone will not restore trust in the Corps.

These amendments will provide some substantive change to back up the
claim that we will never let what happened in New Orleans happen again.
I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold independent
review amendment. I am pleased to be among its cosponsors. I urge its
adoption.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Who yields time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk about all of the
things that the Corps has done wrong and the problems in the past. I
don't think anybody believes that there is not a need for reform,
review, independent review by experts who can comment on and who can
provide valuable input to the Corps. The Corps has learned a lot of
lessons, and the Inhofe-Bond proposal creates a mechanism for improving
technical quality of the projects that move forward, not an incubator
for more lawsuits to delay needed projects.
The Inhofe-Bond amendment would encourage independent review of
technical information and science, not a review of policy decisions,
which are appropriately made in the executive branch and by this body.
We don't want to outsource our policy decisions to some other group, as
the Feingold-McCain amendment would do. We want to continue an open,
fair, and public review of recommendations, and not create a public
review created by special interests designed to undo projects for
reasons other than policy reasons.
We support stabilizing, not destabilizing, Federal/ non-Federal
interests in reliance on the Corps. We support Presidential oversight
of independent review, not handing government functions over to some
unelected commission.
When you take a look at the past work of the Corps, you see that the
Corps now currently provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by
local communities and businesses. The Corps manages a supply of one-
quarter of our Nation's hydropower. The Corps operates 463 lake
recreation areas. The Corps moves 630 million tons of cargo valued at
over $73 billion annually over the inland water system. It manages over
12 million acres of land and water.
The levees that have been properly constructed have prevented an
estimated $76 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years, with an
investment of one-seventh of that value. These are the tremendous
values that can be provided if we can pass this bill and if we can make
sensible Corps reform, without providing major hindrances and
roadblocks.
I hope that the 80 Senators who joined with us in saying ``bring this
bill to the floor'' will realize that there is such a thing as
appropriate review and there is such a thing as unnecessary, late-stage
second guessing, which can be extremely expensive and can delay the
benefits that could come from the work of the Corps.
The McCain-Feingold independent review amendment has a tremendous
potential to delay project construction. They wait until the end of the
process, and any mistakes found at the end of the process, as
envisioned in the Feingold-McCain amendment, would necessitate a repeat
of the study to correct the problems--beginning over again. Clearly,
this would delay project construction and drive up costs.
Under our proposal, since reviews are integrated into the process,
any mistakes made or improvements suggested could be corrected and
incorporated at the time. As I said earlier today, it is like waiting
to test students in the eighth grade to see if they have first-grade
reading capabilities. If a child cannot read at the first-grade level
when he or she finishes the first grade, give them remediation then,
help prepare them for the second grade; don't wait until they get to
the eighth grade and say we just wasted 8 years of this child's
education because they could not read at the first-grade level. This
essentially--testing at the eighth grade level for first-grade
compliance--is what the Feingold-McCain amendment would do.
Let's be clear about it. We passed a bill 2 years ago that had all
sorts of regulatory redtape and delays. This was opposed by the House,
which could not agree on a conference with us. That is why we lost this
bill. Putting in a batch of redtape and bureaucratic delays is going to
make possible negotiations with the House extremely difficult and could
lead to no bill being passed again.
So the 2002 Water Resources Development Act that we are still trying
to pass in 2006 would go into 2007 and 2008. The benefits that come
from the authorized projects in this bill will be delayed. I want the
80 Senators who want to see this bill passed--because they have
projects that are important--to understand that the review that is
necessary is being incorporated in the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is
being incorporated in a sensible timeframe, reviewing with
representatives from the National Academy of Science, the American
Society of Civil Engineers, and the Independent Research Council, as
the project goes along.
Everybody knows there needs to be review. The Corps has learned a lot
of lessons from mistakes. We ought to learn from our mistakes. One of
the mistakes we have made is to try to burden the process and make it
so cumbersome it can't work.
If you don't want to see the Corps providing water supply, protecting
against floods and hurricanes, making sure we have the most efficient,
economical, environmentally friendly, energy-friendly means of
transportation, then support more bureaucracy, more redtape, and more
delays.
If, on the other hand, you want to see the Corps do the job and get
the job done right, then I ask my colleagues to support the Inhofe-Bond
amendment and let us get on about the business of protecting people
from floods, from hurricanes, and making sure that our waterways
continue to be an efficient energy-conserving means of transporting
bulk commodities.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from California in support of our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his
leadership. I also thank Senator McCain. They have two amendments
before us, the next one coming shortly. I enthusiastically support this
amendment. I think this one is very much a reform. I strongly oppose
the other one. But I am not going to use my time now to talk about the
second amendment because I do want to concentrate on what an important
step forward this particular amendment is.

[[Page S7828]]

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

[[Page S7829]]

This amendment, introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold, would
create within the Army Corps a Director of Independent Review. The
Director's job will be to establish a panel of distinguished experts to
conduct a thorough review of the planning process for major projects,
including engineering analyses, and to issue a report and make
recommendations to the Army Corps. For major flood control projects,
where lives are at stake, the Director would create an additional panel
to review the detailed design and construction so that we do not find
ourselves in another Katrina situation where we find, after the fact,
that designs and construction were flawed.
It is then up the Army Corps to implement those recommendations. The
Army Corps will also be required to make the independent panel's report
public so Congress and the American people will be aware of possible
problems before the project is funded and before the public relies on
the project for protection.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee learned a
great deal in our investigation into Hurricane Katrina, and we made
some recommendations in our report to address what we found. One of
those recommendations was to create an independent review process like
IPET and the one established in this amendment to oversee the design
and construction of critical flood control projects. These were joint,
bipartisan recommendations, and I am pleased that the chairman of our
committee, Senator Collins, is also joining as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Catastrophes like Katrina will be repeated unless we learn from our
mistake, and this amendment is a tremendous opportunity to do just
that. We already have a model for the proposed solution in the
independent forensic teams that were created after Katrina whose
reports and recommendations have been applauded from all circles--the
Army Corps, independent professional engineers, and local interests in
New Orleans. But those efforts need to be in place before disaster
strikes, and that is exactly what this amendment would do.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of
arguments in the debate. How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 31 minutes remaining.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I heard the comment from some of my colleagues on the other side
offering the alternative amendment that somehow this independent peer
review will create a bureaucracy. I find that a little ironic because
to me the definition of ``bureaucracy'' is an agency, such as the Army
Corps of Engineers, that has $68 billion in authorized projects that
apparently would take 35 years to build if everything was done in a
sort of rational manner. That is how long it would take. It is sort of
the definition of a bureaucracy that has gone awry, where there are not
priorities, where there isn't clarity, where there really isn't any
sense of what is more important than something else or what situation
is more dangerous than another situation, what is more threatening to
people's lives than another situation.
The notion that an independent peer review would not be binding, to
have experts give us guidance as to what is more important as opposed
to what is less important to fix or change, to me, is the opposite of
bureaucracy. It is bringing rationality and a good government approach
to what is currently a very troubled and in-need-of-reform bureaucracy.
I certainly expected the other side would try to raise the notion
that somehow our amendment, our new system of independent review, would
lead to more litigation. Of course, that is a standard argument against
everything, and sometimes it is true, but here it is not.
The judicial deference provision makes it clear that the Corps must
give serious consideration and review to an independent panel's
findings. Unless that happens, independent review will just be another
box to be checked off in project planning and will not result in better
and safer projects.
The Corps, unfortunately, has a history of ignoring independent panel
recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the
Corps, and that is unacceptable.
To ensure the independent review process is meaningful and produces
real improvements for project planning, the amendment gives the
recommendations of a panel equal deference with the Corps's
recommendation in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in
question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's finding without good
cause.
That is what it does, and that is all it does. It provides an
alternative view that the Corps can consider, but there is the key
point. The judicial deference provision clearly does not--does not--
create any new cause of action. It does not create a new basis for
somebody to litigate. So it is false that somehow this creates the
opportunity for new litigation. It does not even anticipate that
projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in
litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review
of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's
findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court.
The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the
court that it has rejected an expert panel finding for a valid reason,
good cause--not a difficult judicial standard to meet.
If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to
both the panel and the Corps's recommendations.
So just as the argument that we are creating somehow a new
bureaucracy is just the opposite of the fact, there is no basis, no
validity whatsoever to the notion that this creates some new legal
cause of action that didn't exist before.
I have two more points with regard to independence. I have heard the
manager of the bill and the Senator from Missouri indicate that they
are for some kind of independent review and that their alternative
provides for it. But, of course, it is only in the most narrow of
circumstances, only in projects that are over $100 million. That is
essentially wiping out independent review on almost every single
project.
Our view is this probably involves, maybe on average of less than one
project a year that would receive that kind of independent review. We
compromised to make sure that our figure would be acceptable to the
body. We started with $25 million and went up as high as $41 million.
But $100 million essentially makes a mockery of the whole idea of
independent review because it would only apply in the most rare cases.
Finally, of course, the argument is, apart from the notion that
somehow this creates new litigation, which is not the case, somehow
this will cause things to take longer in terms of approving projects
and reviewing projects.
That also is incorrect. The Senator from Missouri is incorrect about
our amendment and the timing of review. To quote from page 8:

Panels may be established as early in the planning process
as deemed appropriate by the director of independent review.

So this whole idea that he indicated of somehow waiting until the
eighth grade for somebody who needs help in the first grade--I heard
that analogy--is not true. The Director has the power to do this
whenever he deems this appropriate. He has that discretion. He has that
flexibility, so it is not some kind of a locked-in delay at the end of
the process review.
I encourage my colleagues to read the text of the bill on each of
these points which I think will bear out the validity of the arguments
I made.
Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7830]]

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself some additional time.
When you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps
reform, sometimes people don't always understand your intentions and
maybe, in some cases, mischaracterize them.
But I am astonished at the extent to which my opponents, those who
like the status quo, those who benefit from the status quo, are saying
about the Feingold-McCain-Lieberman-Carper-Jeffords-Collins Independent
Peer Review Amendment. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity
to clarify some of the myths I have heard and set the record straight.
Myth No. 1: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment
will delay project construction.
This just is not true. Our amendment will not delay projects. We
agree, projects do take some time. That's why we were very sensitive to
ensure that independent peer review of Army Corps feasibility studies
overlays with the existing process. Furthermore, our amendment includes
strict deadlines for the panel to report and, if they fail to report in
the allotted time, the Chief of Engineers is directed to proceed with
planning. In fact, the Inhofe-Bond amendment uses some of the same
timing criteria.
Independent review will ensure that communities will actually get the
projects they are being told they will get. The independent review can
start as early in the process as deemed appropriate, and for projects
costing more than $40 million, must end within 90 days after the close
of the public comment period.
Under the most ideal circumstances the Corps takes 11 to 12 months
from the close of the public comment period to the time it issues a
Chief's report for a project. And under current law, the Corps must
take into account all the public and agency comment submitted during
the public comment period. For large and controversial projects the
time from draft feasibility study to final Chief's report takes much
longer. So the independent review of feasibility studies in our
amendment, which balances the absolute need to allow for a thorough
review with the need to move forward in a timely fashion, fits well
within the current timelines and will not delay project planning. The
Nation will get better projects under this amendment.
Myth No. 2: The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too
many projects.
Mr. President, the $40 million review trigger in our amendment will,
on average, subject about five projects a year to independent review.
This is a highly valuable use of resources. And, I believe it will
promote better and more efficient studies for Corps projects throughout
all of the Corps' 38 domestic districts.
Just this March, the GAO testified to the House Committee on
Government Reform that:

GAO's recent reviews of four Corps civil works projects and
actions found that the planning studies conducted by the
Corps . . . were fraught with errors, mistakes, and
miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated
data.

GAO went on to note that the planning studies:

did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making.

Later in its report, GAO even says:

The Corps' track record for providing reliable information
that can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.

This is simply unacceptable for a Federal agency and it should get
the attention of every Member of this body.
Given the Corps' track record, we really should be requiring reviews
of all studies until the agency improves its record. The $40 million
trigger, however, is a reasonable and appropriate compromise that will
sweep in the largest and costliest Corps projects. The other triggers
will ensure that any less costly projects that could be very
problematic do not fall through the cracks in the study process. We
must be able to rely on the integrity of Corps project studies and
their recommendations to Congress. And unfortunately, right now we
cannot.
Myth No. 3: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project
costs.
Independenter peer review is a critical taxpayer investment. The
country cannot afford to have costly mistakes like the levee failures
in the aftermath of Katrina. The Corps, the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences have all said that faulty
design and construction by the Corps resulted in the levee failures. We
cannot afford any more examples like what we saw in New Orleans. We
also cannot afford to build projects based on economic or engineering
errors. We have tight water resource budgets, thus we must spend every
dime wisely and judiciously. I believe, and my cosponsors agree,
independent peer review will help us do that.
Myth No. 4: The Feingold-McCain amendment will open the door to more
litigation.
The Corps must give serious consideration and review to an
independent peer review panel's findings. Without that hook, the
concept is useless. We do not want independent review to be just
another box to be checked off in project planning, for I think we can
all agree that doing so will not yield better or safer projects. The
Corps unfortunately has a history of ignoring independent panel
recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the
Corps. This can happen no longer.
To ensure that the independent review process is meaningful and
produces real improvements to project planning, the amendment gives the
recommendations of an independent peer review panel equal deference
with the Corps' recommendations in any judicial proceeding regarding
the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's
findings without good cause.
The judicial deference provision clearly does not create any new
cause of action, and it does not even anticipate that projects subject
to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It
simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the
Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will
need to explain that decision to the court. The Corps would then be
given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has
rejected an expert panel's findings for a valid reason. If the Corps
cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the
panel's and the Corps' recommendations.
Myth No. 5: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to
all projects, even those that are already authorized.
The independent peer review of Corps studies applies to projects as
they enter the feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which
point the Chief's report is already complete. However, my amendment
will ensure that flood control projects whose failure could endanger
people and communities will be properly designed and constructed with
adequate review. If such a project is in the post authorization design
phase or construction phase it will receive the benefit of the safety
assurance review required by the amendment. This comes directly from
the recommendations of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Katrina
report, and I am sure my colleagues will agree that we need to make
sure key flood control projects are designed and built properly.
Myth No. 6: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new
layer of bureaucracy.
The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a
workable system to address a very real problem--poorly planned and
designed projects that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the
environment and waste taxpayer dollars.
I would like to address one final myth, and that is that the Inhofe-
Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project
review.
Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of
whether an independent review will happen at all. This is like puttingy
the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Corps gets to select the
reviewers, and there are no criteria at all for ensuring independence
of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control
over whether, how, and who will review projects.
As you can see, the naysayers want to keep saying no, but we need to
move beyond this game and start implementing policy that has a real
chance of improving a broken system, protecting lives and property, and
restoring integrity to a Federal agency

[[Page S7831]]

charged with providing the first line of defense against storms,
charged with protecting and restoring some of our most precious natural
resources and charged with providing efficient commerce.
Let me say a bit about what editorials from across the country have
said. It has been just an overwhelming response. They are from
communities large and small, but they all have the same message:
Congress must reform the Corps. I don't have every editorial ever
written about a need for a change in the Corps. I do have a good
number.
I ask unanimous consent they be printed following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me ask again, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. In the Northeast, the New York Times and the Washington
Post have been leaders in calling for reform. While some Members will
jokingly say they don't read the New York Times or the Washington Post,
maybe they have heard of some of the others--the Concord Monitor in New
Hampshire, the Delaware News Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Moving to the South, in Florida alone, a State with numerous Corps
projects, including projects to help restore the Everglades, five
papers have called for enactment of the reforms the Senator from
Arizona and I are offering today. In addition, the Winston-Salem
Journal, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Most importantly, in my
regard, the New Orleans Times-Picayune has called not only for passage
of our reform amendments but flatout rejection of the competing
amendments that will be offered today.
In the Midwest, where I hail from, the editorial boards for the
Wisconsin State Journal, the Star Tribune in Minnesota, the Chicago
Tribune, the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Let me repeat that: the St. Louis
Post Dispatch has editorialized on the need for modernization of the
Corps of Engineers.
Those of us familiar with the players on this issue in the Senate
will be interested to note that in fact the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran
an editorial today, supporting the Feingold-McCain amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 19, 2006]

Course Correction

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a force nearly as
inexorable as the mighty rivers it dams and dredges.
From the moment it accepts an assignment, the Corps moves
slowly and relentlessly forward in its course. In many
circumstances, that can-do attitude is a positive attribute.
But when questions arise about whether a new Corps project
will drain money from other, more crucial projects, or
whether a design is adequate or cost-effective, the Corps has
been slow to evaluate its own decisions and glacial in
course-correction. A governance structure and an endless
river of federal money have allowed the Corps to avoid
accountability.
The high water mark of those wrong-headed policies came
last summer in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The
strengthening of levees and flood walls around New Orleans
had been deferred for decades while money was spent on less
urgent needs, like planning new locks and dams along the
Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. When Katrina struck,
the levees broke and New Orleans was underwater.
It's time for a more rational approach. It could start
today, when the U.S. Senate votes on a bill called the Water
Resources Development Act of 2006 (H.R. 2864), a version of
which the House passed last year.
The bill's primary purpose is to authorize a slew of big
water projects with big price tags around the country. But it
also contains some much-needed reforms.
Several are included in an amendment co-sponsored by Sens.
John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Their
amendment would require that all Corps projects costing more
than $40 million be reviewed by independent experts. The bill
also would establish a transparent national system to set
priorities for Corps projects.
Those are simple steps in the right direction.
But a rival amendment has been sponsored by Sens.
Christopher ``Kit'' Bond, R-Mo., and James Inhofe, R-Okla.,
long-time defenders of the Corps. The Bond-Inhofe amendment
also would require reviews and priority-setting. But reviews
would be done only on projects costing at least $100 million
a year; only two or three such projects a year fall into that
big bucket. Priorities would be set by a process that would
not be shared with the public, and Congress would have the
final sign-off.
The effect would be to reinforce the old, flawed ways of
doing things, with the Corps' influential champions like Mr.
Bond overseeing the doling out of pork projects with
inadequate attention to weeding out the inefficient and
unrealistic. That approach wastes taxpayers' money.
The Senate should chart a course to true reform by passing
amendments proposed by Sens. McCain and Feingold.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Winston-Salem Journal:

After Hurricane Katrina, to vote with Inhofe and Bond to
block reform of the Corps would be downright reckless.

The Miami Herald:

A bipartisan Senate proposal to overhaul the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers deserves approval to eliminate some of
Congress' most nefarious pork-barrel spending and improve the
process that determines which projects are worthwhile.

San Francisco Chronicle:

This reform is not only about saving money, it's about
saving lives.

The Commercial Appeal--Tennessee:

At the very least, evaluations of proposed corps projects,
their environmental impact and especially their cost and
benefits, should be in independent and impartial hands.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

This singular study of failure no doubt will become a
standard reference work in engineering school libraries. It
should be cross-referenced, as well, to those who study
political science and philosophy, for between its lines it
reveals a government authority in which a region's trust was
misplaced, and a hubris in the face of the inevitable that
cost more than 1,200 lives and as-yet uncounted billions of
dollars in damage. Congress must read it, too, for it
describes flaws in corps management that demand fixing before
the next levee fails.

I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Times-Picayune, July 16, 2006]

Counting on Corps Reform

Louisiana urgently needs hurricane protection and coastal
restoration projects contained in the Water Resources
Development Act, and for that reason alone it's critical for
Congress to move on this long-delayed measure.
But Louisiana's fortunes are also tied, for better or
worse, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Efforts to reform
the agency are critical for this state, which--after the
levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the
poster child for the corps' shortcomings.
Congress is four years overdue in adopting a new water
resources bill, in part because of disagreements over corps
reform. But the Senate is expected to vote on the measure
this week, and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter need to
do more than push for crucial Louisiana projects. They need
to push for changes that will make the corps a better, more
responsible agency in the future.
The best chance for changing the way the corps operates is
through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ
Feingold. They're offering two amendments to the water
resources bill. One would establish independent review of
corps projects from planning and design to construction. The
other would require corps projects to be ranked in importance
based on three national priorities: flood and storm damage
reduction, navigation and environmental restoration.
While the McCain-Feingold amendments won't fix everything
that's wrong with the corps, Louisiana stands to benefit from
both proposed changes.
The catastrophic failure during Katrina of canal floodwalls
built by the corps is Exhibit A in the case for independent
review. If such a process had been in place, surely
subsidence wouldn't have been discounted when New Orleans'
levee system was being built, and research on soil strength
wouldn't have been ignored.
Louisiana also should fare better under a system that uses
criteria other than political clout to decide which projects
should be done. The corps already has a $58 billion project
backlog--an amount that will grow by another $10 billion if
the water resources bill is adopted. That means competition
for the $2 billion per year that the corps gets for projects
is intense.
Without a rational system for prioritizing that work,
there's no guarantee that Louisiana's critically needed flood
control project will prevail even over less-needed or
justified projects. While there's a danger that a Louisiana
project could be pushed aside in a priority-based system,
this state is helped by the fact that the McCain-Feingold
approach favors projects that reduce flood damage and restore
the environment.
The effectiveness of the proposed changes will depend on
details. If an independent review panel isn't given adequate
time to evaluate a project, for example, the benefit of
oversight could be lost. Conversely, a cumbersome review
process could end up further delaying badly needed projects.

[[Page S7832]]

But an independent review process that works, combined with
a ranking policy that makes sense, should result in a better-
performing agency.
Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in
changing the way the corps does business. The McCain-Feingold
amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the
main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe
and Kit Bond.
What those senators offer as reform is meaningless,
however. The Inhofe-Bond review process would be controlled
by the corps and would only apply to projects that exceed
$100 million, compared to a $40 million threshold in the
McCain-Feingold measures. The Inhofe-Bond amendments also
call for prioritization, but their system would simply
measure projects against a set of national priorities without
actually ranking them.
Sham reform won't do anything to restore confidence in the
corps, and Congress must do better. The public should be able
to rely on the agency that builds levees and dams to do work
that will stand up to independent scrutiny. Taxpayers
shouldn't have to wonder if there's a rational basis for
spending billions of dollars.
And Louisianians should be able to believe that the corps,
which is rebuilding our levee system and restoring our
coastline, is a wiser, better managed and more reliable
agency than the one that failed us when Hurricane Katrina
came to town.
____

[From the New York Times, July 19, 2006]

A Chance To Reform the Corps

The Senate has a rare opportunity today to strike a blow
for both fiscal sanity and environmental stewardship. It will
consider several amendments that would bring a measure of
discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of
Engineers, a notoriously spendthrift agency with a history of
answering to no one except a few members of Congress who
control its purse strings.
The reputation of the Corps is now at a low ebb because of
levee failures in New Orleans. But well before that debacle,
studies by the National Academy of Sciences and others had
found that the agency routinely inflated the economic payoffs
of its construction projects to justify steadily greater
budget outlays, while underestimating the environmental
damage of those projects.
The amendments' main sponsors are the Senate's reformist
duo of John McCain and Russ Feingold. One amendment would
subject any project costing more than $40 million to an
independent review of the project's design, feasibility, cost
and environmental consequences. A second amendment would
require that projects be ranked in order of importance based
on established national priorities like flood control and
environmental restoration. This amendment is aimed less at
the Corps than its Congressional paymasters, who have
historically put their own local pork barrel projects ahead
of more urgent and generally accepted needs.
The sponsors will try to attach these amendments to the
five-year $40 billion Water Resources Development bill,
itself overdue even though it includes several important
provisions. One authorizes $1.5 billion for key elements of
the Everglades restoration project, which has suffered from
Congressional neglect. Another would jump-start a major
effort to reverse the erosion of coastal wetlands that has
left Louisiana vulnerable to flooding.
A bill this size inevitably has the usual ration of local
pork. But some of this would now be subject to outside review
and possible rejection if the McCain-Feingold amendments
stick. As they should. These reforms made sense when first
offered in 2002. Post-Katrina, they are essential.
____

[From the Battle Creek (MI) Enquirer, July 19, 2006]

Amendment Would Reform Army Corps Project Funding

The U.S. Senate this week is taking up legislation
regarding authorization of project funds for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. It is a process that needs reform, and we
hope senators will approve a bipartisan proposal which would
ensure that national priorities--and not pork-barrel
spending--determine which projects the Corps undertakes.
For years, members of Congress have pushed for Corps
projects beneficial to little but their own districts. The
trend has grown to the point where the corps now has an
estimated $70 billion in backlogged projects.
Presidential budget plans have sought to eliminate such
pork, but it consistently has been reinserted by Congress.
Now Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz.,
have introduced an amendment to the Water Resources
Development Act that would set up clear criteria to ensure
that projects carried out by the Corps reflect national
priorities as they relate to navigation, flood damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration. The Corps currently uses
a cost-benefits ratio to determine project priority, which
gives more weight to economic benefits--such as jobs in a
certain area--than to national needs, such as ensuring levees
can hold back flood waters and rivers remain navigable.
The Feingold-McCain amendment would re-establish the Water
Resource Council and order it to provide Congress with a list
of which water-resources projects should get priority
funding. Under the amendment, any project costing more than
$40 million would be subject to an independent review. A
review also could be ordered if another federal agency
challenged the project or the secretary of the Army found the
project to be controversial.
The proposed reforms would help eliminate wasteful projects
such as Alaska's infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' which
carried a price tag of more than $200 million.
The Feingold-McCain plan is competing with another proposal
by Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and James Inhofe, R-Okla. But the
Bond-Inhofe plan would provide no ranking for Corps projects
and would give the Corps the power to deny a request for an
independent review--even if it came from a governor or the
leader of a federal agency.
We think the Bond-Inhofe plan would do little to change the
status quo.
The devastation of Hurricane Katrina illustrated the need
for the Corps of Engineers to carry out its vital mission
with more coordination and funding. With federal tax dollars
already being stretched, it is important that funds for the
Corps are directed to those projects that will produce the
greatest benefits for the nation--not for a single
congressional district.
We hope senators agree.
____

[From the Washington Post, June 7, 2006]

Katrinia's Unlearned Lessons

Last week the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted
responsibility for much of the destruction of New Orleans. It
was not true, as the Carps initially had claimed, that its
defenses failed because Congress had authorized only Category
3 protection, with the result that Hurricane Katrina
overtopped the city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no
stronger than a Category 2 storm by the time it came ashore,
and many of the floodwalls let water in because they
collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the
Corps' own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous
mistakes of design: Its network of pumps, walls and levees
was ``a system in name only''; it failed to take into account
the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its ears
when people pointed out these problems. The result was a
national tragedy.
You might think that the Corps' mea culpa would fuel
efforts to reform the agency. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and
Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) are pushing a measure that would do
just that, requiring that future Corps proposals be subject
to technical review by an independent agency. But the
stronger current in Congress goes in the opposite direction.
A measure urged by Louisiana senators and written by Sens.
James M. Inhafe (R-Okla.) and Christopher S. Band (R-Mo.)
would loosen oversight of the Corps.Billions of dollars may
be spent in ways that ignore the most basic lessons from
Katrina.
Congress has already passed laws with language directing
the Corps to design a new flood-protection plan for
Louisiana. The language encourages the construction of
Category 5 protections for the whole state, a project that
could cost tens of billions of dollars; it advertises its own
profligacy by laying down that the flood-protection plan
should be exempt from cost-benefit analysis. The new measure,
which is reportedly part of a revised version of a water
projects bill that will be unveiled shortly, would lower the
bar for congressional approval of whatever Louisiana defenses
the Corps sees fit to propose. Rather than requiring full
votes in both chambers of Congress, the Corps' plan could be
authorized by votes in two committees that tend to rubber-
stamp such projects.
In the wake of Katrina, this is almost beyond belief. The
Corps' admission of its own technical shortcomings points to
the need for tougher oversight, not less. And the New Orleans
disaster has illustrated the folly of building flood defenses
for vulnerable lowland: Some of the worst-hit areas would not
have been developed in the first place if the Corps hadn't
decided to build ``protections'' for them. Encouraging the
Army Corps of Engineers to build Category 5 defenses for all
of Louisiana, including parts that are sparsely populated for
good reason, would not merely cost billions that would be
better spent on defending urban areas. It would encourage
settlement of more flood-prone land and set the stage for the
next tragedy.
____

[From the Wisconsin State Journal, June 28, 2006]

Protect Taxpayers From Boondoggles

[[Page S7833]]

The project, however, was not flood control but rather a
new lock for the canal. The lock, favored by local
politicians, was supposed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge
traffic on the canal, however, was decreasing.
The New Orleans experience highlighted the Corps' long
history of mutual back-scratching with members of Congress:
The Corps caters to pet projects, even if their costs far
outweigh the benefits, and Congress in return makes sure the
Corps gets a big fat budget all at the expense of fiscal
responsibility and long-term water resource strategy.
The Feingold-McCain proposal would modernize the Corps'
cost-benefit analysis to make it more about project merit and
less about political influence. One provision would require
independent review of any project estimated to cost more than
$40 million, requested by a governor, determined to have
significant adverse impact, or judged by the secretary of the
Army to be controversial.
Another provision would require a cabinet-level committee
to work with the secretary of the Army to annually establish
a list of water resource project priorities to give Congress
guidance.
Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Congress limits the
influence of pork-barrel politics in the Army Corps of
Engineers. So would Corps projects affecting the state, from
the modernization of the Mississippi River's lock-and-dam
system to efforts to keep invasive species out of the Great
Lakes.
The state's congressional delegation should support the
Feingold-McCain reforms.
____

[From the Tallahassee Democrat, July 9, 2006]

Get to the Corps--Florida Senators Should Back Reforms

Sometimes great, unexpected tragedies such as Hurricane
Katrina are sobering enough to lead to badly needed
improvements in the way things are done.
With luck and some wise voting by Florida's U.S. Sens. Bill
Nelson and Mel Martinez, this might be the case with an
urgently needed reformation of the Army Corps of Engineers
via the Water Resources Development Act now under
consideration.
The Corps has long been famous for, above all, fulfilling
the aspirations of unenlightened politicians who are dying to
bring home the bacon to their districts, usually not for the
good of the taxpayers but for well-focused special interests.
The Corps is the nation's construction company for big water-
management projects, but it has regrettably become known for
building wasteful, unnecessary, even destructive projects.
Florida's long-ago Cross Florida Barge Canal, which was to
cut a 150-foot-wide swath across the upper neck of our
peninsula (from Palatka to Yankeetown), is a great example.
It would have furthered the shipping industry's interests,
cutting off some 600 miles on a voyage around the state's
southern tip. But it would have destroyed so many vital
aspects of Florida's precious environment--groundwater
resources, wildlife areas and other ecosystems--that
President Richard Nixon suspended work on it in 1971, after
millions had been invested and 25 ugly miles of excavation
(later filled in) had been completed.
Less dramatic, but more current, has been the Corps'
dredging of the Apalachicola River, which had been listed as
the nation's ``most endangered'' rivers and one that feeds
directly into our Big Bend coastline.
Last year, the Corps was forced to stop years of dredging
when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
denied a request to continue operations for the sake of a few
commercial interests and even though there has been a sharp
decline in barge traffic in recent years. The river's no
longer on that endangered list, but it's so damaged that
restoring it--while considering the water needs of Florida,
Alabama and Georgia--is an almost untenable undertaking. The
dredging kept water out of thousands of acres of flood
plains, changing everything--largely for the worse--by
destroying natural habitats, allowing construction in areas
that never should have been built on, and restricting the
flow of that necessity of life, fresh water.

Put a lock on boondoggling

Which leads us full circle back to Hurricane Katrina and
the Water Resources Development Act. The hurricane disaster
in New Orleans exposed fatal flaws in how the Corps spends
its $12 billion annual budget. It was spending $748 million
on a new lock for one of the canals whose levee was breached
by the hurricane, even though, once again, barge traffic was
decreasing. Local politicians had wanted the lock
nonetheless. After all, the nation's taxpayers would be
picking up the tab.
The boondoggles will continue unless we get approval of
bipartisan reforms proposed by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.,
and John McCain, R-Ariz., to modernize the cost-benefit
analysis of Corps' projects.
Just now about $70 billion in backlogged projects are in
line, though none has been prioritized as being in the public
interest. The reforms would require what seems utterly
obvious: those promoting projects would have to demonstrate
that they were more about merit than political influence.
Really big ones--those costing more than $40 million,
requested by a governor, determined to have major and
detrimental impacts or otherwise enormously controversial--
would have to go to an independent expert review panel. It
would make sure that the economics of a project, and the
science and engineering, all work to make sure limited
federal resources are spent on the most essential flood
control, environmental protection and navigation projects.
We urge Mr. Nelson and Mr. Martinez to modernize and
restore integrity to the Army Corps of Engineers.
____

[From the Buffalo News, July 17, 2006]

Another Voice/Army Corps of Engineers: Major Reform Needed for Nation's
Water Projects

(By Larry Schweiger)

The U.S. Senate is set to decide in the next few days
whether to reform or concede to a fiscal outrage akin to the
infamous ``bridge to nowhere.'' Few taxpayers know about it,
though billions in public funds hang in the balance. The
Water Resources Development Act funds the Army Corps of
Engineers, the nation's chief flood protection builder, but
with a troubled history of promoting wasteful and unnecessary
projects.
The water resources bill headed to the Senate floor this
week is a public scandal. It is fiscally out of control,
laden with lawmakers' pet projects that are often
economically unjustifiable and environmentally destructive.
The central decision senators will have to make in voting on
this legislation is whether to support basic reforms or
continue business as usual.
The reforms would apply the lessons learned from Hurricane
Katrina by putting the public interest first and spending tax
dollars where they are needed most. While the bill includes
important projects, notably protecting New Orleans and
restoring coastal Louisiana and the Everglades, without
reform it will maintain a process where they may never be
funded.
The current bill would add another $10 billion to $12
billion to an already estimated $58 billion in backlogged
projects. Essential projects will have to compete with
boondoggles and earmarks in that $70 billion mix. With the
Corps receiving about $2 billion per year for construction,
it would take 35 years to clear the existing backlog--none of
it prioritized in the public interest or subject to
independent peer review.
Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, D-Ariz., have
proposed reforms to fix these problems. Corps projects will
be prioritized based on clear standards that put the public
interest first. The Feingold-McCain measures also provide for
independent expert review of large or controversial projects,
ensuring that economic assumptions, science and engineering
stand up to outside scrutiny.
But not everyone takes issue with the status quo. Sens.
James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., have
proposed reforms to give the appearance of responding to
growing public unease over the Corps' performance in New
Orleans. For instance, the Corps could appoint its own
``independent'' review panel, and deny others' requests for
independent reviews. The Inhofe-Bond approach also lacks
clear prioritization of Corps projects and will only
encourage the back scratching and cronyism that has long
plagued the system.
Without prioritization reform, crucial projects will fall
through the cracks, while outrageous boondoggles gobble up
scarce federal funds. If the New Orleans tragedy taught
anything, it's that human safety is compromised when
professional standards and fundamental construction needs are
ignored.
The receding floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina revealed
preventable devastation and the need to clean up a fiscal
mess. The Feingold-McCain reforms will restore integrity and
security in the wake of a Corps disaster. The Senate should
pass them.
____

[From the Concord Monitor, July 17, 2006]

Put a Stop to Corps of Engineers Boondoggles

The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to replace
FEMA, a federal agency whose name became inextricably linked
to failure in the days and months after Hurricane Katrina,
with a new agency. The Emergency Management Authority will
remain under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland
Security, but unlike FEMA, it will report to both Homeland
Security and to the president.
The reshuffling may or may not solve the agency's many
problems, but it's a start. This week, however, the Senate
will turn its attention to the agency that bears the most
responsibility for the needless loss of life and property in
New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers.
It was the Corps whose faulty design of the city's levee
system, whose refusal to heed decades-old warnings that the
levees would not hold and whose shoddy construction practices
caused the levees to collapse and drown the city.
The disaster was a symptom of a much larger, longstanding
problem with the Corps. It is one of the biggest barrels of
pork in Washington, and no outside agency has oversight over
its planning and projects. It is answerable not to presidents
or secretaries of defense, but only to the members of
Congress who use the Corps to funnel money to their home
states.
Tomorrow the Senate will take up the Water Resources and
Development Act

[[Page S7834]]

passed earlier by the House. The measure contains $12 billion
worth of alleged flood control, water resources and
environmental protection projects. If it passes in its
current form, that sum will be added to the $58 billion list
of previously approved Corps projects.
That backlog is big enough, if nothing is ever added to it,
to keep the Corps digging and dredging for the next 40 years;
Some Corps projects work beautifully, as the elaborate
flood control system it built in central New Hampshire a
half-century ago proved again this spring. But many are a
waste of money, and some do far more harm than good.
The bad projects get built--often while worthy ones wait--
because the priorities of the Corps are based not on need but
politics.
To justify a project, the Corps need only show that its
public or private economic benefit will be more than its cost
to taxpayers. When, to please a congressional benefactor, the
Corps can't make the numbers add up, it cooks the books,
according to audits by the General Accounting Office and
others, The agency's priorities are so wrong that ``beach
rebuilding'' has become its fastest-growing activity. Many of
the beaches it spends million re-sanding are off limits to
the public.
Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut are trying to reform the
Corps by creating an independent agency to assess its
projects and rank them in the order of their priority. The
rankings would not be binding on the Corps, but they would be
made public so that taxpayers who pay for the projects would
know which are boondoggles and which are justified.
To counter the attempt to bring some fiscal responsibility
to the process, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe has introduced a
rival amendment to keep the pork barrel open.
New Hampshire benefits from Corps projects, and perhaps a
dozen are in the works. But Sens. Judd Gregg arid John Sununu
enjoy a reputation for frugality, fiscal responsibility and
abhorrence of waste. Their vote on the attempt to reform the
Corps will say a lot about whether that reputation is
deserved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the stacked votes now occur at
2:45 and all other provisions of the agreement remain in place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple of comments. I appreciate that there
is some division of editorial policy around the country. Different
positions are taken. I would say this, though. Probably the most
impressive thing we have added to the Record is from the National
Waterways Alliance, which has been a very strong supporter, of course,
of the bill, as are, I believe, most of us on both sides of this issue
who do agree we want to have the WRDA bill. We haven't had a
reauthorization since the year 2000.
This organization says they want to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment
and reject the Feingold amendments. It is interesting. As the Senator
mentioned some of the editorials, perhaps the St. Louis Dispatch would
be of interest to my colleague, Senator Bond.
This also has a number of groups from Wisconsin who are strongly in
opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Wisconsin Corn
Growers, the Wisconsin AgriServices of Brunswick, the Farm Bureau, and
others.
Sometimes you can evaluate something, an amendment, by who is in
support of it. I think if you look at this, there are 288 groups.
Virtually everyone who has any interest in using a waterway has said
they strongly support the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is such a varied
and diverse group. All the Chambers of Commerce, the labor unions, they
are all in there, including, of course, the U.S. Chamber, the Wisconsin
groups, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, as I mentioned before,
American Association of Port authorities, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Arkansas
Basin Development Association.
That is an interesting one because as I sometimes remind my
colleagues, people are not aware, maybe one of the best kept secrets
having to do with this subject matter is that my home State of Oklahoma
is a navigable State. Much of that is due to activities of my father-
in-law, who is deceased now. Glade R. Kirkpatrick is the one who
introduced legislation to provide for the Arkansas Development
Association, working with Senator McClellan from Arkansas, Senator
Kerr, at that time from Oklahoma.
I can remember 47 years ago, when I married my wife, the first thing
my father-in-law did was take me with him for the dedication of the
Port of Catoosa. Lyndon B. Johnson came out. I believe that was who
came out to dedicate it.
I remember also--I think my friend from Wisconsin will enjoy this--
many years ago when I was in the State senate, I was trying to draw
attention to the fact that we have barge traffic coming into Oklahoma.
I approached a group called the Submarine Veterans of World War II.
They decided what they would like to do. I said we have to do something
to show the people of America that we can take barge traffic up and
down here. It was all done through the private sector. We went to
Orange, TX, got a 300-foot-long submarine, the USS Batfish, and the
idea was to bring it all the way up to my home town of Tulsa, OK. This
was quite an undertaking. We had to put floatation on it to raise it
up, then bring it down to get it under the bridges. Nobody thought it
could be done. All of my political adversaries in the State of Oklahoma
were saying we will sink Inhofe with this submarine. It is there, one
of the most attractive tourist sites in the State of Oklahoma. Some
publications had it coming across the Arkansas line into Oklahoma.
I mention that, that is one of the many groups supporting this, the
Arkansas Basin Development Association. Also the California Coastal
Coalition, California Marine Affairs Navigation System, the Grain and
Feed Associations of Illinois.
There is a long list from Illinois; almost every agricultural
organization up there is in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment--the
Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, the
International Union of Operating Engineers. Everybody in Iowa is for
this, too. The list goes on and on. It gets into some of the labor
unions; in fact, almost all of them are in support of our amendment and
opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Laborers'
International Union of North America, the International Union of
Operating Engineers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners,
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Iron Works of America, Operative Plasterers & Cement Mason
International Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the
International Brotherhood of Brickyard Layers and Allied Craftworkers.
The list goes on. As I say, the total number is 288 organizations. I
can't think of any user--even recreational groups--who are in support
of this.
I have to repeat this. I don't want it to be implied by the Senator
from Wisconsin or the Senator from Arizona that I do not believe reform
is necessary. I talked at earlier times on this floor about the
problems we have had with the Corps of Engineers. Sometimes they have
done good work. Sometimes the work has not been so good. They need to
have more oversight. They need to have some kind of a system, which is
built into the underlying amendment or the underlying legislation. It
means, to enhance that, either the Inhofe-Bond amendment or the
Feingold-McCain amendment would do that. I think that is a recognition
that the main thing we want here is to pass the WRDA bill. It is long
overdue. We have to do it.
It is funny for me to stand up here as a conservative, having been
the author of the transportation reauthorization bill, which was
perhaps the largest nondefense spending bill in the history of this
body, and now come along with this one, yet I still have my 100 percent
rating with the American Conservative Union, I remind my friends.
Nonetheless, this is important. As I say, we are now down to less
than 50 minutes until we have a chance to vote.
Several times they have talked about the Hurricane Katrina situation
as the ultimate example for the Feingold-McCain amendment. As outlined
in the draft final report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation
Task Force issued on June 1, the Corps has made mistakes. We do not
know why certain decisions were made during the design of the New
Orleans levees, but in retrospect we know that they were the wrong
decisions. Some or all of these mistakes may have been noticed by an
independent peer review panel.

[[Page S7835]]

It could have been a panel that would either be adopted under the
Feingold-McCain amendment or the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
I agree this unfortunate disaster is an example of the potential
usefulness of peer review, but it is not a mandate for their particular
amendment. At the time the New Orleans levees were being designed,
independent peer review was not a requirement.
I recall one case in particular. In 1976, the Corps had actually done
a review of the levee problems that might arise in the future. So they
were talking about enhancing the strength of the levee. However, there
was an environmentalist group called Save The Wetlands that came along
and enjoined them in court and kept them from doing this.
Either review is something that would take care of problems like this
that might come up in the future.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, continuing the debate, I appreciate the
Senator mentioning my home State of Wisconsin. I think that is an
opportunity to quote from one of the leading newspapers in our State,
the Wisconsin State Journal. It in the past has not always agreed with
me on this issue. But they have come down strongly this year, and I
would like to read what they said.
The title of the editorial is ``Protect taxpayers from boondoggles,''
and I am going to read it in its entirety.

If the United States is to rein in the billions of dollars
misspent on pork-barrel projects each year, a top priority
should be reforming the way the Army Corps of Engineers does
business.
That's why Congress should pass the Army Corps reforms
proposed by Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain,
R-Ariz. The Feingold-McCain proposal would improve the
public's ability to make sure limited federal resources are
spent on cost-effective projects for flood control,
navigation, environmental protection and related goals,
rather than on boondoggles.
At stake is how the Corps spends its $12-billion-a-year
budget, which includes nearly $5 billion for civil works
projects, from levees to canals to coastal restoration.
Analyses of last year's hurricane disaster in New Orleans
helped to expose costly, even deadly flaws in how the Corps
decides where to spend the public's money. For example,
before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina breached the levee
on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Corps had begun a
$748 million project at that exact spot.
The project, however, was not flood control but rather a
new lock for the canal. The lock, favored by local
politicians, was supposed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge
traffic on the canal, however, was decreasing.
The New Orleans experience highlighted the Corps' long
history of mutual back-scratching with members of Congress:
The Corps caters to pet projects, even if their costs far
outweigh the benefits, and Congress in return makes sure the
Corps gets a big fat budget all at the expense of fiscal
responsibility and long-term water resource strategy.
The Feingold-McCain proposal would modernize the Corps'
cost-benefit analysis to make it more about project merit and
less about political influence. One provision would require
independent review of any project estimated to cost more than
$40 million, requested by a governor, determined to have
significant adverse impact, or judged by the secretary of the
Army to be controversial.
Another provision would require a cabinet-level committee
to work with the secretary of the Army to annually establish
a list of water source project priorities to give Congress
guidance.
Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Congress limits the
influence of pork-barrel politics in the Army Corps of
Engineers. So would Corps projects affecting the state, from
the modernization of the Mississippi River's lock-and-dam
system to efforts to keep invasive species out of the Great
Lakes.
The State's congressional delegation should support the
Feingold-McCain reforms.

I could go on.
There are more editorials coming online every day. These editorials
are coming from States that have projects in this bill, projects that
would be subject to the prioritization amendment, projects that would
be subject to the independent peer review amendment. These editorials
are coming from small States and large cities. Yet they still support
reform. And I believe that is because any State that might be the non-
Federal cosponsor of a project should want these reforms to ensure that
their investment is a wise one.
As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned some of the groups that
support his position, let me also briefly touch on the amazing support
for our independent review amendment. There are letters of support from
all of the following groups and individuals: League of Conservation
Voters; Taxpayers for Common Sense; American Rivers; National Taxpayers
Union; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense; the
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Association of State Floodplain
Managers; Republicans for Environmental Protection; Defenders of
Wildlife; Louisiana Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense
Council; Sierra Club; the Garden Club of America; Council for Citizens
Against Government Waste; Earthjustice; the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency; the Isaak Walton League of America; World Wildlife
Fund; Friends of the Earth; The John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club;
U.S. Public Interest Research Group; a letter from G. Paul Kemp, a
professor at Louisiana State University and a member of the Louisiana
Forensics Team investigating the Corps' engineering failures; more
Great Lakes groups than I can describe here, including Great Lakes
United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Lake Erie Region Conservancy, the
Ohio Environmental Council, Environment Michigan, and the Michigan
Wildlife Conservancy; Columbia River Fisherman's Protective Union and
Columbia Riverkeeper; Environment Maine; National Audubon Society; and
finally, a letter that is signed by over 120 grassroots groups from
across the country that supports our stand-alone bill, from which
today's Feingold and McCain amendments come. The States represented on
the letter are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Vermont, Washington, and, of course, Wisconsin.

I ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

League of Conservation Voters,

Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.
Re Support Corps of Engineers modernization amendments to S.
728 (Water Resources Development Act), oppose sham
amendments.

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is
the independent political voice for the environment. Each
year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard,
which details the voting records of Members of Congress on
environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to
LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the press.
LCV urges you to support amendments to S. 728, the Water
Resources Development Act, offered by Senators Feingold,
McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords, and oppose
amendments offered by Senators Inhofe and Bond. The Feingold-
McCain-Carper-Lieberman amendments will provide additional
transparency and accountability for the Army Corps of
Engineers, while the Inhofe-Bond amendments do little more
than codify current practices, which have failed to protect
the public and the environment. Hurricane Katrina offered a
stark example of these failures.
Corps of Engineers projects have all too often been plagued
with inadequate or erroneous environmental or economic
studies. Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers
called for mandatory independent peer review at all phases of
major Corps projects. The Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-
Jeffords amendment ensures that studies for significant
projects receive an independent, peer-reviewed assessment.
This independent review is empowered to examine all aspects
of the Corps analysis it believes are flawed. By contrast, an
Inhofe-Bond amendment sharply limits which projects must
receive this review, fails to ensure independence, and
narrows the scope of that review.
The Corps of Engineers has a multi-decade backlog of
authorized projects. In an era of limited resources, it is
more important than ever that funds are focused on those
projects that are most important to protecting public health
and the environment. The McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment
establishes an independent body that will determine criteria
for setting priorities, and then issue a prioritization
report to Congress. In contrast, the competing Inhofe-Bond
amendment skews the prioritization process toward particular
types of Corps projects, leaves the Corps to determine, in
vague terms, what the

[[Page S7836]]

priorities should be, and provides Congress with minimal
information for decision-making.
We urge you to support the amendments to WRDA which
increase accountability within the Corps of Engineers and to
oppose those amendments which do not provide real reform. The
LCV Political Advisory Committee will consider including
these votes in compiling LCV's 2006 Scorecard. If you need
more information, please call Tiernan Sittenfeld or Nat Mund
at my office at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
____

American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice,
Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National
Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental
Protection, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group,
July 17, 2006.
Dear Senator: On behalf of our organizations and our
millions of members and supporters, we request your support
for the true Army Corps of Engineers modernization amendments
that will be offered to the Water Resources Development Act
when it comes to the floor. These amendments, offered by
Senators Feingold, McCain. Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords,
pose our only meaningful chance of reforming this embattled
federal agency.
Hurricane Katrina confirmed the high cost of the Corps'
flawed process for developing water projects. As such, our
organizations have made addressing the flaws exposed by
Katrina a top priority for the 109th Congress. Poorly
conceived and engineered flood control, and navigation
projects led to the destruction of coastal wetlands and
caused most of New Orleans' Katrina related flooding.
Billions of federal dollars flowed to low priority Corps
projects while acknowledged weaknesses in New Orleans levees
went unaddressed.
To avoid repeating these preventable disasters, Congress
must require to independent peer review of costly,
controversial, and high risk projects. With a 30-year backlog
of authorized projects, Congress should also establish a
credible system for identifying projects that deserve
priority funding. If the Water Resources Development Act
comes to the floor, Senators Feingold, McCain, Carper,
Lieberman and Jeffords will introduce well-crafted amendments
to address these two endemic problems with the Corps.
However, to undercut true reforms, competing amendments
developed by and for the Corps will be offered on the floor
by Senators Inhofe and Bond. The purpose of these amendments,
which do no more than codify existing Corps procedures that
have proved inadequate, is to give the appearance of reform
without the substance. We strongly urge you to reject these
distracting alternatives, which would prohibit review of how
models and tools are applied to a particular project; provide
only a snap shot assessment of design specifications, for
even the most critical projects; and give sole control over
peer review and prioritization ``evaluations'' to the Corps.
The Chief of Engineers, not an impartial officer or outside
body, would select project reviewers, decide which projects
should be reviewed, and recommend priority projects. It would
be absurd to vest this additional authority in the Corps in
light of the dramatic problems at the agency revealed by
Katrina and more than a decade of government and independent
studies.
We urge you to oppose the amendments offered by Senators
Inhofe and Bond and VOTE YES on the common sense reforms that
will be offered by Senators Feingold, McCain, Carper,
Lieberman and Jeffords when WRDA is brought to the Senate
floor.
Sincerely.
Rebecca Wodder, President, American Rivers.
Buck Parker, Executive Director, Earthjustice.
Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth.
Martha Marks, President, Republicans for Environmental
Protection.
Doug Phelps, Chairman, Board of Directors, U.S. Public
Interest Research Group.
Roger Schlickeisen, President and CEO, Defenders of
Wildlife.
Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense.
Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife
Federation.
Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club.
____

June 9, 2006.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the Michigan United
Conservation Clubs and the National Wildlife Federation, we
urge you to cosponsor the Independent Peer Review amendment
proposed by Senators Feingold and McCain, which will be
offered to the Water Resources Development Act when it comes
to the Senate floor for consideration. This provision would
address fundamental flaws with the Corps of Engineers and our
nation's water resources program that have been brought to
light by Hurricane Katrina. It would improve the health,
safety, and security of all Americans, while better
protecting the environment and the taxpayers.
As a senior member of the Senate Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, you have done due diligence for
both the residents of New Orleans and Americans nationwide
who watched in horror the days after Hurricane Katrina hit
that historical city. Your thorough investigation into all
facets of the many failures that befell New Orleans exposed
numerous flaws in the federal response system. One of the
most startling flaws, in our regard, is the mismanagement of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Unchecked engineering flaws, poorly planned water projects
like the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet that destroy natural
flood protection, and misplaced priorities can have
disastrous consequences, and not just in a vulnerable city
like New Orleans. Senator Levin, this is an historic moment
for our nation. We must do a better job of managing our water
resources.
The amendments proposed by Senators Feingold and McCain
will steer the Corps in a new, more sustainable direction.
Recommendation 82 in your report called for independent peer
review task forces to be convened to oversee flood control
projects across the country. The Feingold-McCain Independent
Peer Review amendment will subject all costly and
controversial Corps projects to independent peer review. This
will provide an important check to ensure that projects
proposed by the Corps are based on sound science and
economics.
We urge you to cosponsor this critically needed amendment
before WRDA is brought to the Senate floor.
Sincerely,
Andy Buchsbaum,
Director, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center.
Sam Washington,
Executive Director, Michigan United Conservation Clubs.
____

The Izaak Walton League

of America,

Gaithersburg, MD, July 17, 2006.
Dear Senator: The Izaak Walton League of America requests
that you oppose the current S. 728 Water Resources
Development Act when it comes to the Senate floor. A Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) has not passed congress in
six years because of bad provisions and resistance to
necessary revisions that would safeguard the environment.
This legislation sets water policy for our nation and should
never be approved without due consideration to the
conservation of our water resources. Specifically, please
vote against any WRDA bill that contains the boondoggle
scheme to build new locks on the Upper Mississippi River.
This navigation expansion plan closely follows the Army Corps
of Engineers proposal for seven new locks that has been found
to be unjustified in multiple examinations by the National
Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, President Bush, the
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Secretary of
Agriculture have all previously disputed the need for the new
locks.
Rather than spending billions on un-needed construction
projects, the Leagile reminds you that the Mississippi River
corridor contains an ecosystem home to 260 fish species, more
than 300 varieties of birds, and serves as the migratory path
to 40 percent of North America's waterfowl. And the Army
Corps of Engineers itself has reported this ecosystem is
``significantly altered, is currently degraded, and is
expected to get worse.'' There is no need for the new locks;
it is time for the Senate to instead discuss the critical
ecological restoration needs of the Mississippi River.
We encourage you to support amendments to S. 728 offered by
Sen. Feingold and Sen. McCain.
The Independent Peer Review amendment will require the
Corps to submit costly or controversial projects to be
reviewed by an independent panel of experts in science and
transportation. This amendment will ensure that Corps
projects are based on solid engineering, are technically and
environmentally sound, and are fiscally responsible.
The Prioritization amendment will require an independent
panel to identify the top priority flood control, navigation,
and restoration projects for our country. The panel will
share their findings with Congress to guide funding
decisions.
Our country's water resources are far too important to be
altered without complete review, and our federal funds are
far too scarce to be spent on unjustified new locks. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Bradley Redlin,
Director, Agricultural Programs.
____

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Ellington
Agricultural Center,
Nashville, TN, July 17, 2006.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: We are writing this letter in
support of the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords
sponsored amendment to the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) which is scheduled to be on the floor of the Senate
sometime the week of July 17, 2006. The proposed amendment
allows for the formation of a Water Resources Coordinating
Committee (WRCC) which will provide review and oversight to
water resources projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This interagency task force will prioritize Corps 'projects;
establish a transparent system of ongoing review; and issue
recommendations set upon

[[Page S7837]]

strict timelines that will not delay the planning process.
The amendment provides WRCC review for all projects exceeding
$40 million; when a state Governor requests it; when a
federal agency finds the project will have a significant
adverse impact, or when the Secretary of the Army determines
that the project is controversial. We urge you to support the
Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment to the
WRDA which ensures a meaningful, independent review mechanism
to review Corps projects.
A competing amendment to the WRDA is being sponsored by
Senators Inhofe and Bond that imposes little change on how
the Corps does business. It continues to foster a system
without clear water resource priorities and allows the Corps
to ignore requests from federal agencies and state Governors.
Furthermore, reviews will only cover scientific, engineering
or technical bases of the decision or recommendation, but not
recommendations resulting from the data. Environmental
reviews accompanying a feasibility study would not be subject
to the overall review. Review will be one-time instead of
ongoing during the life of each Corps project, and will not
be independent; allowing the Corps Chief of Engineers to
select the review panel. Only projects exceeding $100 million
will be subject to mandatory review, allowing the Corps
discretion to avoid review for most projects. We urge you to
vote to defeat the Inhofe-Bond amendment which allows the
Corps to continue to ignore priorities for politics.
The current lack of clear water resources priorities is
damaging the nation's economic development, transportation
systems, and ability to protect its citizens and property
from flooding and natural disasters. The Feingold-McCain-
Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment moves the nation toward a
transparent system that establishes water resource priorities
through independent, external peer review. The review system
proposed by this amendment ensures that Congress has the
information it needs to direct limited federal resources to
meet the nation's most urgent needs.
Sincerely,
Tim Churchill,
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the need for change could not be more
clear, and I hope that today the Senate will adopt the Feingold-McCain-
Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins independent peer review amendment and
reject the Inhofe-Bond counter amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have several times addressed both sides
of the agreement we have in terms of how Katrina would have been
affected with the various different types of approaches of peer review.
I was approached by the junior Senator from Louisiana who said that in
Louisiana they are very strongly in support of the Inhofe-Bond
amendment. He says those in support are the City of New Orleans,
Jefferson Parish, St. Tammany Parish, the State of Louisiana, the
Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District, and the Red River Valley
Association.
I yield as much time to the Senator from South Dakota as he desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
I congratulate the chairman of the committee and Senator Jeffords and
Senator Bond and others who have worked so hard to get this measure to
the floor.
Congress is long overdue in reauthorizing this important measure. As
a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to
be part of efforts to improve the functionality of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
While my home State of South Dakota doesn't have any new specific
projects in this bill, I appreciate the hard work that has been put in
on the part of Chairman Inhofe, Subcommittee Chairman Bond, and
Senators Jeffords and Boxer in getting this long overdue legislation to
the floor for consideration and hopefully a favorable vote.
I express my appreciation to the bill managers for their willingness
to extend the provisions having to do with the Missouri River
Restoration Act that was authorized in the 2000 Water Resources
Development Act bill.
This particular provision will allow the State of South Dakota to
move forward with a task force report from State, tribal, and Federal
entities concerning siltation, erosion, and the status of Native
American historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River.
My colleagues will be interested to know that my home State of South
Dakota has four dams along the Missouri River which resulted in the
flooding of hundreds of thousands of acres of State, tribal, and
private lands. This particular provision will assist in addressing some
of the consequences of the construction of those dams.
Additionally, I appreciate the inclusion of clarifying language in
section 5010 that will assist the U.S. Treasury in managing the assets
within the Habitat Restoration Trust Fund for the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe that was created in the 1999 WRDA
bill. These trust funds are close to being fully capitalized and will
greatly assist mitigation of the terrestrial impacts that resulted with
the construction of the Oahe and Sharpe reservoirs. This language was
requested by the U.S. Treasury and will assure the trust fund's assets
are properly invested.
I also would highlight that the Governor of South Dakota is very
supportive of a provision I advocated in section 3126 which ensures
that Missouri River recovery funds are available to upper basin
States--States including Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota--that
would be covered by that provision.
While there have been some previous disagreements among the upper
basin States and lower basin States regarding the management of the
Missouri River, I am pleased to see that section 5008 has been included
to allow all the stakeholders along the Missouri River to work together
in laying out what needs to be done to address long-term recovery and
mitigation activities.
I rise today to again congratulate and give due credit to the
leadership of Environment and Public Works Committee on both sides of
the aisle, and our leadership here in the Senate in getting this
legislation to the floor.
This is a bill, as I said, which I had some experience working on as
a Member of the House of Representatives back in 2004. It is something
that we reauthorize on a fairly regular basis. But this one in
particular is long overdue.
There are many needs that have been raised for why we need a
reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, and I also add
in terms of the direct benefits to South Dakota and our issues with
regard to the Missouri River which are many and have been going on for
a very long time.
I also add that the agricultural groups in South Dakota have all
weighed in in favor of getting this bill to the floor, voted on and on
the President's desk because of the important projects that are
included that will make it more possible for them to get their
agricultural products to the marketplace.
It is widely supported by a lot of groups in my State--agricultural
groups, the Governor of South Dakota, and obviously the tribes of South
Dakota, who have been impacted as well when the Missouri River was
dammed up and lands were taken to help in flood control issues
downstream. There have been ongoing disputes over the years with
respect to this river and how it is managed by the Corps of Engineers.
This bill moves us a long way toward addressing some of those issues
and making sure that we have good policies and a good process in place
for the needs of the States that are impacted by the Missouri River--my
State right down the center--which, as I said, has provided a number of
benefits, construction of the dams and the area of recreation but also
has created a number of challenges for landowners, and for many of the
benefits that were promised when the dams were put in. People in my
State don't believe they have been fully realized. It seems we have
been fighting ever since between the up- and downstream States over
getting policies in place that will effectively manage in a fair way
the Missouri River.

The WRDA bill doesn't address all those legal issues, but it
certainly does address many of the ongoing challenges we face in making
sure that the Missouri River is a river that provides for all the
various users.
There are many stakeholders, as I mentioned earlier, who have a
vested interest in seeing this bill get passed. I am pleased today to
be able to rise in support, and I urge us to get a vote on it, pass it,
and get it on the President's desk and signed into law so this long

[[Page S7838]]

overdue legislation can be put into effect and begin to provide the
benefits and the intended results for those who have been waiting for
its passage.
I yield my time to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, and again give him due credit for getting this bill to the
floor today. I hope we get a very favorable vote.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He
has been a huge help on the committee. He is always very active.
I agree with him, the WRDA bill has been pretty heavy lifting. We
were both around in 2004 when we had our last reauthorization. It was
not an easy accomplishment. It was one that was almost the magnitude of
the Transportation reauthorization bill.
We have these amendments, and we are coming down to the wire where we
are going to be able to see final passage before too long. I thank my
friend from South Dakota for all of his help.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be
equally divided during the quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent Senators Cornyn and Hutchison
both be added as cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Iowa. He is going to speak as in morning business, but I understand it
will be charged against my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for 3 minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Harkin and Mr. McCain are printed in today's
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while we have a minute or two here, the
Senator from Oklahoma and I have agreed--and I hope the Senator from
Vermont would agree--that on the next amendment we could get it
dispensed with pretty quickly. We do not intend to propose the other
two amendments which we had pending. So as far as the Senator from
Wisconsin and I are concerned, we would only have one additional
amendment, and if it is agreeable to the managers of the bill, that
would be for an hour equally divided.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator
from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support
for S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act. This is truly a
momentous and important day for Florida. My State is home to beautiful
beaches, coastal estuaries, numerous ports, and the Everglades. No
piece of legislation moving through Congress could have as much lasting
improvement on Florida's fragile ecosystem as the WRDA bill.
I express my sincere thanks to the EPW chairman, Senator Jim Inhofe,
and Senator Bond for their diligent leadership in crafting this
legislation. I also thank Majority Leader Frist and Senators Reid and
Jeffords for reaching time agreements and allowing this historic
legislation to come to the floor. So often the media depicts Congress
in such an acrimonious light, and I believe this bill is a testament to
the fact that bipartisanship still exists in the Senate and that we can
also roll up our sleeves and act for the betterment of our Nation.
For too long in our Nation's past, the Federal Government's water
resources policies seemed to be in conflict with nature. In the not-so-
distant past, the Corps and even the elected congressional and State
leadership of Florida was determined to drain the Everglades. One of
our most colorful former Governors, Napoleon Bonaparte Broward,
famously proclaimed: ``Water will run downhill!'' At that time,
draining and improving ``useless swampland'' was the epitome of true
conservation because opening the wetlands and marshes of Florida to
farming and development was considered a better use of land because it
could feed and employ people. The idea that places should be protected
for their intrinsic beauty and public enjoyment was a foreign concept.
Fortunately for our Nation and Florida, the idea of conservation and
restoration has an entirely different and more sophisticated meaning
today than it did in years past.
In 2000, Congress authorized the landmark Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan to repair and restore the natural sheet flow of water
across the Everglades National Park into Florida Bay. CERP projects
will capture and store a great deal of the nearly 1.7 billion gallons
of fresh water a day which are currently released into the Atlantic
Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This water will be restored in above- and
underground reservoirs. And when needed, it will be directed to the
wetlands, lakes, rivers, and estuaries of south Florida--providing
abundant, clean, fresh water, while also ensuring future urban and
agricultural water supplies.
This incredible undertaking is the largest environmental restoration
project in the world. I am proud to say the State of Florida has made
an historic and prolific financial investment of over $3 billion to
honor its commitment to the Everglades restoration. And now, with the
expected passage of WRDA, new major CERP projects such as the Indian
River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand will finally be federally
authorized so this important restoration effort can start to take
shape.
The Indian River Lagoon's South Restoration Project in WRDA is
critical to the success of CERP and returning the Saint Lucie estuary
to a healthy status. Approximately 2,200 species have been identified
in the lagoon system, with 35 of these species listed as threatened or
endangered.
Implementation of the South Restoration Project will feature more
than 12,000 acres of aboveground water reservoirs; 9,000 acres of
manmade wetlands; and 90,000 acres of natural storage and water quality
areas, including 53,000 acres of restored wetlands. We will also be
pleased to restore a great deal of the Saint Lucie River, with a
corresponding restoration of 2,600 acres of habitat.
Another very important Everglades restoration project included in
WRDA is the authorization of the Picayune Strand project. This area was
originally planned as the largest subdivision in the United States
called Golden Gate Estates. In the early 1960s, the Gulf American
Corporation dredged 48 miles of canals, built over 290 miles of roads,
and sold thousands of lots before going bankrupt. At that time, there
were no Federal or State laws setting drainage standards. So now today
we will be moving that area back into somewhat of its natural state and
natural habitat, and it will join with the Big Cypress National
Preserve and the 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge. It will also
provide additional grounds for the Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge.
These are great things for our State. They are great things for
restoring back to a lot of its original beauty Florida's ecosystem; not
just the beauty but also the functionality of providing for wetlands as
a renourishment

[[Page S7839]]

of Florida's aquifer, which also is so important to maintaining the
urban lifestyle of south Florida.
The need to pass a comprehensive water resources bill in Florida is
overwhelming. Florida will benefit tremendously from it. I want to use
this opportunity to thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator Bond for
including these vital restoration and economic development projects in
WRDA. This legislation is long overdue. It is time for us to pass S.
728. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this very
important piece of legislation to Florida.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wisconsin has 30 seconds remaining. All other time
has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment cosponsored by Senators
McCain, Carper, Lieberman, Jeffords and Collins will ensure independent
review of Army Corps projects that are costly, controversial or
critical to public safety. The amendment responds to over 10 years of
studies, including analysis of the Katrina disaster, documenting
serious problems with planning and design of Army Corps projects. We
owe it to the people of New Orleans, and to all of our constituents, to
ensure close scrutiny of critical flood control projects, as
recommended by the Homeland Security Committee. That is what our
amendment does.
Despite any outcome on my amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote
``nay'' on the Inhofe-Bond amendment which maintains the unacceptable
status quo.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 4681, as modified.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Collins
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Voinovich
Wyden

NAYS--46

Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner
The amendment (No. 4681), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 4682

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4682.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Alexander
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--51

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Collins
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Voinovich
Wyden
The amendment (No. 4682) was rejected.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
McCain be recognized to offer an amendment regarding prioritization
report; further, that following the reporting of that amendment,
Senator Inhofe be recognized to offer an amendment on fiscal
transparency; provided further that there be 1 hour total for both
amendments, to be divided equally between Senators Inhofe and McCain;
further, that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate proceed
to a vote in relation to the McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed
by a vote in relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening
time or extra debate; and that following the votes, there will be 30
minutes equally divided, followed by a vote on final passage.
Mr. President, let me restate this. We have too many things going on,
so let me be sure we get it right.
The unanimous consent request is that Senator McCain be recognized to
offer an amendment regarding prioritization report; further, that
following the reporting of that amendment, Senator Inhofe be recognized
to offer an amendment on fiscal transparency; provided further that
there be 1 hour total for both amendments to be divided between
Senators Inhofe and McCain; further, that there be 30 minutes equally
divided for general debate on the bill, and that following the use or
yielding of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the
McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the
Inhofe amendment, to be followed by a vote on final passage, all with
no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I ask
my friend if I could have just a few minutes? It sounds like the
unanimous consent takes up all the time, and I just wanted to speak for
4 or 5 minutes on the bill, which I would want to do before we got into
that.
Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my friend from Missouri that we do
have in this unanimous consent request 30 minutes equally divided
before final passage, and I would be glad to yield to the Senator at
that time.
Mr. TALENT. That will be fine.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
like to ask the Chair if there is any possible way we could take the
opportunity to give myself and my colleague from Arkansas and Senator
Rockefeller just a few moments to speak in morning business in behalf
of paying tribute to our Lieutenant Governor from Arkansas.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Let me respond to the Senators from Arkansas. I have
talked to Senator Rockefeller and we have agreed that as soon as this
UC goes through, we will recognize him and the Senator from Arkansas
for up to 15 minutes for that purpose.
Mrs. LINCOLN. We are so grateful. We appreciate that from our
colleague from Oklahoma.

[[Page S7840]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Rockefeller are
printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business''.)
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the chairman of the committee and ranking
member. I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while we have a moment I would like to
take some time to thank the staff from the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
Senator Inhofe's staff is first class, including Ruth Van Mark,
Andrew Wheeler, Angie Giancarlo, Stephen Aaron, and many others.
Senator Bond's lead staffer Letmon Lee has done excellent work on
this bill.
Paul Wilkins and Sara Roberts from Senator Baucus' staff also
contributed extensively to this product.
From my staff, Ken Connolly, Alison Taylor, Margaret Weatherald, and
Caroline Ahearn have been tremendous.
But most importantly I wanted to recognize two staff people who have
worked for years and years on Army Corps issues and specifically this
bill.
First, Catharine Cyr Ransom. Catharine is an exceptional Senate
staffer. She works hard, is fair, and a joy to work with. She also is
very persistent and has made sure that my little State of Vermont has
been looked after in this legislation.
Finally, JoEllen Darcy, who has been with the Committee 12 years, and
has lived through this WRDA process for her entire tenure, is a true
gem. JoEllen has an incredible record of legislative success on the
Environment and Public Works Committee due to her depth of knowledge,
kind manner, and strong negotiating skills. She is also an avid Red Sox
fan, which says a lot about her character and why I like her so much.
I thank all the staff for their work and for all their work through
the August recess on this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now we are waiting for Senator
McCain to return and call up his legislation in conjunction with the
unanimous consent agreement.
I would like also to say the same thing. It has been great working
with Senator Jeffords and his staff, as well as other staff members,
and of course my staff. Angie, here, has been the primary driver with
Steve Aaron and Blu Hulsey, David Lungren, our staff director, and Ruth
Van Mark, who has done so much work on the transportation end.
On Senator Bond's staff, Letmon Lee; of course, JoEllen Darcey with
Senator Jeffords, Catharine Ransom, Alison Taylor, and I guess I would
have to mention Ken Connolly, too, as someone who hangs around and gets
things done, and Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus.
There is a lot of truth to this. This is more of a nonpartisan
committee. We have a lot of issues on which we disagree, but when it
gets down to the big authorization we recognize that what we deal with
are some of the most significant aspects of government--those that have
to get done.
It is the only way to do that when we are dealing with many areas--is
cooperate. I appreciate all the staff working together.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4684

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Lieberman, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an
amendment numbered 4684.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a water resources construction project
prioritization report)

On page 76 between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

SEC. 2007. WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION REPORT.

(a) Prioritization Report.--
(1) In general.--On the third Tuesday of January of each
year beginning January 2007, the Water Resources Planning
Coordinating Committee established under section 2006(a)
(referred to in this section as the ``Coordinating
Committee'') shall submit to the Committees on Environment
and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate, the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Office of Management and Budget, and make available to the
public on the Internet, a prioritization report describing
Corps of Engineers water resources projects authorized for
construction.
(2) Inclusions.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum, a description of--
(A) each water resources project included in the fiscal
transparency report under section 2004(b)(1);
(B) each water resources project authorized for
construction--
(i) on or after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(ii) during the 10-year period ending on the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(C) other water resources projects authorized for
construction, as the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary
determine to be appropriate.
(3) Prioritization requirements.--
(A) In general.--Each project described in a report under
paragraph (1) shall--
(i) be categorized by project type; and
(ii) be classified into a tier system of descending
priority, to be established by the Coordinating Committee, in
cooperation with the Secretary, in a manner that reflects the
extent to which the project achieves national priority
criteria established under subsection (b).
(B) Multipurpose projects.--Each multipurpose project
described in a report under paragraph (1) shall--
(i) be classified by the project type that best represents
the primary project purpose, as determined by the
Coordinating Committee; and
(ii) be classified into the tier system described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) within that project type.
(C) Tier system requirements.--In establishing a tier
system under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure
that--
(i) each tier is limited to $5,000,000,000 in total
authorized project costs; and
(ii) includes not more than 100 projects.
(4) Requirement.--In preparing reports under paragraph (1),
the Coordinating Committee shall balance, to the maximum
extent practicable--
(A) stability in project prioritization between reports;
and
(B) recognition of newly-authorized construction projects
and changing needs of the United States.
(b) National Priority Criteria.--
(1) In general.--In preparing a report under subsection
(a), the Coordinating Committee shall prioritize water
resources construction projects within the applicable
category based on an assessment by the Coordinating Committee
of the following criteria:
(A) For flood and storm damage reduction projects, the
extent to which the project--
(i) addresses critical flood damage reduction needs of the
United States, including by reducing the risks to loss of
life by considering current protection levels; and
(ii) avoids increasing risks to human life or damages to
property in the case of large flood events, avoids adverse
environmental impacts, or produces environmental benefits.
(B) For navigation projects, the extent to which the
project--
(i) addresses priority navigation needs of the United
States, including by having a high probability of producing
the economic benefits projected with respect to the project
and reflecting regional planning needs, as applicable; and
(ii) avoids adverse environmental impacts.
(C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to
which the project--
(i) addresses priority environmental restoration needs of
the United States, including by restoring the natural
hydrologic processes and spatial extent of an aquatic habitat
while being, to the maximum extent practicable, self-
sustaining; and
(ii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
(2) Benefit-to-cost ratios.--In prioritizing water
resources projects under subsection (a)(3) that require
benefit-to-cost ratios for inclusion in a report under
subsection (a)(1), the Coordinating Committee shall assess
and take into consideration the benefit-to-cost ratio and the
remaining benefit-to-cost ratio of each project.
(3) Factors for consideration.--In preparing reports under
subsection (a)(1), the Coordinating Committee may take into
consideration any additional criteria or subcriteria, if the
criteria or subcriteria are fully explained in the report.
(4) State prioritization determinations.--The Coordinating
Committee shall

[[Page S7841]]

establish a process by which each State may submit to the
Coordinating Committee for consideration in carrying out this
subsection any prioritization determination of the State with
respect to a water resources project in the State.
(c) Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Coordinating Committee shall
submit to Congress proposed recommendations with respect to--
(A) a process to prioritize water resources projects across
project type;
(B) a process to prioritize ongoing operational activities
carried out by the Corps of Engineers;
(C) a process to address in the prioritization process
recreation and other ancillary benefits resulting from the
construction of Corps of Engineers projects; and
(D) potential improvements to the prioritization process
established under this section.
(2) Contracts with other entities.--The Coordinating
Committee may offer to enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration or any similar
entity to assist in developing recommendations under this
subsection.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may ask the distinguished chairman,
have we entered into a time agreement on this amendment?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, we have. In fact, I will be bringing up mine, and we
will consider them jointly. There will be 1 hour equally divided.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be
recognized for however much time he may take in support of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to second the remarks of
Senator Inhofe about Senator Jeffords. I have had an opportunity to
work with Senator Jeffords now for 8 years. We have had our good days
and bad days, but we never had good days and bad days between us. I
consider him to be an outstanding Senator and a gentleman. I appreciate
the courtesies which he has extended me over the years of his
distinguished career.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. It has been a
privilege to work with him. We got some things done.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2006.
I commend Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond--and their staffs--for
their hard work and strong leadership in putting together a bipartisan
bill. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am
pleased to have been a part of this effort. But I want to make it clear
that Senator Inhofe is the driving force and Senator Bond kept pushing
us. If it wasn't for their unbelievable commitment to this, we wouldn't
be here today.
It has been 6 years since the Congress last passed a Water Resources
and Development reauthorization bill. I remember it because I was
chairman of the subcommittee that handled the bill. The time has come
to finally pass this legislation.
America's infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of
our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure,
but Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us. In the wake of this
disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating impact of a weak
infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to
fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our
Nation's competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace.
It has a new dimension to it because if we are going to compete in
the global marketplace, we need to build the infrastructure for
competitiveness, and we have had our heads in the sand in terms of the
condition of that infrastructure. It is a critical piece of America's
competitiveness.
Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be
rebuilding an infrastructure so that the new generation has at least
the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of
life.
Right now, our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient
funding. Congress desperately needs to provide increased funding for
the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees and funding
for additional engineers.
I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects
since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure in 1999. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the
backlog of unfunded Corps operation and maintenance projects was $250
million. Today, it is $1.2 billion. At that time, there was a backlog
of $38 billion active water resource projects waiting for Federal
funding. I want to emphasize that.
Today, according to the administration, there are about $50 billion
in Army Corps construction projects that are in need of Federal
funding.
Despite these needs, the Corps is currently able to function only at
50-percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the budget. It
is hard to believe when you consider what we have had with Katrina.
Annual appropriations for the Corps' construction accounts has fallen
from a $4 billion average in the mid-1960s to a $1.5 billion average
for 1996 through 2005.
The stark reality is at the current levels of construction
appropriations, the Corps' water resource projects, we already have
more water resource projects authorized for construction than we can
complete. At the current low levels of construction, it would take 25
years to complete the active projects in the backlog without even
considering additional project authorizations that are in this bill.

That is why I am supporting the prioritization amendment offered by
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.
I tried to get this kind of amendment back 5 or 6 years ago, but it
was rebuffed. We don't want to do that. We don't want to prioritize
anything. It might be someone's special project, and it may not get on
the list where they would like it to be. So let's not do that.
Unfortunately, appropriations for the Corps program have not been
adequate to meet the needs that have been identified in our Nation. We
have also been asking the Corps to do more with less. I am all for
trimming fat from the Federal budget and practicing fiscal discipline,
but the Corps of Engineers budget is not fat--it is the bread and
butter of our economy and our infrastructure.
I believe this amendment will reduce this backlog. This amendment
would allow the Water Resources Coordinating Committee, an interagency
task force that has been established in the underlying bill, to
establish transparent, project-specific national priority criteria,
classify projects either currently under construction or authorized
into a tier system based on that criteria, and then issue a nonbinding
prioritization report to the authorizing and appropriations committees.
I will bet you that a lot of what they have against this is because
they do not want anyone to tinker with what they do. The fact is, I
think we owe it to them to make sure they have some priority list as to
the importance of these projects as well as the Office of Management
and Budget to help guild them in their funding decisions. This report
would also be made available to the public.
I believe this report would ensure that the most critical projects in
the Nation are receiving adequate funding. Katrina showed us the
importance of prioritization.
We need a comprehensive prioriti- zation system to ensure that
Congress has the information it needs to direct limited Federal
resources to the most urgent projects.
When I was Governor of the State of Ohio, the State had hundreds of
highway projects that every preceding Governor had promised each
municipality would be built. It is whatever you want, you got it. The
list was unbelievable. The projects would have cost the State of Ohio
between $5 billion and $6 billion to build, whereas the State typically
only received between $100 million and $300 million a year. At the
time, it would have taken decades to build all the projects my
constituents asked for, even if another new project was not added to
the list for years.
In order to deal with the imbalance between demand and available
revenue, I created an objective, criteria-driven project selection
process called the Transportation Review Advisory Council, or TRAC.
This process gives paramount consideration to effective management of
the backlog to assure that it only includes needed projects that

[[Page S7842]]

are economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and supported
by willing and financially capable, nonfederal sponsors. The State is
required to balance this project list with the State's revenue
projections.
The TRAC also is required to issue a 4-year fiscal forecast after
Congress passes each highway bill to get an idea of how much money we
are going to get. It made no sense for the State of Ohio to continue
project development on projects worth millions of dollars that had no
realistic hope of ever being built. I think my constituents are much
better served by this system because the State is investing its
resources in projects that will become a reality in the near future.
I am sure the President would understand this. When you have a
highway bill, a lot of the Congressmen would put in earmarks on
projects. And today when they are earmarking, they earmark it for
projects that are on that list because they know that the money will be
spent for the project.
We need to take similar steps in the Senate in addressing our water
resource needs. It is long overdue with the limited resources that we
have. Hopefully, one day we will face up to those limited resources in
terms of our infrastructure. We need a prioritization.
I think Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have put together a very
good amendment.
Again, I know it may be controversial for some of the authorizers,
but it is time that we do this.
The passage of another WRDA bill cannot be delayed any further. It is
simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our
economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for the areas
affected by Hurricane Katrina.
I call on President Bush and my colleagues in both the House and the
Senate to work expeditiously to get this bill enacted into law as soon
as possible.
Really from the bottom of my heart, I urge my colleagues to support
this bill and this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 4683

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that the Inhofe-Bond amendment be
brought up for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr.
Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 4683.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify a section relating to a fiscal transparency and
prioritization report)

Strike section 2004 and insert the following:

SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND PRIORITIZATION REPORT.

(I) each project purpose; and
(II) if applicable, multipurpose projects; and

(ii) may include an evaluation of projects using additional
criteria or subcriteria, if the additional criteria or
subcriteria are--

(I) clearly explained; and
(II) consistent with the method of evaluating the extent to
which a project meets the national priorities under this
paragraph.

(B) Factors.--The Chief of Engineers shall establish such
factors, and assign to the factors such priority, as the
Chief of Engineers determines to be appropriate to evaluate
the extent to which a project meets the national priorities.
(C) Consideration.--In establishing factors under
subparagraph (B), the Chief of Engineers may consider--
(i) for evaluating the reduction in the risk of loss of
human life and risk to public safety of a project--

(I) the human population protected by the project;
(II) current levels of protection of human life under the
project; and
(III) the risk of loss of human life and risk to public
safety if the project is not completed, taking into
consideration the existence and probability of success of
evacuation plans relating to the project, as determined by
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(ii) for evaluating the benefit of a project to the
national economy--

(I) the benefit-cost ratio, and the remaining benefit-
remaining cost ratio, of the project;
(II) the availability and cost of alternate transportation
methods relating to the project;
(III) any applicable financial risk to a non-Federal
sponsor of the project;
(IV) the costs to State, regional, and local entities of
project termination;
(V) any contribution of the project with respect to
international competitiveness; and
(VI) the extent to which the project is integrated with,
and complementary to, other Federal, State, and local
government programs, projects, and objectives within the
project area;

(iii) for evaluating the extent to which a project protects
or enhances the environment--

(I) for ecosystem restoration projects and mitigation plans
associated with other project purposes--

(aa) the extent to which the project or plan restores the
natural hydrologic processes of an aquatic habitat;
(bb) the significance of the resource to be protected or
restored by the project or plan;
(cc) the extent to which the project or plan is self-
sustaining; and
(dd) the cost-effectiveness of the project or plan; and

(II) the pollution reduction benefits associated with using
water as a method of transportation of goods; and

(iv) for evaluating the extent to which a project promotes
the national defense--

(I) the effect of the project relating to a strategic port
designation; and
(II) the reduction of dependence on foreign oil associated
with using water as a method of transportation of goods.

(c) Contents.--In addition to the information described in
subsections (a) and (b), the report shall contain a detailed
accounting of the following information:
(1) With respect to general construction, information on--
(A) projects currently under construction, including--
(i) allocations to date;
(ii) the number of years remaining to complete
construction;
(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule; and
(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to
complete during the current fiscal year; and
(B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing
agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design,
including--
(i) the number of years the project is expected to require
for completion; and
(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule.
(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland
and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law
95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for
the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance
of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
(3) With respect to general investigations and
reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
(A) the number of active studies;
(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for
construction;
(C) the number of initiated studies; and
(D) the number of studies expected to be completed during
the fiscal year.
(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received
for interagency and international support activities under
section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
(5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
(6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
(8) Other revenues and fees collected.
(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications,
a list of individual permit applications and nationwide
permit notifications, including--
(A) the date on which each permit application is filed;
(B) the date on which each permit application is determined
to be complete; and
(C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants,
withdraws, or denies each permit.

[[Page S7843]]

(10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of
authorized projects for which no funds have been allocated
for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each
project--
(A) the authorization date;
(B) the last allocation date;
(C) the percentage of construction completed;
(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the
project; and
(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
15 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, Chairman Inhofe, for
granting me this time.
I feel so strongly against this amendment. I really need the time to
explain to my good colleagues why I think it ought to be voted down.
We have amendments before us from time to time and they come to us as
reform. I totally understand that we need reform in this whole area of
the way we prioritize projects that come before us. But I don't believe
this is reform at all. In my view, I think this is a delegation of the
responsibility of the Senate and the House over to the executive
branch. I believe it is going to be put into the hands of people who
won't know a thing about this subject matter, and it is going to bring
politics right into this Chamber. We were elected by the people. The
cities and counties count on us to do our homework, to do our due
diligence and understand what the needs are of our people, what our
flood control needs are in our States, what our other needs are in our
States, the studies that need to be performed, and all of that. That is
our job.
The McCain amendment just simply wraps it all up and tosses it over
to the executive branch. It sets up a whole new bureaucracy that I
think is absolutely unnecessary and, frankly, I think it is disastrous
for this WRDA bill. Unlike the other amendment which we supported,
which is peer review, that looked forward, this amendment looks back
into this bill where we have sat for years and years.
Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Baucus and the
leaders of this committee who have worked with us to ferret out the
projects that didn't have merit. I can attest to the fact that I had an
amendment that I wanted to move forward.
I was persuaded by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that
there was a better way to move forward.
We have done our work. This amendment is well intended. I know that.
I know the people who have put it forward to us have good intentions.
But I think it is going to make it more difficult for worthy projects
to get needed funding. That includes projects that have an impact on
public health and safety.
I may have a debate with Senator Bond over which project I think is
the more worthy and we will sit and talk about it and we will argue
about it. At the end of the day, there will be a decision. Why should
the two of us toss that all over to the executive branch, no matter who
is President? What does it have to do with them? It is our bill. The
President has the right to veto it if he doesn't like it or sign it.
But thrashing out what ought to be in it and what is good, we have done
that. That is part of our job.
There is another problem with this amendment. It sets up a nightmare
of a tier system. You have to fight your way into a tier in order to be
funded. The administration--this one and the next one and the one
thereafter--will be able to recommend which tier your State projects
ought to be in. When the first tier reaches $5 billion, or when there
are 100 projects in it, that tier is finished. So if you have a very
important project, a large project, but let's say we all know we have
to move to help the folks who are impacted by Hurricane Katrina, and
they have priority--we all agree that it has a very high priority--if
you represent a large State, you have a large project, you will never
make it into the first tier. It is bad for my State.
Frankly, it is bad for any project that is large enough and can't get
into the first tier--it gets knocked down. You get stuck in a lower
tier simply because the project may protect more people. How does that
make any sense whatsoever? It is an arbitrary system. It can label a
project as second tier despite critical local public safety needs. It
will undermine a project's chances of receiving appropriations.

We already know what a fight we have to convince our colleagues in
the Committee on Appropriations that the projects in our State have
merit. We subject these projects to tremendous scrutiny, first in this
particular WRDA bill. As we struggle to get appropriations funds, we
have to make the case. Then we have to go to conference and continue to
make the case.
Under this amendment, I am sorry to say this is no reform. I ask
rhetorically if this makes any sense. There is a very important
committee that has been set up in the underlying bill. The committee
has some very important functions, but now the McCain amendment adds
this next function on to this committee, this coordinating committee
which, by the way, is going to hire an executive director.
If anyone wants to learn how projects and laws get bogged down, here
is an example. This committee that is going to be set up includes the
following people: The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary
of Housing and Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of
the EPA, the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality, and
here is my favorite, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
We all know about their priority list. We just took a look at their
priority list. Petting zoos should be protected before bridges and
highways. They have included Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a bourbon
festival, a bean festival, the Kangaroo Conservation Center. This is
what the Department of Homeland Security said ought to be prioritized.
Do we want to invite them into a new prioritization game for the WRDA
projects? I hope not. What could come out of this is not good.
In discussing this with my colleagues, they say: But, Senator Boxer,
they are just going to recommend. We have the ability to sit down among
ourselves--Democrats and Republicans--as we have done in this bill, and
come to some decisions on what the priorities are. I believe the
Committee on Appropriations, working with all of us, has a second bite
at that apple.
I don't believe we need to ask this President or any future President
to get into this issue and convene meetings, have studies, and waste
money just to put together a list that they say is their priorities.
What makes their priorities better than our priorities? They are not
even elected. This is not even their job. How do you come forward--I
ask my friend from Arizona, rhetorically, because he is not here--
giving people who have no idea what this is about the power over the
projects? They say it is just a recommendation, but we know they will
take that seriously.
We remember the whole tizzy when they said they thought it was fine
for the country of Dubai to run our ports. There was a big debate in
the Senate. Most Members believed that was a mistake. That also came
out of some committee.
We all fight to get here. We all work hard to get here. At a minimum,
we are in touch with our States and we know the needs of our States.
The Congress, not a political appointee, not some bureaucrat, but
Members of the Senate should retain the central responsibility for
establishing the border resource priorities for their States. Instead,
this amendment leaves the recommendation of priorities up to a
committee made up of Cabinet and other political appointees.
We are inviting politics into this debate. As Senator Inhofe said,
this is one of those rare moments in history, this bill, where politics
is left at the committee door. We worked together. We worked hard
together. Now, with this McCain amendment, we are injecting partisan
politics. In this case it is a Republican President. In future years it
could be a Democratic President. It does not make any difference.
We should do our job. We should not punt the ball elsewhere. What are
we here for? Anyone who votes for this, and I am sure there will be a
few--I hope not too many--the message they are basically sending is
that they do

[[Page S7844]]

not feel comfortable enough, they do not feel knowledgeable enough,
they do not feel strong enough to stand up for what needs to be done in
their States.
Again, I ask, do we really want to have the Department of Homeland
Security deciding the critical water resource projects? They have
enough to do to get their own priorities in order.
With all due respect to members of the Cabinet, we as individual
Senators know our States' needs. We know our States' priorities. This
is not reform; this is injecting, in my view, partisanship into a very
bipartisan approach.
I trust my colleagues, whether Republican or Democrat, in this bill
because they have to explain why their projects are worthy. This is not
like an earmark where something is stuck in the bill in the middle of
the night. This is a major reauthorization bill where every project is
looked at very carefully. I don't believe any Cabinet is going to be
more effective at telling us what projects should be funded.
As Members of Congress, let us not surrender our responsibility to an
executive branch that, in my view, will not reflect the real needs of
our people. I urge my colleagues to vote no, a very sound no, on this
amendment. Let's send a message today that this Senate knows what it is
doing in this bill.
I feel very comfortable with the leadership of Senators Inhofe and
Jeffords, that we do know what we are doing in this bill. If you are
for this bill, I hope you will vote no on the McCain amendment.
I give the remainder of my time to the good Senator, Mr. Inhofe. I
thank him so much for the chance to speak against this amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from California for bringing up some
very good points.
How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The total time remaining is 17 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry because there is some confusion,
without using our time to make the parliamentary inquiry: It is my
understanding that while we have an hour equally divided on the two
amendments that are going to be voted back to back, there is also 30
minutes equally divided on final passage. All of this time would be
used prior to the three votes that come consecutively; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. If that is the case, there would be more like 30 minutes
remaining because each side would have 45 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement contemplated that the final 30
minutes would be used after the initial hour so that the Senator's
assumption is correct that he will have 15 minutes after the 17 minutes
and 35 minutes is expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent on our side, and I suggest they
probably want to do the same thing, that our time not be segregated as
to the amendments versus final passage so we could have 45 minutes for
either as we desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. With that, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Missouri who has been very helpful and constructive in this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time and also
for the kind remarks. I appreciate the excellent leadership he has
provided and the bipartisan nature with which he and Senator Jeffords
brought this bill to the Senate.
It is important to take a look at the substance of what is going on
in these prioritization amendments now before the Senate which deal
with fiscal deadlines and requirements and, in turn, how projects
should be prioritized. I hope our colleagues will listen carefully to
the context of the WRDA legislation and the Corps reform.
Worthwhile projects of the Corps of Engineers should be funded. The
inadequate funding of the levees in New Orleans was a bad mistake. We
need to fund worthwhile levees, but the best route is not the total
overhaul of the Corps and passage of the Feingold-McCain amendments, in
this case, specifically, the prioritization amendment.
The Feingold-McCain amendment proposes a complete overhaul by
establishing a new bureaucracy, the Water Resources Planning
Coordinating Committee. We need another bureaucracy in the Federal
Government like a bear needs tennis shoes. This idea is essentially a
reprise of the Water Resources Council that existed during the Carter
administration which was discredited due to its inability to get
anything done. That is not surprising when you have members ranging
from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
These are just a few of the Cabinet members, along with others,
proposed to provide review under the Feingold-McCain amendment. The
Secretary of the Army is on there, not even a Cabinet position. I look
forward to the Secretary of the Army, for example, providing input and
review to the Department of Education on No Child Left Behind. That is
essentially the same thing as having the proposed Feingold-McCain
council consisting of noninterested, nontrained Cabinet members with
other heavy responsibilities involved in the Corps of Engineers' very
complicated 103-step process to come up with priorities and approval of
projects.
Beyond a lack of interest in expertise, this council is structured
for projects to fail. A meeting of the minds is very difficult. This is
probably the reason such a council does not exist in any other forum.
In the rare event a consensus would emerge, the 50 percent local cost
share would increase to the point where communities could no longer
afford to make their contributions for essential projects.
It sounds like a time-consuming, expensive, headache-producing
bureaucracy to me, and I have seen them before. I can tell one when I
see it. This is one area where trained experts who understand the
process, from planning to construction, should be running our water
project formulation process. There is a reason we rely upon those with
appropriate training and expertise to develop and construct our
infrastructure and safety needs. These decisions should be based on
sound science, not on political judgment of people with no expertise in
the area.
With thousands of projects and costs that change annually,
prioritization of the projects and the process directed by Feingold-
McCain would be extremely cumbersome. Achieving stability and
prioritization would be nearly impossible.
The amendment Senator Inhofe and I have proposed would categorize and
prioritize projects on scientifically sustainable reports. These
reports will provide Congress with the necessary information to make
tough values-related decisions. Our proposed approach supports and
encourages a holistic approach to water resource management by
considering a wide range of important factors.
Feingold-McCain fails to address multipurpose projects and thus
results in inadequate cost-benefit ratios. Modernizing our locks and
dams and improving our levees contribute to the entire way of American
life: enhancing flood control, transportation, hydropower, water
supply, and recreation. Each purpose of the project served determines
demands prioritization, weighing all benefits in the analysis. And even
then, how do you truly value safety and the health of human life?
Media reports and editorials have criticized and played the blame
game. As a result, the Corps has received more than its share of public
ridicule. What is not well publicized is the good work that the Civil
Works Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers has already
done in its exhaustive inhouse budget prioritization. The Civil Works
Program has the only infrastructure project analysis that is required
to have cost-benefit ratios grounded in economic theory and extensive
ongoing economic analysis.
From its inception, each economic water resource infrastructure
project goes through multiple ``winnowing'' processes. In recent years,
only 16 percent of the proposed projects generally pass on a ``national
benefit,'' a positive benefit to cost ratio. Unless a project meets
this threshold, the process will not allow for a favorable report of
the chief of engineers.
The second winnowing is cost-share requirements where both studies
and

[[Page S7845]]

construction require percentages of local moneys to match the amounts
from the Federal Government as well as other contributions such as
lands, easements, and rights-of-way.
Unless exempted by Congress, if a local cost-sharing agreement does
not come forward, a project is not eligible for Federal funds.
Next is the actual budget appropriations process, which begins at the
38 districts of the Corps of Engineers 18 months before a President's
budget is delivered.
Performance-based budgeting requires a highly detailed process,
sorting the projects by benefits and costs and rated in a variety of
categories, including risk factors for the environment, safety,
security, and operations.
Each of the ``economic'' Corps projects is then subject to
``diminishing returns'' analysis that defines specific measurable
performance benefits that may be gained through a number of levels of
incremental funding.
In addition, unique elements or circumstances, such as judicial
findings and orders, are taken into account. The recommendation is then
sent to the Corps Division office that merges all district inputs into
a division recommendation which goes to the Corps headquarters in
Washington.
Once at headquarters, they are reviewed, merged, cross-walked,
racked, stacked, jacked, and tacked, and finally nationally ranked on a
benefit scale, to deliver a list to OMB.
I am exhausted--and I know my listeners are exhausted, those who are
still listening--merely summarizing the current standards and the
process that has to be followed--and we did not go into the 103 steps
currently existing before the request even reaches Congress for
appropriations.
But the Bond-Inhofe amendment goes further and categorizes and
prioritizes projects scientifically and makes a supportable report to
make it easier for us to make the important judgments. It is a time-
consuming and extensive process already. The last thing the process
needs is additional bureaucratic steps and redtape from those who have
already skewed priorities and lack the expertise to make decisions.
OMB has its own criteria and priorities, with recent trend analysis
showing they favor environmental restoration projects. For example,
within the fiscal year 2007 construction account, only 90 out of the
approximately 655 projects were accorded ``priority status'' that would
allow for some level of funding.
The Feingold-McCain amendment would only add additional steps,
lengthen the timetable, with fewer funded projects, the loss of jobs,
and the inability to provide safety and the transportation we need.
Finally, of course, there is a congressional process where we must
authorize and fund the projects. We establish our priorities, and they
are contained in the amendment, the Bond-Inhofe amendment.
The Feingold-McCain amendment proposes a council that lacks the
necessary expertise and adds redtape. We believe the Bond-Inhofe
amendment makes sense, and it will add to what the WRDA legislation
already includes: reasonable Corps reform amendments that would strike
a balance, that disciplines new projects to criteria fairly applied,
while addressing a greater number of water resources multipurpose
priorities.
I urge my colleagues to support the Inhofe-Bond amendment and to
oppose the Feingold-McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friends from
Oklahoma and Missouri for their courtesy in the way we have been
addressing these two amendments.
Mr. President, I begin by asking unanimous consent that the Statement
of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Administration Policy, July 18, 2006

S. 728--Water Resources Development Act of 2006

The Administration has strong concerns with the significant
overall cost of S. 728. The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that the bill as reported by the Committee would
authorize nearly $12 billion in discretionary spending, and a
preliminary Administration review indicates that the cost of
the manager's amendment would be greater. The Administration
believes the bill should establish priorities among these
activities and limit new authorizations to those projects
that represent the highest priorities for Federal funding
within the three main Corps mission areas: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
ecosystem restoration. The Administration is committed to
maintaining fiscal discipline in order to protect the
American taxpayer and sustain a strong economy.
The Administration supports the intent of the manager's
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 728 with regard
to provisions that: (1) address high-return nationally
significant water resource infrastructure efforts and aquatic
ecosystem restoration opportunities in coastal Louisiana and
along the Upper Mississippi River; (2) protect the Great
Lakes from invasive fish species; and (3) improve the Corps
of Engineers recreation services by providing a financing
authority similar to that proposed in the President's Budget.
The Administration is committed to restoring the Everglades
in partnership with the State of Florida. S. 728 would
authorize construction of the Indian River Lagoon project, a
significant South Florida aquatic ecosystem restoration
project. It would also authorize construction of the Picayune
Strand project, which has not completed its review by the
Administration. We look forward to working with Congress on
these and future authorizations for this priority restoration
effort.
The Administration looks forward to working with the Senate
to revise this legislation so that it will accomplish our
shared goals and objectives.

The Need for Basic Reforms

The civil works program has played an important role in
developing the Nation's water resources; however, it faces
several interrelated problems: (1) the Corps has a large
backlog of unfinished construction work, resulting in more
projects facing delays and a $50 billion cost to complete the
backlog of already-authorized projects; (2) the Corps is
providing funding to construct projects outside of its three
main missions, which reduces the funding available for higher
priority needs; and (3) the Federal government pays a
substantial share of project costs, which can lead to an
over-allocation of resources to build new projects and
upgrade existing ones. The bill does not address, and in some
cases would exacerbate, these problems.
The President's last four Budgets have outlined the
direction of the reforms needed to address these and other
concerns. The Administration has proposed five principles to
guide Corps authorizations and appropriations, which focus
on: (1) improving how the Corps formulates its water
resources projects, such as through changes to the 1983
principles and guidelines for proposed Federal water
resources projects; (2) limiting new construction starts to
projects with a very high net economic or environmental
return per dollar invested; (3) setting priorities for
allocating funding among the projects with ongoing
construction work in the three main Corps mission areas; (4)
de-authorizing commercial navigation projects with extremely
low levels of commercial use, and projects whose main purpose
falls outside the three main mission areas; and (5)
addressing cost-sharing.
The FY 2007 Budget proposes specific economic,
environmental, and public safety performance criteria for use
in establishing priorities among ongoing construction
projects. The Administration supports efforts to prioritize
water resources construction projects consistent with this
approach, and looks forward to working with Congress to
accomplish this objective.

Planning Future Proiects

The bill's proposals regarding the formulation of projects
would undermine efforts to improve the economic and
environmental performance of future projects. Subsection
2005(e)(1)(A)(ii) would increase the ability of local project
sponsors to direct the project alternatives that the Corps
may consider and recommend, and could preclude consideration
of other reasonable alternatives. Subsection 2005(e)(I)(B)
would prohibit the use of budgetary and other policy
considerations in the formulation of proposed projects. Both
of these changes would erode the ability of the Executive
Branch and Congress to ensure that the projects proposed for
authorization are well-justified and in the national
interest.
The Administration supports the independent peer review of
proposed projects. Section 2007 would restrict such reviews
to 90 days from the start of the public comment period, which
may not provide enough time to fully consider the public
comments and would preclude using these panels to assess
substantial changes to the project proposed by the Corps in
response to the public comments. The Administration looks
forward to working with Congress on this process.

Restricting the Powers of the Executive Branch

The Administration strongly objects to section
2006(f)(1)(C), which would limit the

[[Page S7846]]

ability of the Executive Branch to properly supervise the
civil works program by prohibiting anyone from giving
direction to the Chief of Engineers, including Senate-
confirmed Presidential appointees in the Department of
Defense, regarding any Corps report on a proposed project or
any related recommendations for changes in law or policy.
Such a provision would hinder the President's ability to
fulfill his Constitutional duties. The bill would also
require the Secretary to provide his recommendations to
Congress on a proposed project within 90 days of the Chiefs
report, which is not adequate time for a proper review and a
determination of the Administration's position. In addition,
this language should be revised to request rather than
require the recommendation, in keeping with the President's
constitutional authority to make recommendations he
determines to be necessary and expedient.
The Administration strongly objects to Section 1003(o)
which conditionally preauthorizes the construction of all
projects identified in a future Corps report on options for
improving storm damage reduction along the Louisiana coast.
Congress should not preauthorize these yet-to-be-identified
projects, whose total cost is likely to be measured in the
tens of billions of dollars and is not included in
Congressional Budget Office estimate, before the Executive
Branch, Congress, and the public have had a full opportunity
to review them.
The Administration objects to Section 1003(n) which creates
a new agency--the Louisiana Water Resources Council--to
manage and oversee a system-wide comprehensive plan of
unspecified future projects in Louisiana. This provision
would circumvent the normal chain of command within the
Executive Branch and thereby reduce accountability for the
costs to build these projects. The provision also raises
constitutional concerns with regard to the Appointments
Clause.

Adequate and Appropriate Cost-sharing

The Administration objects to the authorizations in the
bill that would have the effect of providing unwarranted
waivers or reductions in non-Federal cost-sharing
requirements. The Administration strongly opposes section
2039(a), which could be read as authorizing a major shift in
future project costs--potentially costing billions of dollars
to the general taxpayer. In addition, for the aquatic
ecosystem restoration work along the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway and in the wetlands of coastal
Louisiana, the cost-share paid by the general taxpayer should
be no more than 50 percent, as it is for the Everglades
restoration effort.

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation

The Mississippi River is a major artery for transporting
America's bulk agricultural products, and the Administration
is working to keep it that way. The Administration has
identified work on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway as one of the most important Corps operations and
maintenance projects. The Administration would like to work
with Congress to appropriately address the navigation and
ecosystem needs of this part of the inland waterway.

COASTAL LOUISIANA

The Administration recommends that the Senate revise
section 1003 to provide a single generic authorization
covering all studies, construction, and science work needed
to support the effort to restore coastal Louisiana wetlands,
including but not limited to the work envisioned in the near-
term restoration plan. This would expedite the approval
process for projects and their implementation while providing
greater flexibility in setting future priorities. Subsection
1003(j) should also be revised to provide for only a science
program, which should be run by the U.S. Geological Survey
and be funded on a cost-sharing basis and through
appropriations from the Corps. Moreover, section 1003(i), and
several other provisions in the bill, should be revised to
avoid micromanaging the internal deliberations of the
executive branch, and thereby interfering with the
President's constitutional duty to execute the law.

Other Concerns

The Administration also opposes certain other provisions in
the bill, including:
Section 2001, which could significantly diminish
accountability, nationwide consistency, and oversight of
Corps projects by limiting the ability of Corps headquarters
and the Secretary of the Army to review proposed agreements
with local project sponsors, and could expose the Federal
government to liquidated damages in the event that Congress
terminates funding for a project;
Section 2014, which would establish a binding 50-year
Federal commitment to the periodic nourishment of sandy
beaches and which could be construed as promoting ``shore
protection'' instead of storm damage reduction as the
program's objective; and
Section 3067, which would lead to the use of the Bonnet
Carre Spillway in ways that could be harmful to the ecosystem
of Lake Pontchartrain.
The Administration looks forward to working with Congress
on these and other concerns as the legislation proceeds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just like to quote from the first
paragraph of the Statement of Administration Policy:

I repeat: ``The Administration believes the bill should establish
priorities''--

among these activities and limit new authorizations to those
projects that represent the highest priorities for Federal
funding within the three main Corps mission areas: commercial
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
ecosystem restoration.

The first paragraph of the administration's Statement of
Administration Policy emphasizes their belief that this legislation
should establish priorities amongst these activities. That is what this
amendment is about. It is exactly that. The amendment is designed to
help Congress make clear and educated decisions on which Army Corps
projects should be funded based on our Nation's priorities.
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Lieberman, and
Feinstein in offering this important amendment to the Water Resources
Development Act.
Last August, this Nation witnessed a devastating national disaster.
When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy
beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Almost a
year later, the gulf coast region is still trying to rebuild and there
is a long road ahead. We learned many lessons from this tragedy, and,
as our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the
reconstruction effort, we must ensure that those resources are being
used in the most effective and efficient manner as possible. It is time
the Congress takes a hard look at how our scarce Army Corps dollars are
being spent overall and whether they are actually going to the most
necessary projects.
Our current system for funding Corps projects is not working.
Currently, projects are submitted by Members of Congress for funding
without having a clear picture of how that project affects the overall
infrastructure of our Nation's waterways or where it fits within our
national waterways priorities.
Too often, it is a Member's seniority and party position that
dictates which projects are funded and which ones will join the $58
billion backlog. Mr. President, I repeat, we have a $58 billion backlog
of projects. And the bill before us is going to add another $12 billion
in projects to the backlog. Do you know how much funding the Corps
receives annually? Two billion dollars. So if you have $70 billion, and
we are annually allocating $2 billion, that is 35 years. It is 35 years
before any project that is on this list is funded.
Clearly, without a prioritization, that opens itself up to no way
that we would have a way of determining which project is most important
and which is not. There is no way to know which projects warrant these
limited resources because the Corps refuses to give Congress its views
on which projects are necessary. In fact, even when Congress
specifically requests a list of the Corps' top priorities, it is unable
to provide it. Remarkable. Remarkable. Unfortunately, the underlying
bill does not address this problem.
To help my colleagues fully understand the extent of this problem,
let me quote Representative Hobson, chairman of the House Energy and
Water Appropriations Committee, from his statement on the House floor
on May 24, 2006:

Last fall, we asked the Corps to provide Congress with a
``top 10'' list of the flood control and navigation
infrastructure needs in the country. The Corps was
surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to this simple
request, and that tells me the Corps has lost sight of its
national mission and has no clear vision for projects it
ought to be doing in the future . . . . frankly, what is
still lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's
water resources infrastructure should look like in the
future. ``More of the same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor
is it a responsible answer in times of constrained budgets.

This amendment is designed to address this problem and shed light on
the funding process. It allows both Congress and the American people to
have a clear understanding of where our limited resources should be
spent.

[[Page S7847]]

The amendment will tap a multiagency committee created in the
underlying bill. It will direct that committee to review Corps projects
that are currently under construction or have been authorized during
the last 10 years.
These projects would be evaluated by several commonsense, transparent
criteria. They would also be divided and judged within their own
project category, such as navigation, flood and storm damage reduction,
and environmental restoration. Each project category would be broken
into broad, roughly equal-sized tiers, with the highest tiers including
the highest priority projects, and on down the ladder. This advisory
report would then be sent to Congress and be made available to the
public.

Some have said this amendment relinquishes congressional authority to
the executive branch. That is a false allegation. The prioritization
report is an effort to inform Congress, but it does not dictate
spending decisions--just as the Department of Defense sends our
authorizing committee, the Armed Services Committee, their priorities.
Without knowing their priorities, how in the world can we know how to
spend the dollars?
To more fully understand the need for a prioritization system, let's
consider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The
administration's budget request included 41 line items or projects
solely for Louisiana that totaled $268 million. That works out to $6.5
million per project, on average. The House Energy and Water
appropriations bill included 39 line items or projects totaling $254
million--again, in the neighborhood of $6.5 million per project. The
Senate bill included 71 line items or projects, to the tune of $375
million--averaging out to $5.3 million per project.
So while even more money was proposed for Louisiana under the Senate
version, individual projects would receive less money, and, inevitably,
this would result in delays in completing larger projects. So this
really does come down, once again, to real-world consequences of
earmarking. Communities actually lose under this earmarking practice.
Can we really afford long, drawn-out delays on flood control projects
that people's lives depend on simply because too many Members are
fighting for a small pool of money with no real direction? We need some
kind of direction, clear understanding and guidance for funding Corps
projects. While more money may ultimately be going to a State, if it is
being parsed via earmarking in an appropriations bill, we will not be
able to make significant progress on any project.
Ultimately, without guidance, Congress is able to cram as many
projects as possible into appropriations bills while contending that
each project is as important as the next. Drawing out completion on all
of these projects puts people's lives in danger and is unacceptable.
Some may believe that under this amendment smaller projects will lose
out. However, the size of the project has no impact on the
prioritization system. In fact, this objective system will help find
the hidden gems in the Corps project list and highlight their strengths
to Congress.
It is time we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at
projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us
to take a post-Katrina look at the world and decide whether we will
learn from our experiences over the last year or whether we are content
to continue business as usual.
Shouldn't we be doing all we can to reform the Corps and ensure that
most urgent projects are being funded and constructed or are we more
content with needless earmarks--too often at the expense of projects
that are of most need?
As stated in a letter signed by the heads of the Taxpayers for Common
Sense Action, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste, in support of our amendment:

Enough is enough . . . we need a systematic method for
ensuring the most vital projects move to the front of the
line so limited taxpayer funds are spent more prudently.

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 this amendment are based on thorough program
analysis and common sense. And let me be clear: A vote against this
amendment is a vote against Government transparency and accountability.
This amendment is a step toward a more informed public and a more
informed Congress. We owe the American public accountability in how
their tax dollars are spent.
I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build and improve upon
the Corps reforms we have explained before. 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.
I also thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with us throughout
this process and helping us to incorporate many commonsense changes
into the larger bill. While I still have concerns with the underlying
bill, and particularly the number of projects that would be authorized,
I hope that by adopting this amendment we can move this bill in a
direction that will truly benefit the Nation.
I want to share with my colleagues not only the administration's
support for this important prioritization amendment, it also has been
endorsed by many outside groups, including 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. And it has been positively commented
on by the Heritage Foundation. The vote on this amendment will be key
voted by the Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers
Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the League of
Conservation Voters.
We are also considering side by side the Inhofe-Bond amendment. As I
have mentioned before, their version would be prepared by the Corps,
controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and reported by the
Corps, locking out input from other relevant water resources agencies
such as the Department of Homeland Security. That amendment, unlike my
amendment, only looks at likely construction projects, forces the Corps
to review every single project in its $58 billion backlog, soon to be
$70 billion with the passing of this bill. It would also create a vague
need to fund a relative rating system that does not require any final
analysis or ranking. This would lead to an argument over semantics
rather than quality of a project. Members would come to the floor to
argue that the criteria that their project scored well in is the most
important criteria, whereas another Member would be arguing for another
criteria because their project scored well in that area. This system
would only lead to further confusion over the worth of individual
projects and distract Congress from the job at hand. Further, this
system would use criteria clearly devised to skew ratings toward
particular types of Corps projects. How would an environmental
restoration project ever score well on a criteria designed to weigh a
project's ability to lessen our dependence on foreign oil? How would a
flood and storm damage reduction project do being judged by this
criteria that is in the amendment, pollution reduction benefits
associated with using water as a method of transportation of goods?
Additionally, the Inhofe-Bond amendment would require the rating
report to be delivered only to the authorizing committee, thus sending
the signal that this information is not intended to help set funding
priorities and not intended to be transparent for the public. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I point out again the problem we have here: $70 billion, $2 billion
spent every year. That makes for $70 billion worth of authorized
projects, $2 billion can be spent each year. That makes for some pretty
ferocious competition. I think it is very important that we put some
kind of prioritization into this kind of process; otherwise, it will be
very hard for us to understand what is being done. But more
importantly, it is certainly not clear that the projects that need the
priority will receive them.

[[Page S7848]]

I ask unanimous consent that a memo published by the Heritage
Foundation on this issue be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2006]

Improving the Performance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.)

The extensive flooding of New Orleans caused by several
breaks in the levee system during Hurricane Katrina led to an
extensive debate about the performance of the Army Corps of
Engineers in protecting Americans from natural disasters. In
the months following Katrina's assault on the Gulf Coast,
many public officials, civil engineers, and policy analysts
began to question both the quality of the Corps' work and the
spending priorities Congress imposes on it. In particular,
there is considerable evidence that lobbyists and Members of
Congress systematically redirect Corps' spending for the
benefit of influential private interests at the expense of
essential flood control and protection. An amendment proposed
by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) would
create an independent commission to review select Corps
projects. This would be a major step towards reform of the
Corps.
As a Heritage Foundation Backgrounder and the Washington
Post have recently reported, a substantial portion of Corps
spending supports harbor and channel maintenance that benefit
specific shipping companies, new irrigation projects that
benefit crops like rice that already receive extensive
federal subsidies from the Department of Agriculture,
recreational boating facilities, and beach replenishment
programs to enhance the value of seaside vacation homes. As a
result of these diversions to low-priority purposes, Corps'
spending on flood and storm protection have accounted for
only about 12 percent of its budget in recent years.
Absent any formal mechanism to rate Corps projects and
establish priorities for investments that benefit ordinary
Americans, not just lobbyists and special interests, the
Corps will continue on the same ineffective course that
contributed to last year's disaster in New Orleans. And with
the Corps already working under a 35-year backlog of projects
totaling $58 billion, these management deficiencies will
persist for decades.
Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold propose to remedy
this deadly deficiency with an amendment to the Water
Resources Development Act that would require independent peer
review if a project costs more than $40 million, the Governor
of an affected state requests a review, a federal agency with
statutory authority to review a project finds that it will
have a significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the
Army determines that a project is controversial. Their
amendment would also require an independent safety review for
flood control projects involving issues of public safety.
While the McCain-Feingold proposal is a big step in the right
direction, the independent review commission should also be
encouraged to comment on the Corps' broad resource
allocations to ensure that priority projects involving issues
of public safety are not delayed because of diversions to
beach resorts, environmental remediation, and irrigation
crops already in substantial surplus.

Mr. McCAIN. The Heritage Foundation memo says:

Absent any formal mechanism to rate Corps projects and
establish priorities for investments that benefit ordinary
Americans, not just lobbyists and special interests, the
Corps will continue on the same ineffective course that
contributed to last year's disaster in New Orleans. And with
the Corps already working under a 35-year backlog of projects
totaling $58 billion, these management deficiencies will
persist for decades.

I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle who almost always pay
close attention to the Heritage Foundation and their findings will pay
attention to this one as well.
I again thank my friend from Oklahoma for his courtesy in
consideration of this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it further demonstrates that people can
have honest disagreements. I look forward to responding to some of the
comments that were made by the Senator from Arizona.
I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman for yielding and compliment him and
Senator Bond for their work in getting the Water Resources Development
Act on the Senate floor finally. It has been literally years getting it
here. I think it is a very important measure. Transportation
infrastructure is very important. If we are going to maintain our
global competitiveness, our economic growth, we have to be able to get
goods from one place to another. We have to be able to protect people
from natural disasters. We have to control and use the water resources
this Nation is blessed with, and we cannot do it without this bill.
I want to address specifically the provisions in the bill that
authorize the modernization of locks and dams on the upper Mississippi
River--locks and dams which, if they were people, would be old enough
to collect Social Security; locks and dams which are so small relative
to the needs of modern transportation that barges must routinely be
broken down into two halfs, in essence, before they can go through the
locks and dams; locks and dams which are in such need of maintenance
that you can take a picture of one and then come back and take a
picture of the same lock a month later and you will find that concrete
has literally fallen off it.
The case for river transportation is so strong, it is a matter of
common sense. It is a cheap, environmentally sound method of moving
goods. I say inexpensive because it costs roughly a third of the cost
of shipping by rail; environmentally friendly because one medium barge
tow can carry the same freight as 870 traffic trail trucks. So
obviously, by fixing locks and dams, we can relieve highway congestion,
reduce shipping costs, reduce fuel consumption, and we can reduce air
emissions. We will also create jobs.
The construction of new 1200-foot locks and lock extensions will
provide more than 48 million man-hours of employment over the next 10
to 15 years. We can also move the country's goods more efficiently.
Sixty percent of the country's corn exports, 45 percent of soybean
exports go on the Mississippi River to their destination. It is
absolutely important to the transportation of coal, steel, and
concrete. We have a new concrete facility going into Sainte Genevieve,
MO. It was a number of years before they were able to begin building
it, but they have. The reason that plant is going in there is because
the river is there, because they can bring products in and they can
move products out. It is vitally important that we do this. We have
been waiting a number of years. We are at least going to be able to
authorize doing it in this bill. We then have to fund it.
I want to say a few words about what I think is the most important
issue regarding our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and that is
less about how we prioritize than whether we are going to build it at
all. Transportation infrastructure is absolutely crucial to the
competitiveness and future of any economy. Other nations know that.
That is why they are building it. Brazil, for example, which is
certainly not a country with an economy as prosperous as ours, is
building water transportation infrastructure. I know people are
concerned about the revenues of the Federal Government and about the
deficit. I certainly am as well. But that is not a reason to avoid
investments in capital infrastructure. If you are a homeowner and you
have a hole in your roof, you have to fix the hole in the roof. You
have to fix it somehow because it doesn't go away if you don't fix it.
It gets worse. Then it costs more when you finally do decide to fix it.

We have been talking about priorities. It is certainly reasonable to
discuss how we are going to prioritize the projects that we have
backlogged. But I note with interest that both sides seem to agree that
after this bill passes, if it passes, we will have $70 billion in
backlogged projects and evidently $2 billion a year to spend on them. I
wonder if anybody else noted the irony of that. We are arguing about
how to prioritize $2 billion, when we have $70 billion in backlog.
Perhaps we ought to be arguing about how we can reduce the backlogs
faster by finding more money. Unless somebody is aware of some
technology that is going to allow us to transport goods across the
country other than through rivers or rail or trucks, we had better
figure out how we are going to fix this, and we had better figure it
out fast.
A lot of people who are concerned--I don't mean here in the Senate so
much but over in the Office of Management and Budget--about passing
trade agreements will reassure us that it is OK to have trade
agreements with other countries, even though they have lower wage
levels, because they say we are

[[Page S7849]]

competitive anyway because we have a better financial system, a better
telecommunications systems, and we have a better transportation system.
Then the same people begrudge every attempt to invest in the
transportation system. The reality is that however we prioritize the
money, we are falling behind every year. In 10 or 15 years from now,
maybe sooner, we are going to have fallen so far behind, we will never
be able to catch up. When the next generation does not have the
transportation infrastructure they need to be competitive, as we had
because the earlier generation gave it to us, I don't think we will be
able to explain it away by saying we were arguing over how to
prioritize it. I think they will want to know how we are going to build
it. Because right now, however you prioritize it, we have a heck of a
lot more priorities than we have money to spend. I hope we can put a
little bit of the energy that we are now putting into prioritization--
and I don't begrudge anybody the debate over this--into how we are
going to fund the transportation infrastructure that this generation
and the next generation needs before the Chinese fund theirs and the
Third World countries fund theirs, and our people are out in the cold.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his efforts and for yielding.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under Senate rules, I ask
unanimous consent that I be allowed to show a prompt on the Senate
floor, a bottle of water.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the bottle. This is a
glass of clean water that is put on our desk to drink. This is the
bottle of water that I scooped up out of the Saint Lucie River which is
one of the estuaries that will be dealt with in this Water Resources
Development Act that we are now considering. You can see the dramatic
difference between the two. This one is laden with algae and with all
kinds of particulates. This is the kind of clean water that we would
like our rivers and estuaries to be.
Thank goodness we have this bill and we are going to pass it. It is
going to address these kinds of problems. Specifically in this bill is
the Everglades restoration and two important projects, the Indian River
Lagoon, from which this water came. It is the Saint Lucie River estuary
that leads into the Indian River. You can see why that estuary is
messed up. When I went out there and scooped up this bottle of water,
it was a dead river. That river, the Saint Lucie, flows into the Indian
River, which is not a river, it is a lagoon. It is a bay. This Senator
grew up on the banks of the Indian River.
Where I grew up, there are the pelicans diving for fish because there
are plenty of fish. There is Mr. Osprey up there swooping down and
getting his dinner. You look up in that dead pine tree and there is old
Mr. Eagle. He is up there waiting for Mr. Osprey to go down and scoop
up and get his dinner. Then Mr. Eagle is going to take off after Mr.
Osprey, and Mr. Osprey is going to drop that fish and Mr. Eagle is
going to swoop it up. That is going to be his dinner. Yet there is
nothing out there in a river that has water like this--no pelicans, no
bird life. You cannot even see it. You can see the density of this
water. You cannot even see below the surface of the water. Thank
goodness we have up this WRDA bill. This bill also is going to
authorize the Fakahatchee Strand and the waters that dump into the St.
Lucie, like this to the east of Lake Okeechobee, dumped into the
Caloosahatchee River to the west, and a similar kind of water goes out
to tidewater in the Gulf of Mexico to the Caloosahatchee River. This is
what we are going to correct with this WRDA bill.

And, also, we are going to--in the managers' package they have
accepted an amendment that the two Senators from Florida have offered,
which is to get an examination of this report that came out about a 70-
year-old dike that rings Lake Okeechobee; 40,000 people live in the
vicinity of the perimeter of Lake Okeechobee, and the report predicts
there is a one-in-six chance of dike failure with each year that
passes. So we are getting an emergency examination and report in this
bill of the sanctity and security of that dike, with all of those lives
that are at stake.
Overall, all of this is so important for us. This is the greater part
of a 20-year project of the restoration of the Everglades, the river of
grass, which for over a half century we have messed up by diking and
draining and sending this water of Mother Nature out to tidewater,
instead of preserving it for what it was intended by Mother Nature--to
keep flowing south through the Everglades and ultimately out into the
Florida Bay.
I am so grateful that the leadership on both sides of the aisle has
brought this bill to the floor. It is with great joy that I will be
voting for this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act is critically
important for our nation because it provides our States and local
jurisdictions with the support they need to manage their water
resources, and improve flood and storm control damage protection.
The Senate's passage of this legislation maintains our commitment to
the protection of our rivers, streams and lakes.
And it also maintains our commitment to protect our aquatic
ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.
I am proud that the Senate will pass a good, comprehensive bill that
also includes key coastal restoration and hurricane projects to further
assist the rebuilding efforts in the State of Louisiana following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
I am also very proud that my State of Vermont will receive important
project authorizations, including restoration programs for the upper
Connecticut River; the repair, remediation and removal of small dams
throughout the State; and the construction of a dispersal barrier to
protect Lake Champlain from invasive species.
As we stand on the verge of passing the Water Resources Development
Act, I would once again like to thank Chairman Inhofe for his
leadership. We would not be at this point without his persistence and
hard work.
I would also like to thank Senators Baucus and Bond for their hard
work in advancing this bill.
Mr. President, it may have taken us six long years to get here, but
the impact of this bill will be felt for decades to come.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through
conference.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I had to come to the floor and speak
briefly and thank the ranking member and the chairman for their
extraordinary help in crafting this bill to help meet the needs of
Louisiana's vanishing coast. This coastline just doesn't belong to
Louisiana, it belongs to the Nation. It is America's last coastal zone,
with millions of acres of wetlands that serve as hosts of the oil and
gas industry and that cradle, if you will, the great Mississippi River,
which is the greatest river system on the North American Continent. It
provides for the extensive fisheries industry.
This is a picture of southeast Louisiana. But if you head southwest,
it is also host to major river systems, the Calcasieu Ship Channel, et
cetera. This coast is threatened. This is a pretty extraordinary graph
that we found recently, which shows the track of every major hurricane
since 1955. The blue line is the track of Hurricane Rita, a category 4
to 5 hurricane. Katrina is the yellow line that went through the
eastern part of our State, and then, of course, Rita on the western
part on the Texas-Louisiana line.
This gulf coast is America's only energy coast. All of the oil and
gas offshore is produced right here. Most of the refineries, platforms,
et cetera, are beside these great wetlands. This bill is going to make
substantial investments

[[Page S7850]]

along this coastline to keep our river open, to keep our ports
operating, to protect these wetlands, and to help create a stronger
barrier.
Obviously, we need to be doing this all over the country, this
Atlantic coast. There is money for that as well. Of course, I am not as
familiar with those projects. I can tell you that this WRDA bill--of
course, my partner and colleague, Senator Vitter, is on the authorizing
committee, and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his work.
I wanted to say that the ecosystem project of Louisiana's coastal
area is funded, as well as significant navigation and hurricane
protection and wetlands restoration projects. In addition, there are
some innovations important to America. There are some new technologies
that will allow us to protect these areas, to build stronger levees, to
protect this coast with better materials that cost less--way less--and
we can stretch the dollars in this bill far more than we have been able
to do in the past because although this is a very large bill with a $10
billion authorization, it is not enough, as some of our colleagues have
said.
Mr. President, the technology--and we will soon send to the Record an
example of the technologies--will help us to make these projects
stretch. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy and the chairman
for all of his help.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator
from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise, too, in strong support of this
WRDA bill with my Louisiana colleague and many others because of the
enormously important work it will do for the country, including the
State of Louisiana, particularly after the devastating hurricanes of
Katrina and Rita.
I, too, thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Chairman Inhofe, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords,
and Senators Bond and Baucus, and everybody who has made this very
important bill possible, including our great staff, including Angie
Johncarlo, Ruth VanMark, Letmon Lee, Stephen Aaron, Catharine Ransom,
and Jo-Ellen Darcy. I thank them all for their hard and, in so many
cases, their ongoing work.
This bill is vitally important to the country and is vitally
important to Louisiana, and it was before 2005. It was important before
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is 10 times more important after
those devastating storms and in light of our continuing and increasing
needs following those storms.
I want to highlight some very important aspects. One is fundamental
Corps reform, which is important, which will get done one way or
another in this bill. Now, in terms of Corps reform, I favor the model
of Chairman Inhofe. I also point out that I have been working, with his
help and the help of many others, on a Louisiana water resources
council to ensure proper oversight, vetting, review, and ongoing
outside independent expert review of all of the projects in the
Louisiana hurricane area.
That concept was first embodied in a separate stand-alone bill that I
introduced on March 15 as S. 2421. I am happy to say that through a
managers' amendment it will be included in all substantial and major
ways in this WRDA bill. It is very important to bring outside expertise
to bear to review on an ongoing basis, to do that peer review for those
projects and to integrate those projects into an overall plan for our
Louisiana coast.
There are other important needs that the bill meets. The
comprehensive hurricane, flood, and coastal protection program is fully
authorized in this bill. Immediately, it authorizes 5-year near-term
coastal restoration projects and will exceed $1.2 billion, establishes
a science and technology program of at least $500 million, requires
consistency and integration in all of the programs, and makes sure they
work together.
Other crucial Louisiana needs addressed in the bill are hurricane
protection for Terrebonne and Lafourche. The bill authorizes the
Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project that has been ready
for 3 years now. This is long overdue and it finally comes in this
important WRDA bill, addressing the travesty of the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet, MRGO, fixing that environmental disaster and making sure
that the negative impacts of it, as we saw through Katrina, never
happen again. And other crucial needs are addressed, such as the Port
of Iberia, Vermillion hurricane protection, east Baton Rouge, Red-
Ouachita River Basin, Atchafalaya Basin, Calcasieu River and Pass,
Larose to Golden Meadow, Vidalia Port, and St. Charles. They are all
directly met in this bill.
Again, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and others on the
committee for their leadership to meet these crucial Louisiana needs
and certainly these crucial national needs. I strongly and fully
support the bill.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself time off of the McCain-Feingold
prioritization amendment.
I rise in strong support of the McCain-Feingold prioritization
amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. As Senator McCain points
out, it recognizes we must respond to the tragedy of Katrina and to our
current flawed planning process by making sure that limited taxpayer
dollars go to the most worthy water resources projects.
That doesn't sound like a lot to ask. As we all know, our Nation is
staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. We
have a backlog of $58 billion in projects that are authorized but not
built, and that number will be closer to $70 billion when this bill
passes. Clearly, we need some way of identifying projects that are most
needed.

Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative
priority of the current massive backlog of unauthorized projects, and
we don't have any way of evaluating the relative priority of the new
projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in
their States or districts but no information about which projects are
most important to the country's economic development or transportation
systems or our ability to protect our citizens and our property from
natural disasters.
Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good.
The McCain amendment would make sure Congress has the tools to more
wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public
transparency in decisionmaking. It does so by utilizing an interagency
task force set up in the underlying bill, the Water Resources
Coordinating Committee, to evaluate likely Corps projects in three
different categories: flood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem
restoration. The committee will establish broad national priorities to
apply to those projects.
The amendment sets out minimum requirements that projects in each
category have to meet, so that, for example, flood reduction projects
must be evaluated in part whether they reduce the risk of loss of life.
But the committee is free to consider other factors as long as it is
clear about which factors it is considering.
Projects in each of these project types will be placed in tiers based
on how great a priority they represent, and this information will be
provided to Congress and the public in a nonbinding annual report. That
is it. Congress and the public get information to help them make
decisions involving millions--or even billions--of dollars. Surely that
isn't too much to ask.
Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help
restore credibility to a Federal agency that is plagued by public
skepticism in the wake of Katrina. The Corps has admitted serious
design flaws in the levees it built in New Orleans, and it is clear
that the Corps' mistakes contributed significantly to the damage New
Orleans suffered.
I can tell you, when I was down in New Orleans just last week, even
more than complaints about FEMA, I heard complaints about the Corps.
And just as we have worked as a body to improve FEMA, we need to work
to improve the Corps. Our constituents and the people of New Orleans
deserve no less.
The Corps does important work. The real problem, as the senior
Senator

[[Page S7851]]

from Arizona points out, that this amendment seeks to get at is us in
Congress. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to
facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing
a desire to change its ways. If we want to change our ways, we can
start by passing the McCain prioritization amendment which will help us
make sure the Corps continues to contribute to our safety, environment,
and economy, without wasting taxpayer dollars.
The Inhofe-Bond so-called prioritization amendment does not
accomplish that. In fact, that competing amendment would do nothing
more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It would require every
project in the $58 billion backlog to be rated. Even the Corps admits
there are many projects in the backlog that will never be built. Some
of the projects being deauthorized in this WRDA bill were first
authorized in the 19th century. So why would we expend such time and
resources evaluating projects that have no chance of being built? We
can prioritize in a smarter, more manageable way.
Their amendment creates an ill-defined relative rating system for
criteria but doesn't require any final analysis or ranking. How is that
going to help us decide where to allocate taxpayer dollars? It won't.
The relative rating system is nothing more than a throwaway single line
with no substance.
What is most telling is that there is no provision to allow for the
information to be made available to the public so they can look over
our shoulders and make sense of whether our decisions about national
water resource priorities make sense.
Furthermore, their amendment, rather than using impartial criteria on
which to weigh projects, would use criteria which would be applied
across project types and which appear to be reverse-engineered to
elevate inland navigation projects: for example, criteria such as
``availability cost alternate transportation methods relating to the
project''; ``[R]eduction of dependence on foreign oil associated with
using water as a method of transportation of goods''; ``pollution
reduction benefits associated with using water as a method of
transportation of goods.''
These criteria serve to elevate generically inland navigation
projects at the expense of flood and storm damage reduction projects
and environmental restoration projects.
Obviously, I do not have an issue with inland navigation projects.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment has now expired.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
continue under the remaining time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire as to how much
time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amount of time combined is 10 minutes 58
seconds under the control of Senator Inhofe and 2 minutes 41 seconds
under the control of the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. INHOFE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Does the Senator from Vermont
or the Senator from Oklahoma yield? Does the Senator from Vermont yield
time?
Mr. INHOFE. That is correct, I do not yield time. I just don't object
to his using some of the time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yields time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues.
The Mississippi River is a critical artery for Wisconsin and national
commerce, and many other rivers serve the same role. However, I do take
issue with the process that uses broadly applied criteria that will
obviously only be met by a small subset of projects at the expense of
other valuable project types that fall within the mission area of the
Corps of Engineers.
Lastly, if any of my colleagues are tempted to vote for the Inhofe-
Bond alternative, I encourage them to take a close look at it. It is
clearly designed to look more substantial than it really is because in
a nine-page amendment, four pages are dedicated to simply reinserting
the same language on a fiscal transparency report that the amendment
initially deleted.
Unfortunately, the existing inadequate, opaque funding process is
better than the prioritization process created by the Inhofe-Bond
amendment. A deliberately flawed and skewed prioritization system would
be more harmful than the current ineffective one. As such, whatever
one's position may be on the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-Feinstein
amendment, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the Inhofe-Bond
prioritization amendment.
I certainly thank my colleagues for the additional time, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is my intention to yield back some time. We have some colleagues we
want to accommodate. I think if I do that, time will also be yielded
back from the other side.
While I don't agree with those who tried to argue that there are
currently no prioritization projects, I do acknowledge that we can do a
better job. That is exactly what the Inhofe-Bond amendment will do.
The administration has priorities right now. They can set priorities.
It is called the budget. The administration sets its funding priorities
through the President's budget request. For the last couple of fiscal
years, President Bush has relied on a measure called the remaining
benefit-remaining cost ratio.
The Inhofe-Bond amendment requires the Corps of Engineers to provide
critical and easy-to-understand information to Congress that can then
be used to make tough budgetary decisions that we have to make when the
funds are so limited.
The amendment sets out four national priorities--I mention this
because this contradicts something said by the Senator from Wisconsin:
No. 1, to reduce the risk of loss of human life and risk to public
safety; No. 2, to benefit the national economy; No. 3, to protect and
enhance the environment; and No. 4, to promote the national defense.
Let me just say in closing that no one can vote either for their
amendment or against our amendment saying that one of them is going to
be spending more money or there is pork. It is a wash. They are both
the same. Voting for the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not going to reduce
the amount of money that is going to be spent on projects or voting for
the other amendment is not going to do that, either. Not one of these
is a large spending bill or a small spending bill. I would like to get
that out of the way.
Our amendment sets out our national goals. The Corps is directed to
develop a relative ranking system to report how well each project meets
these four priorities.
I really think enough has been said on this issue. I am prepared at
this point, if the other side is, to yield back and accommodate some of
our colleagues. I do so at this time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I commend my partner for the
cooperation we have had on this bill.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4684, the McCain
amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 80, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

YEAS--19

Alexander
Bingaman
Brownback
Burr
Chafee
Coburn
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Ensign
Feingold
Gregg
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
McCain
Nelson (FL)
Sununu
Voinovich

NAYS--80

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman

[[Page S7852]]

Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 4684) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 4683

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The question now is on agreeing
to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--56

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The amendment (No. 4683) was rejected.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers'
amendment at the desk be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment has been cleared on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

Removal of Marine Camels

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a colloquy
with the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Inhofe, and the
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, pertaining to a
provision that would clarify that funds from the Department of Defense
account for environmental remediation at formerly used Defense sites
may be used for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly
used Defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
First, perhaps for those who are not familiar with marine and naval
terminology, it would be useful to point out that a ``marine camel'' is
nothing more than a large timber fender. These wooden fenders, or
bumpers, are of the type that have been used since the days of sail to
cushion a ship as it lays alongside a pier, or to act as a buffer
between two or more ships when they are tied up alongside each other,
either at a pier, a mooring, or at anchor. The purpose of the camel is
to prevent damage to a ship or a pier that would otherwise occur when a
ship rocks against a pier or against another ship due to shifting
tides, currents, wakes from passing ships, and so forth.
The problem this provision seeks to solve is that over the many years
these marine camels have been in use at naval facilities, marine
terminals, and moorings controlled and operated by the Department of
Defense, they have been lost, sunk, or otherwise have become hazardous
debris, often containing hazardous substances, in the waters and on the
shores of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay.
The purpose of this colloquy is to establish that the provision that
has been included in the Water Resources Development Act is not an
expansion of existing authority. This provision is clear that use of
Department of Defense funds is linked to formerly used Defense sites
that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
Therefore, this provision clarifies but does not expand the authority
or responsibility of the Department of Defense to undertake
environmental restoration.
Mr. INHOFE. My colleague on both the Armed Services and Environment
and Public Works Committees is correct. This Water Resources
Development Act provision is simply to clarify existing authority. The
other bill managers and I were informed that there was some confusion
as to whether funds from the Department of Defense environmental
remediation account for formerly used Defense sites could be used to
remove abandoned marine camels located in the waters of formerly used
Defense sites in Narragansett Bay. It was our intent to clarify that
the Department could in fact use these funds to remove debris linked to
a formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land
and into the water. Of course, any debris in the water not linked to a
formerly used Defense site could not be cleaned up using funds from
this account, and I believe the language in the bill reflects that
distinction.
Mr. WARNER. Further, it is also my understanding and I wish to make
clear as part of our discussion that this provision is not intended to
give a priority to clean up sites in Narragansett Bay over other
formerly used Defense sites that present a greater risk to public
health and safety.
The Department of Defense establishes the priority for cleanup of
formerly used Defense sites on the basis of risk to the public. The
Senate Armed Services Committee has long supported the Department's
policy of prioritizing environmental cleanup based on risk. We stand
committed to that principle today. I ask my distinguished colleague to
confirm that he shares my understanding on these fundamental points.
Mr. INHOFE. Again, I agree completely with my colleague. There is
absolutely no intent to change the Department's current policy of
prioritization through this provision. Those sites presenting the
greatest risk to the public should be cleaned up first. This provision
is silent with regard to where on that priority list sites in
Narragansett Bay may fall.
Mr. WARNER. With that understanding, I support this provision and I
believe it may be helpful in ensuring that this cleanup in the
Narragansett Bay takes place, as it should.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for including this
provision in the Water Resources Development Act. More than 100
abandoned camels litter Narragansett Bay, creating a safety hazard for
boaters and divers and contaminating the bay's water with creosote,
which has been listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a
probable human carcinogen. Camels were commonly used as fendering
systems at the Newport Navy Base, the Quonset Point Naval Air Station
carrier pier, Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center, and the
Melville Fuel Depot. As my colleagues from Virginia and Oklahoma
pointed out, this

[[Page S7853]]

language claries that funding from the formerly used Defense sites'
account could be used to remove abandoned marine camels located in the
waters of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay, including
removal of debris that is linked to a formerly used Defense site even
if that debris has drifted off land and into the water. The ecological
health and water quality of Narragansett Bay is vital to the economy of
Rhode Island, and I believe that this language will aid in the cleanup
of this precious natural resource.

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the leaders of this bill know, aquatic
nuisance species cause unwanted and potentially harmful environmental
changes in the Nation's waters. Aquatic nuisance species are introduced
through various pathways, with ballast water on ships being the most
predominant. Having a strong program to address the challenges
presented by new introductions, allow rapid response actions, screen
imports of aquatic organisms, and conduct research in all of these
areas is extremely important and something this Congress needs to
address.
In an attempt to develop a system to confront the challenges
presented by these species, Senator Collins and I have sponsored
comprehensive legislation to address this issue. While the Water
Resources Development Act addresses protecting our Nation's waters, my
colleague from Maine and I have decided not to address the need for
comprehensive aquatic nuisance species legislation in this bill because
the Environment and Public Works Committee leadership has committed to
try to move a comprehensive bill forward this year.
Mr. INHOFE. I do understand the concerns about the impacts of aquatic
nuisance species. I want to assure the Senate that it is my intention
to resume discussions on a bill and try to bring a comprehensive bill
to the Senate floor this year.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
commitment to continue the process and look forward to working with you
and continuing the discussion on this issue.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Mr. MARTINEZ. Senator Inhofe, as you know, the 2000 WRDA bill
authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. CERP created
a permanent and independent peer review panel. The process used to
develop CERP had broad public and technical review and participation.
Therefore, all CERP projects have already gone through an initial
planning stage. However, there are approximately 50 CERP projects that
still need additional authorization from Congress. During conference
negotiations with the House, would you be willing to examine the impact
of additional peer review on CERP projects and its current independent
review process?
Mr. INHOFE. Senator Martinez, I am aware of the CERP review process
established in WRDA 2000, and during conference we will examine its
established independent review process to ensure that Everglades
restoration is not unduly impeded.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I appreciate your leadership
and diligence on this important issue.

Section 2019

Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that section 2019 of the WRDA bill before us
has some problems with how we have attempted to deal with balancing the
needs of municipal water suppliers and hydroelectric power generation.
Complicating the issue is how CBO has scored our proposals to achieve
balance. I fully intend to resolve this issue and do not intend to
preempt existing statutory authorities that govern the Corps' ability
to reallocate storage and provide municipal and industrial water
supply. I ask my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, to
accept my assurances that I will work towards a compromise that treats
all parties fairly.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague for his efforts on these difficult
issues and appreciate his consideration of the importance of
hydroelectric generation to the nation's power supply. I also
appreciate his working with me to ensure that this has no unintended
impact on existing authorities that govern the Corps' ability to
reallocate storage. I look forward to working with the senior Senator
from Oklahoma on these issues.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senator Feingold, as you know, the legislation
establishing the Everglades Restoration Comprehensive Plan creates a
permanent, independent peer review panel with extensive
responsibilities for reviewing the Everglades restoration plan in
detail. The Corps of Engineers has contracted with the National Academy
of Sciences to establish that panel, and it has been working
productively for years, issuing a number of major reports. Would this
legislation create duplication with that panel?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Senator Nelson, I am familiar with the excellent peer
review system that has been established for the comprehensive
Everglades project. In many ways, that peer review system is a model
for this amendment. There is nothing in this amendment that would keep
the Director of Independent Peer Review from determining that the
Everglades peer review is the functional equivalent of the peer review
or substitute for the peer review required by this amendment and
satisfies this requirement. In many ways, the Everglades peer review
goes beyond that required by this amendment, and works smoothly with
the requirements of this amendment.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I appreciate and agree with your understanding
of this amendment. I fully support the view that expensive
controversial Corps of Engineers projects should be subject to
independent peer review. In case there is any possible need for
clarification of this issue, would the Senator from Wisconsin be
willing to work with me during the conference on this bill?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Absolutely.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 728,
the bill to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA.
I want to join my colleagues in expressing my sincere appreciation to
Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking
Member Jeffords, and to Senator Bond, who chairs the Subcommittee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Baucus, who serves as
the ranking member of the Subcommittee. I also want to commend their
dedicated staff for their hard work and consideration on this important
legislation. The leaders in our committee and their staff have
literally worked for years to bring this bill to the floor for
consideration, and they deserve credit for their patience and
perseverance.
I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond for the New
Jersey project authorizations they have included in this bill. As do
other States, New Jersey depends on the Army Corps to carry out
projects that are vital to our economy. This bill contains
authorizations for three important projects in New Jersey. The first is
a South River storm damage and ecosystem restoration project. The
second is a Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project at Union Beach which
will address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. The third is a
Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets project to address hurricane and storm
damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project.
The bill also contains a contingent authorization for a Great Egg
Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction and periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project. I also appreciate the bill managers' willingness to accept my
language on the shore protection demonstration program. This program
will help us learn how to nourish our shore in smarter and cheaper
ways.
While I supported the Feingold-McCain amendment regarding independent
peer review, I hope this won't be construed to take anything away from
the underlying bill or the hard work of its managers. The underlying
bill is one that I am pleased to support, and I will vote for its final
passage.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I want to express my support of S. 728, the
Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2006. S. 728 authorizes the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study water resource problems,
undertake construction projects, and make major modifications to
existing projects. It has

[[Page S7854]]

been 5 years since the last WRDA was enacted into law and I thank my
colleague, the Senior Senator from Missouri, for his leadership in
bringing this bill to the floor. This is a bipartisan piece of
legislation that must be passed to address our Nation's critical
navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs.
I am a cosponsor of S. 728 because I recognize the need to authorize
essential flood control, shore protection, dam safety, storm damage
reduction, and environmental restoration projects. These projects
carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protect communities
across the country from destruction caused by severe weather and
flooding, and also promote protection and restoration of our Nation's
ecosystems. In addition, the legislation establishes standards that
balance the safety and interest of the public with the economic and
environmental feasibility of projects.
I am pleased that provisions from S. 2735, the Dam Safety Act of
2006, which I introduced with Senator Bond, are included in the
managers' amendment to S. 728. This will advance dam safety in the
United States and prevent loss of life and property damage from dam
failures at both the Federal and State programmatic levels.
Specifically, the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program
Act will provide much needed assistance to State dam safety programs
that regulate 95 percent of the 80,000 dams in the United States. Of
the approximately $13 million authorized annually through 2011, $8
million will be divided among the States to improve safety programs and
$2 million will be dedicated for research to identify more effective
techniques to assess, construct, and monitor dams. In addition,
$700,000 will be available for training assistance for State engineers,
$1 million for the employment of new staff and personnel for Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and $1 million for the National Inventory
of Dams.
An additional provision that mirrors S. 2444, the National Dam Safety
Program Act, which I introduced with Senator Inouye, is included in S.
728. This authorizes appropriations of $25 million for small dam
removals and dam rehabilitation projects. Although the amount included
in S. 728 is not as large as in S. 2444, this is still an important
first step in ensuring the safety of the public. I will continue to
work with my colleagues to ensure that both public and private dams
receive the maintenance they need.
The cost of failing to maintain our Nation's dam infrastructure is
extremely high. There have been at least 29 dam failures in the United
States during the past 2 years causing more than $200 million in
property damage. In my home State in March, the Ka Loko Dam, a 116-year
earthen dam, on the island of Kauai breached during heavy rains killing
seven people. This tragic event serves as an important reminder of the
responsibility held by the State and local governments, but also of the
leadership role of the Federal Government in supplementing State
resources and developing national guidelines for dam safety.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 728. Again, I
express my appreciation to my colleagues Senators Bond, Inhofe,
Jeffords, Feingold, Boxer, Specter and McCain for their leadership in
bringing this bill to the floor. This bill is essential in improving
economic growth, safety, and the quality of life of all Americans.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Water
Resources Development Act. First, let me commend my colleague from
across the Mississippi River, Senator Bond, for his efforts in bringing
this bill to the floor. I was pleased to support his efforts in the
Environment and Public Works Committee and to be an original cosponsor
of this bill.
Last year, Senator Bond and I worked together on a letter, signed by
40 of our colleagues, saying it was time for this bill to be considered
on the floor of the Senate. When we were told that 40 was not enough,
that we needed 60 signatures, we came back and got 81.
That was 7 months ago, and I am pleased that the Senate is now on the
verge of passing this bill because this is an important bill both to my
State of Illinois and to the entire country. It authorizes and revises
the policies and practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
waterway navigation, including the construction of locks and dams, the
construction of levees and wetlands restoration to promote flood
control, and other ecosystem and environmental mitigation activities.
For two decades, Congress has enacted revisions and updates to WRDA
roughly every 2 years. It is now been 6 years since the last WRDA bill
and, in light of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
last year, this bill is long overdue.
Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a report
card of the Nation's infrastructure and gave a D-minus to our navigable
waterways. More than 50 percent of our lock and dam systems in the
United States are functionally obsolete, and that figure will rise to
80 percent in the next 10 years.
Now, if you are not from a farm State, you might not understand why
navigable waterways are important to all of us. But a major component
of the cost of farm commodities is the cost of transportation. That
affects both the price of food that we buy in grocery stores and the
price of homegrown fuels that fuel our cars. If U.S. agriculture is to
remain competitive in the worldwide market during the 21st century, we
need to improve our transportation infrastructure.
Countries such as Brazil and China understand the importance of
efficient commerce for their farmers and have made significant
investments in improvements. Unfortunately, American farmers still rely
on pre-World War II-era infrastructure when transporting their goods to
market. When we talk about the responsibility of Congress and the U.S.
Government to create jobs and economic development, upgrading these
locks and dams is part of that responsibility.
This bill provides $1.8 billion for lock and dam upgrades along these
waterways to replace transportation infrastructure almost 70 years old.
This is an important provision to Illinois farmers and to everyone
around the world who uses the products that we grow in Illinois.
The bill also provides an unprecedented $1.6 billion in Federal funds
for ecosystem restoration along the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers to
improve fish and wildlife habitat as well as land and water management.
Finally, there is a small, but important, provision to authorize
continued funding for the electric barriers that prevent the Asian carp
from entering into the Great Lakes. The Asian carp is an invasive
species with a voracious appetite that, if left unchecked, would
disrupt the natural ecosystem in the Great Lakes and crowd out the
native fish. Senator Voinovich and I were able to get a temporary fix
put into the supplemental appropriations bill, but we need a more
permanent guarantee of funding, and WRDA will provide just that.
I will also take a minute to discuss the subject of reforming the
Army Corps of Engineers. Serious questions have been raised as to how
the Corps develops its calculations and analyses for projects. I
believe that subjecting some projects to an independent review process
is necessary to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the most
effective manner.
In closing, I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for
their leadership, and I thank the EPW Committee staff for their fine
efforts in preparing this bill. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill and
urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, our Nation's waterways, harbors, and
ports are vital to our economic prosperity, the safety of those who
navigate our waters, and to our quality of life. It is estimated that
one out of every five jobs in the United States is dependent, to some
extent, on commercial activities handled by our ports and harbors. In
many instances, ship and barge transport is the safest, cheapest, and
cleanest transportation mode. Likewise, our waterways provide critical
habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities for boaters,
and contribute to the health and well-being of millions of people
through their diversity, beauty, history, and natural environment. This
legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake
water resource projects of great importance to our Nation's and

[[Page S7855]]

our states' economy and maritime industry, public safety and to our
environment.
I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of
provisions for which I have fought to help ensure the future health of
the Port of Baltimore, the Chesapeake Bay, and Maryland's waterfront
communities. With more than 4,000 miles of shoreline around the
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, 126 miles of deepwater shipping
channels leading to the Port of Baltimore, some 70 small navigation
projects critical to commercial and recreational fisherman and to local
and regional economies, Maryland is a State which relies heavily on the
navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration programs of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years, I and other members
of the Maryland congressional delegation have worked hard to maintain
and improve the Federal channel system--serving the Port of Baltimore
and other communities throughout Maryland, to address the severe
shoreline erosion problems on Maryland's Atlantic Coast, and to bring
the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise to bear in the restoration of
the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's rivers and streams. While other ports
are just now beginning to deepen their channels to 45 or 50 feet, we
succeeded in deepening the port's main shipping channel to 50 feet 16
years ago making navigation safer, easier, and cheaper for ships using
the channel and assuring that the route can handle the deep draft bulk
cargo carriers in use today.
We recently completed two critical safety improvements to the Port's
channel system--the straightening of the Tolchester ``S'' turn and the
widening and deepening of the Brewerton channel eastern extension--as
well as some long-needed improvements to Baltimore harbor's anchorages
and branch channels. We constructed a hurricane protection project at
Ocean City, MD to help protect the citizens and the billions of dollars
in public and private infrastructure in the area and restored the beach
at the north end of Assateague Island National Seashore. We also
completed numerous environmental restoration projects throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed from Jennings Randolph Lake in western
Maryland to the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project--the
largest and most environmentally significant island habitat restoration
project ever undertaken in the Chesapeake Bay. These projects would not
have taken place without the authorities and funding provided in
previous Water Resources Development Acts. The measure before us will
enable several, much-needed water resource infrastructure projects in
Maryland to move forward.
First, the bill authorizes a 50-percent expansion of the Poplar
Island environmental restoration project, to provide additional dredged
material capacity for the Port of Baltimore and additional habitat for
the Chesapeake Bay's wildlife. Initially authorized by section 537 of
the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 1996, the Poplar Island
project has proved to be a tremendous success and a model for the
Nation on how to dispose of dredged material.
Instead of the traditional practice of treating the dredged material
as a waste and dumping it overboard, we are putting approximately 40
million cubic yards of clean dredged material from the shipping
channels leading to the Port of Baltimore into a productive use,
restoring 1,140 acres of remote island habitat in the Chesapeake Bay,
creating a haven for fish and wildlife, and helping reduce sediment
degradation of the Bay's water quality. This represents a win-win
situation for two of Maryland's most important assets--the Port of
Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay.
Last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed two studies--a
Baltimore Harbor and Channels Dredged Material Plan, DMMP, and an
integrated General Reevaluation Report, GRR/Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement, SEIS, on the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration
Project--which identified a critical need for new dredged material
placement capacity for the Port of Baltimore by 2009 in order to meet
Federal and State of Maryland requirements and recommended the
expansion of Poplar Island as a preferred alternatives for addressing
the dredged material capacity gap in an economically and
environmentally sound manner. A subsequent Chief's Report submitted to
Congress on March 31, 2006, recommended a 575-acre expansion of the
existing Poplar Island and the raising of the island's existing upland
cells to add approximately 28 million cubic yards of dredged material
placement capacity and extend the project life by approximately 7
years. This measure authorizes the expansion of the existing Poplar
Island project as recommended in the Chief's Report. It authorizes
$256.1 million for the expansion project, bringing the total cost of
the existing project and the expansion project to $643.4 million, with
an estimated Federal cost of $482.4 million and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $161 million. The Poplar Island environmental
restoration project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland
Port Administration and of the shipping and environmental communities
for many years, and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us
to move forward with the expansion of this project.
Second, the bill contains three additional provisions authorizing a
total of nearly $100 million which are critical to our continuing
efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It reauthorizes and expands a
program that we established in section 510 of WRDA 1996 known as the
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program,
raising the authorized funding from the current level of $10 million to
$30 million. It increases the funding for Chesapeake Bay native oyster
restoration to $50 million--a $20 million increase over current levels.
And it authorizes the Smith Island ecosystem restoration project to
reverse the tremendous loss of wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation around Smith Island, MD.
In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive
study--the first such study ever undertaken--of the present and future
uses and problems of Chesapeake Bay's water and related land resources.
Since then the Corps has undertaken or participated in a variety of
projects to help restore the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and living
resources, including sewage treatment plant upgrades, making beneficial
use of dredged materials, removing impediments to fish passage,
mitigating the impacts of shoreline erosion, and restoring wetlands,
habitat and oyster reefs. But despite these efforts, the Chesapeake
Bay's health continues to languish.
To restore the integrity of the ecosystem and to meet the goals
established in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, nutrient and sediment
loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be
increased, SAV and wetlands must be protected and restored, and
remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other
actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the
Corps has a vital role to play in this endeavor, and the programs
authorized in this measure will enable the Corps to continue to
participate in this effort. The funding increase provided for the
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program will
allow the Corps to expand design and construction assistance to State
and local authorities for a variety of environmental restoration
projects in the bay. The additional funds provided for native oyster
restoration will help support the Chesapeake 2000's goal of increasing
oyster populations by tenfold by the year 2010. And the new authority
to construct the Smith Island environmental restoration projects will
help stem the alarming loss of SAV and wetlands along the coastline of
Martin National Wildlife Refuge and Smith Island, protecting
approximately 720 acres and restoring about 1,400 acres of valuable
habitat.
Third, the measure provides the funding necessary to complete the C&O
Canal rewatering project in Cumberland, MD. In 1952 a 1.2-mile section
of the historic C&O Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus
was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of the
Cumberland, MD, and Ridgely, WV, flood protection project. The National
Park Service and State and local authorities have long sought to
rebuild and rewater the C&O Canal in this area to restore the integrity
of the historic canal and assist in

[[Page S7856]]

revitalizing the area as a major hub for tourism and environmentally
sound economic development. The Corps investigated the feasibility of
reconstructing and rewatering the turning basin and canal near its
terminus and determined that it is feasible to rewater the canal
successfully without compromising the flood protection for the city of
Cumberland.
Subsequently, Senator Mikulski and I secured a provision in WRDA 1999
authorizing the Corps to construct this project at a then-estimated
total project cost of $15 million. Those estimates were based on a 50-
percent design document completed in 1998. Since that time, the
estimated cost of the project has increased due, in large part, to the
finding of archeological objects and petroleum in the canal turning
basin and prism as well as design refinements. The provisions included
in this bill increase the authorized funding level for the project from
$15 million to $25.75 million and will ensure that the full 1.2-mile
section of canal and turning basin are completed.
Fourth, the bill contains provisions to facilitate the restoration of
the Anacostia River, one of the most degraded rivers in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and in the Nation.
Through a cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local, and
private effort, significant progress has been made over the past decade
to restore the Anacostia watershed. Today there are more than 60 local,
State, and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration
efforts, and more than $100 million in Federal, State, and local funds
have been invested in this endeavor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has played a key role in improving tidal waterflow through the marsh,
reducing the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus, and restoring
wetlands, but the job of restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from
complete. The provisions in this legislation require the Secretary of
the Army, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
the Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County
and Prince George's County, MD, and other stakeholders, to develop and
make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to
provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity
of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.
I wish to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the committee and
the subcommittee, Senators Inhofe and Bond, and the ranking members,
Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for including these provisions and for
their work on this legislation. This legislation is long overdue, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are finally
going to conclude the Water Resources Development Act. My hope is that
the conference with the House can be completed before the Congress
recesses in early October. This is a good bill, providing for flood
control, improvements to navigation, and considerable improvements to
the environment. The bill also provides some real improvements to the
way the Corps works.
I am very pleased that the bill includes improvements for navigation
and environmental improvements for the Upper Mississippi River. It
includes five expanded locks, a number of long-overdue efficiency
improvements, and a major boost to the Corps of Engineers'
environmental programs. I was pleased to work with Senator Bond to
develop this important and very balanced proposal. The unfortunate
thing is that our Upper Mississippi lock and dam measure was first
introduced in 2004 and then made a part of the Senate WRDA bill that
year. But we are only now getting a chance to move it to the Senate
floor.
I have been deeply involved with navigation because of its importance
to farmers in Iowa and across the upper Midwest. River transportation
is critical to keeping commodity costs low enough to remain
competitive.
When shipping on the river is constrained, costs rise. When that
happens, prices for moving bulk farm commodities by alternative means,
mainly rail, go up as well. These price differentials seem relatively
small compared to the total price, but they make a huge difference in
farm income.
Clearly, river traffic on the Mississippi is incredibly important to
producers in my State and elsewhere in the upper Midwest. As a result
of traffic congestion on the Mississippi, producers face longer
shipping times, which are very costly. Clearly, traffic management and
helper boats to push long barges through crowded locks will be very
helpful, and this bill will help that happen. In the long run, though,
that won't be enough. It is incredibly important that we address ways
to modernize a number of the locks on the upper Mississippi.
And we face substantial improvements from our competitors in their
transportation capabilities, particularly in Brazil. I visited there a
few years ago and saw firsthand how Brazil was rapidly moving to
improve its Amazon River facilities. In contrast, we are sitting with
60-year-old locks that raise our costs.
I would also note that moving goods like corn down to the Gulf by
river instead of by rail, and building material up from the Gulf in the
same manner means considerable saving in fuel both lowering costs and
air pollution.
Existing law requires exhaustive analysis of future river use levels
decades into the future. The studies required for such predictions are,
by their nature, highly speculative at best. While many have been
critical of the methods of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps
is essential to our ability to compete, to ensure that we keep the
arteries and veins of America's river transportation system in smooth
running order. We must remain competitive. We cannot wait any longer to
authorize construction for 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move
through the upper Mississippi and Illinois without being split.
Of course, navigation needs cannot be our sole concern. Over the
years, I have heard time and time again from constituents and national
leaders concerned about the environment, about the need to maintain a
balance among navigation, flood control and the environment. Habitat
for many species--indeed, the Mississippi River ecosystem as a whole--
has deteriorated since the construction of the original lock system in
the 1930's.
The Mississippi River is home to a wide variety of fish and birds, as
well as other wildlife. These animals and abundant plant life are
important to the character and life of the Mississippi River.
Approximately, 40 percent of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds
use the Mississippi Flyway.
Parts of the Upper Mississippi River may serve as the most important
area for migrating diving ducks in the United States. And the
Mississippi River serves as habitat for breeding and wintering birds,
including the bald eagle.
We are all aware of the problems that have plagued the Corps' actions
on the Mississippi River. However, the Corps has pledged and is putting
a much stronger emphasis on environmental protection. We need to work
with the Corps to ensure that all updates and renovations of the locks
and dams are done with the utmost care for the environment and the
wildlife that depends on the Mississippi River habitat.
In addition to that mitigation, we need to give the Corps the
authorization and the funding it needs to accomplish real ecosystem
restoration, and not just make up for the lost habitat of specific
identified species. The legislation we are proposing does just that.
This is going to be a challenge in these difficult budget times, but
not to do so would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. We need to be
thinking both of the long-term economic health of our agricultural
producers and shippers, in tandem with the long-term health of the
diverse ecosystems on the river.
I would like to note that I am pleased that bill authorizes
improvements to the Des Moines flood control system. Des Moines
suffered major flooding in 1993 and clearly needs the improvements to
reduce the chance of flooding in the future.
I believe the legislation we are proposing strikes the correct
balance. I urge our colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Presient, I thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator
Jeffords and both of their staffs for their tireless effort writing
this bill. It has not been an easy bill to write due to the many
competing demands on water resources as well as interests regarding
Corps reform.

[[Page S7857]]

Traditionally, Congress passes WRDA every 2 years, ensuring that the
Corps of Engineers can stay current in studying the most pressing water
resource problems, constructing projects, and modifying existing
projects to meet various needs across the country.
We have been waiting 6 long years for a bill to reauthorize
navigation, ecosystem restoration, fish and wildlife conservation, and
flood and storm damage reduction projects all over the country.
Today, I am pleased to see this bill on the floor of the Senate, a
measure that is the product of bipartisan negotiations and has the
support of 80 Senators.
I strongly support this legislation.
Most significant to my home State of Illinois is the bill's
authorization of navigation improvements and restoration of the
ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.
This project will increase lock capacity and improve the ecosystem of
both the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River.
Specifically, this bill authorizes improvements to Locks 12, 14, 18,
20, 22, and 24 on the Mississippi River. It also authorizes the
construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25
on the Mississippi River and at the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the
Illinois River. Many of the locks on the rivers were built nearly 70
years ago and are in desperate need of an overhaul. Inland waterway
shipping relies on the successful operation of these locks. Frequent
delays caused by the antiquated lock system increase shipping costs,
which hurts American farmers.
Updating these locks is critical for industry and agriculture in the
Midwest and in my home State of Illinois. Every year, the river moves
$12 billion worth of products. It moves 1 billion bushels of grain--
about 60 percent of all grain exports--to ports around the world. More
than half of Illinois' annual corn crop and 75 percent of all U.S.
soybean exports travel via the Upper Mississippi/Illinois River system.
Shipping via barge keeps exports competitive and reduces transportation
costs. That is good for producers and consumers. In addition, increased
barge shipping displaces shipments by rail and truck, which lowers
transportation costs for all businesses nationwide.
There are significant cost savings and environmental benefits to
updating these locks as well. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost
of trucks and 40 percent of the cost of rail traffic. They also emit
much less carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, and use
less fuel to transport the equivalent tonnage of products.
It is estimated that the construction of the 7 locks will create 48
million man-hours of jobs and provide 3,000 to 6,000 jobs per year,
including many high-paying manufacturing jobs. Currently, in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin alone, more than 400,000 jobs are connected to
the river. This includes 90,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs.
In addition, this project manages to balance the navigation needs of
commercial shippers on our inland waterways with ecosystem restoration.
Quite simply, this project authorizes the most ambitious ecosystem
restoration project in the history of the Corps of Engineers. At a time
when many believe this waterway is losing its habitats and eco-
diversity, this $1.65 billion ecosystem restoration project is an
important step toward fostering wildlife and natural habitats along the
inland waterway system.
This restoration project will restore over 100,000 acres of habitat
and create new recreational opportunities and additional jobs in the
area.
Ecosystem restoration projects that are authorized in this bill
include flood plain restoration, island building, construction of fish
passages, island and shoreline protection and tributary confluence
restoration, among others. When this project was developed, I worked
diligently to ensure that the natural ecosystem of the Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers received the same attention as the navigational needs
of the area.
I also thank the managers of this bill for the inclusion of a project
that is critically important to Illinois as well as the entire Great
Lakes region--the authorization to make permanent the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier system. This project is critical to
protecting the Great Lakes from the Asian Carp, an invasive species now
found in the Mississippi River. Asian carp can grow to 4 feet, weigh 60
pounds, and are capable of consuming up to 40 percent of their body
weight in plankton per day. While the Mississippi River and the Great
Lakes were once separate water systems, the construction of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal connected these two water bodies. Today, the
Asian carp threatens a $4.1 billion sport and commercial fishing
industry in the Great Lakes. Permanent operation of the barrier system
to prevent the Asian carp from entering the waters of the Great Lakes
is critical to the protection of this valuable ecosystem. I appreciate
the inclusion of language in this bill that recognizes the threat of
the Asian carp and the need to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem from
this invasive species.
Finally, we must recognize that Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call;
one that requires us in Congress to take those steps that ensure we
don't witness another Katrina-type disaster caused by a failure of
engineering, analysis or any other failure of oversight. We must ensure
that projects meant to protect the public wellbeing do just that. This
bill is critically important to the agricultural interests in my State.
I will encourage the advancement of this bill through Congress and am
committed to seeing that it is sent to the President.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when a bill like this one comes to the
floor, especially after 6 years, there are so many people to thank.
First, I want to thank the support of my principal cosponsor, the
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who has worked with me since the
108th Congress.
I know he shares my view that future Corps projects should no longer
fail to produce predicted benefits, should stop costing the taxpayers
more than the Corps estimated, should not have unanticipated
environmental impacts, and should be built in an environmentally
compatible way.
He saw the importance of ensuring that the Corps does a better job,
which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. He and his
staffer, Becky Jensen, deserve commendation.
I am particularly grateful for the help and support of the chairman
of the committee, Mr. Inhofe. He directed his staff to work closely
with mine, and Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Steven Aaron did so
ably, and I thank them, and the majority staff director, Andy Wheeler.
I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support of
another former EPW chairman, the former Senator from New Hampshire, Mr.
Smith. It was he who brought conservative groups and taxpayer groups to
the table on these issues, honored my request for a hearing in 2002
along with then-Ranking Member Baucus, and I am deeply grateful.
I want to thank our current esteemed and retiring ranking member, the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. This may be the committee's last
major bill this Congress, and he is to be commended for his leadership.
He and I have spoken personally about my interests in improving the
Corps, and I am grateful for his support.
Several of the minority staff of the committee have been working on
the issues I am raising in my amendments since my first independent
review amendment on the 2000 WRDA bill. At the time, Jo-Ellen Darcy
worked on the committee for the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who
was then the ranking member, and she has followed my interest in these
issues for Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and now Senator Jeffords.
I also want to acknowledge the help and support of several others on
the minority staff, Catharine Ransom, Alison Taylor, Ken Connolly, and
Mary Frances Repko, who worked for me until 2003, and provided
invaluable help to me with my first Corps reform bill in the 107th
Congress and the WRDA amendment that preceded it.
I also have a long history working with the Senator from Missouri,
Mr. Bond, on Corps issues. I appreciate the effort that he, and his
staffers, Brian Klippenstein and Letmon Lee, have made to improve the
Corps' performance.
Our work together goes back to 1999. The reauthorization of the
Environmental Management Program in the

[[Page S7858]]

Upper Mississippi was the only permanent authorization in WRDA 99.
Included in the final EMP provisions was a requirement that Senator
Bond and I developed to have the Corps create an independent technical
advisory committee to review EMP projects, monitoring plans, and
habitat and natural resource needs assessments. Our work helped to
cement the Environment Committee's commitment to secure outside
technical advice in Corps habitat restoration programs, like the EMP.
The amendments I offered to the WRDA bill are widely supported in the
environmental and taxpayer community, and several individuals have
worked hard for this day, including Chelsea Maxwell, former staffer to
the retired Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and now with
National Wildlife Federation, Adam Kolton, David Conrad and Tim Eder
with National Wildlife Federation, Joan Mulhern with Earth Justice,
Melissa Samet with American Rivers, Steve Ellis and Jill Lancelot with
Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tim Searchinger with Environmental Defense,
and Pete Sepp and Kristina Rasmussen with the National Taxpayers Union.
Finally, I want to thank my own staff. My staffer, Jessica Maher, has
worked tirelessly on this legislation. She has talked to countless
offices and constituents, and has worked to address their concerns and
questions with grace and good humor, as has Mike Schmidt, another
member of my staff. I am deeply grateful to Jess and to her
predecessor, Heather White.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while we are nearing completion of this
bill, I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the
projects in the bill for my State of Vermont.
Throughout our work on this bill, I have worked to find a way to use
the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise in a series of ``Vermont style''
projects. I believe we have succeeded.
This bill would provide $67 million in new authorities for the State
of Vermont. Vermonters identified four major priorities for the Corps
during my discussions with them: keep Vermont projects in the Vermont
style, continue ongoing Lake Champlain efforts, address Connecticut
River issues, and find a way to repair or eliminate the thousands of
small dams throughout the State creating flood hazards and causing
ecosystem damage. This bill addresses each of these areas.
First, during our discussion on the WRDA bill, I advocated strongly
for an increase in the authorization for small ecosystem restoration
projects like those in Vermont. In this bill, we increase that program
from $25 million to $50 million, allowing smaller, Vermont-scale
projects to move forward.
Second, we have continued our ongoing support of the Lake Champlain
program, authorized in WRDA 2000, by adding $2 million in authority for
geographic mapping and $10 million for streambank stabilization
projects to protect water quality. We also authorize a study of the
Lake Champlain Canal dispersal barrier to help prevent invasive species
from entering the lake.
Third, this bill includes major changes for the Connecticut River. We
authorize $30 million for modifications to existing Corps dams on the
Connecticut River to regulate flow and temperature to mitigate impacts
on aquatic habitat and fisheries. The bill also includes a $20 million
authorization for ecosystem restoration on the Upper Connecticut River
and $5 million for a wetlands restoration partnership.
Finally, the WRDA bill includes both nationwide and Vermont-specific
programs for small dam remediation, removal, and rehabilitation. I
authored a continuing authority for small dams that allows $25 million
to be used for small dam removal or rehabilitation. I joined my
colleagues, Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as a cosponsor of this
provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 1887. In addition, the existing
Vermont dams remediation authority is expanded to allow for measures to
restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by one of the dams
included in the program.
When I first took over as chairman of this Committee in 2001, I
started working with the State of Vermont to identify how we could get
the Corps more involved in Vermont. At first blush, this seemed
counterintuitive to me, and to many Vermonters. After all, early on in
my career as the States attorney general, I led efforts to derail
several major flood control dams proposed by the Corps for the Moose
River, White River, and Saxtons River.
Did we really want to open the door again? At the time, my answer
was, and still remains, a guarded yes.
In my opening statement when WRDA reached the Senate floor on
Tuesday, I referenced some of the reforms contained in the underlying
bill as well as some of the amendments proposed by Senator Feingold
that will further improve the Corps. However, over the last 30 years,
the Corps has made much progress. Ecosystem restoration is a defined
mission area. Continuing authorities programs allow small-scale
projects, like the ones usually found in Vermont, to proceed without
the excessive bureaucracy that smallest States tend to dread.
Beginning in 2003, I held a series of annual workshops with the New
England and the New York districts, the State of Vermont, and local
stakeholders at multiple locations in Vermont. The first year we were
in Bennington, Norwich, and Barrer, and the second year we were in
Norwich and Burlington.
The projects included in this bill for Vermont are a direct result of
those workshops, and I thank everyone who helped make them possible.
Specifically, I thank LTC Brian Green, Acting New England District
Commander; John Kennelly, Chief of Planning, and Bobby Byrne, Chief of
Programs and Civil Project Management with the New England District.
With the New York District, I thank COL John O'Dowd, the former
District Commander; COL Richard Polo, the current District Commander;
Gene Brickman, Deputy Chief of the Planning Division; Paul Tumminello,
the Waterbury Dam Project Manager; and Jason Shea, the Lake Champlain
Basin Program Coordinator.
In addition, from the North Atlantic Division, BG Bo Temple, the
former Division Commander; Joseph Vietri, the Planning Director; and
Stuart Piken, the former Project Management Chief at Division and the
current New York District Deputy District Engineer for Project
Management.
Finally, I thank Rob Vining, formerly with Army Corps Headquarters.
Mr. President, I especially thank my colleagues on the EPW Committee,
particularly Senators Baucus, Bond, and Inhofe, for working with me on
these critical priorities, and I look forward to the enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2006.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have been advised by both sides a voice
vote would suffice on this measure. Many Members want to be recorded,
but if we all speak loudly we can do that without going through the
time of a rollcall vote.
I suggest to my colleague from Vermont, if his side is happy with it,
we accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2864; all after the enacting
clause is stricken, and the text of S. 728, as amended, is inserted in
lieu thereof, and the bill is read the third time.
The question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (H.R. 2864), as amended, was passed as follows:

H.R. 2864

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 2864) entitled ``An Act to provide for the conservation
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.'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2006''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

[[Page S7859]]

Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem
restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Provisions

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 2003. Training funds.
Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency report.
Sec. 2005. Planning.
Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee.
Sec. 2007. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.
Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of
permits.
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers
reservoirs.
Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredges.
Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall events.
Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsors.
Sec. 2024. Project administration.
Sec. 2025. Program administration.
Sec. 2026. National Dam Safety Program reauthorization.
Sec. 2027. Extension of shore protection projects.

Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and
streambanks.
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and
riparian ecosystems program.
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and
restoration of ecosystems program.
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation and removal of dams.
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.
Sec. 2040. Program names.

Subtitle C--National Levee Safety Program

Sec. 2051. Short title.
Sec. 2052. Definitions.
Sec. 2053. National Levee Safety Committee.
Sec. 2054. National Levee Safety Program.
Sec. 2055. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
Sec. 3004. Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.
Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 3011. CALFED Levee stability program, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3013. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation,
California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Sec. 3018. Redwood City navigation project, California.
Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San
Francisco, California.
Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.
Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3028. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. 3029. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 3030. Designation of Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge,
Delaware.
Sec. 3031. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades
restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida
ecosystem restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects,
comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3039. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3040. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 3041. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. 3042. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3043. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 3044. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 3046. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program.
Sec. 3047. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 3049. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas.
Sec. 3050. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia.
Sec. 3051. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3053. Regional visitor center, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana.
Sec. 3054. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3055. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 3056. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet relocation assistance,
Louisiana.
Sec. 3057. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3059. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3060. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 3061. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 3062. Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3063. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 3064. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3065. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3066. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3067. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project, Mississippi and
Louisiana.
Sec. 3068. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 3069. L-15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3070. Union Lake, Missouri.
Sec. 3071. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 3072. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.
Sec. 3073. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
Sec. 3074. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.
Sec. 3075. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
Sec. 3076. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut.
Sec. 3077. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3078. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
Sec. 3079. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
Sec. 3080. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
Sec. 3081. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
Sec. 3082. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3083. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3084. Release of retained rights, interests, and reservations,
Oklahoma.
Sec. 3085. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3086. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3087. Lookout Point project, Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 3088. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 3089. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3090. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 3091. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
Sec. 3092. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal
at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Sec. 3093. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 3094. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 3095. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 3096. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Sec. 3097. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. 3098. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
Sec. 3099. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
Sec. 3100. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3101. Denison, Texas.
Sec. 3102. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.
Sec. 3105. Dam remediation, Vermont.
Sec. 3106. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other
nonnative plant control, Vermont.
Sec. 3107. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont
and New Hampshire.

[[Page S7860]]

Sec. 3108. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont
and New Hampshire.
Sec. 3109. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 3110. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.
Sec. 3114. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge,
Washington and Idaho.
Sec. 3115. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
Sec. 3116. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington.
Sec. 3117. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 3118. McDowell County, West Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Green Bay Harbor project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3120. Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3121. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3122. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3123. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive
Site.
Sec. 3124. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
Sec. 3125. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management
program.
Sec. 3126. Upper basin of Missouri River.
Sec. 3127. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 3128. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 3129. Great Lakes tributary models.
Sec. 3130. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System new
technology pilot program.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.
Sec. 4002. National port study.
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.
Sec. 4004. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena,
California.
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman
Island, California.
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.
Sec. 4011. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado.
Sec. 4012. Selenium study, Colorado.
Sec. 4013. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago Shoreline,
Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4014. Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 4015. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
Sec. 4016. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
Sec. 4017. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.
Sec. 4018. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 4019. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5005. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5006. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project,
Illinois.
Sec. 5007. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 5008. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery and
restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Sec. 5009. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska.
Sec. 5010. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5011. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.

TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, part
II, installation of fender protection for bridges,
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 6008. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
Sec. 6009. Brevoort, Indiana.
Sec. 6010. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
Sec. 6011. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
Sec. 6012. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
Sec. 6013. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
Sec. 6014. Big South Fork National River and recreational area,
Kentucky and Tennessee.
Sec. 6015. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 6016. Hazard, Kentucky.
Sec. 6017. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 6018. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.
Sec. 6019. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.
Sec. 6020. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana.
Sec. 6021. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
Sec. 6022. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana.
Sec. 6023. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield,
Texas.
Sec. 6024. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 6025. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6026. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
Sec. 6027. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
Sec. 6028. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6029. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 6030. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 6031. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control,
Nebraska.
Sec. 6032. Epping, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6033. Manchester, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6034. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal,
Jersey City, New Jersey.
Sec. 6035. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
Sec. 6036. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
Sec. 6037. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 6038. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Sec. 6039. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
Sec. 6042. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
Sec. 6043. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6044. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6045. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6046. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6047. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6048. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
Sec. 6049. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
Sec. 6050. East Fork channel improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the
Trinity River, Texas.
Sec. 6051. Falfurrias, Texas.
Sec. 6052. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6053. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
Sec. 6054. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6055. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
Sec. 6056. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.

TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as otherwise
provided in this section, the following projects for water
resources development and conservation and other purposes are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
described in the respective reports designated in this
section:
(1) Haines harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of $13,700,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $10,960,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,740,000.
(2) Rillito river (el rio antiguo), pima county, arizona.--
The project for ecosystem restoration, Rillito River (El Rio
Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of
$75,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $48,400,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $26,800,000.
(3) Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona.--The
project for ecosystem restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima
County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March
28, 2006, at a total cost of $94,400,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $61,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $33,200,000.
(4) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
$5,706,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,706,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.
(5) Salt river (va shlyay akimel), maricopa county,
arizona.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of
$156,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,600,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $55,100,000.
(B) Coordination with federal reclamation projects.--The
Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall
coordinate the development and construction of the project
described in subparagraph (A) with each Federal reclamation
project located in the Salt River Basin to address statutory
requirements and the operations of those projects.
(6) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,600,000.
(7) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Imperial Beach,

[[Page S7861]]

California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,300,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,800,000, and at an estimated total cost of $41,100,000
for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $20,550,000.
(8) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River
Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
$139,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $86,700,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $52,900,000.
(9) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Middle
Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of
$43,630,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,460,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,170,000.
(10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Napa River Salt Marsh, California, at a total cost of
$103,012,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,600,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,412,000, to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with
the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the
final report signed by the Chief of Engineers on December 22,
2004.
(B) Administration.--In carrying out the project authorized
by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the
Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant to the project; and
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
(C) Transfer of ownership.--On completion of salinity
reduction in the project area, the Secretary shall transfer
ownership of the pipeline to the non-Federal interest at the
fully depreciated value of the pipeline, less--
(i) the non-Federal cost-share contributed under
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) the estimated value of the water to be provided as
needed for maintenance of habitat values in the project area
throughout the life of the project.
(11) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte
River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $21,050,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $7,370,000.
(12) Indian river lagoon, south florida.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the project
for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and
protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon, south
Florida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated
first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated first
non-Federal cost of $682,500,000, in accordance with section
601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated August 6, 2004.
(B) Deauthorizations.--As of the date of enactment of this
Act, the following projects are not authorized:
(i) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, at a total
cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.
(ii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida, modifications to
Central and South Florida Project, as contained in Senate
Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of
$15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.
(iii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
483; 82 Stat. 740), East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin
County, Spillway Structure S-311 of the Central and South
Florida Project, as contained in House Document 369, 90th
Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $21,994,000.
(13) Miami harbor, miami, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of
$125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,130,000.
(14) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of
$362,260,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $181,130,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $181,130,000.
(15) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and
Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $201,600,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $130,600,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $71,000,000.
(16) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost
of $17,760,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,540,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,220,000.
(17) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon
Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,500,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,700,000.
(18) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for
navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of
$9,500,000. The costs of construction of the project are to
be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund
of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(19) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
(A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports
of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22,
2003, at a total cost of $841,100,000 with an estimated
Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $294,800,000.
(B) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma
Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway floodgate features that provide for inland waterway
transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in
accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99-662).
(20) Poplar island expansion, maryland.--The project for
the beneficial use of dredged material at Poplar Island,
Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776), and modified by
section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2678), is further modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a
total cost of $256,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$192,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$64,000,000.
(21) Smith island, maryland.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of
$14,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000.
(22) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at
a total cost of $16,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $10,990,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,910,000.
(23) Manasquan to barnegat inlets, new jersey.--The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to
Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $70,340,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $45,720,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $24,620,000, and at an estimated total
cost of $117,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost
of $58,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$58,550,000.
(24) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New
Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4,
2006, at a total cost of $112,640,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $73,220,600 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $39,420,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,400,000
for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,300,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $4,100,000.
(25) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, South
River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $120,810,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $78,530,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $42,280,000.
(26) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley,
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $15,600,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,400,000.
(27) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total
cost of $14,070,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$7,035,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.
(28) Bloomsburg, pennsylvania.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of
$43,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,150,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,150,000.
(29) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation and ecosystem
restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel
Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $100,300,000.
(B) Navigational servitude.--In carrying out the project
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce
navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel,
including, at the sole expense of the owner of the facility,
the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the
project.
(30) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port
o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas.--The project for
navigation, Gulf

[[Page S7862]]

Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor,
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of
$17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to
be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund
of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(31) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos
river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost
of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are
to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general
fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(32) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a
total cost of $27,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,010,000.
(33) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.
(34) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Washington, authorized
by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4126)--
(A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost of
$121,100,000, with a Federal cost of $73,220,000, and a non-
Federal cost of $47,880,000; and
(B) shall be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers
dated September 27, 2004.
(b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following
projects for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of
the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2006:
(1) Wood river levee system, illinois.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Wood River, Illinois, authorized by
the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is
modified to authorize construction of the project at a total
cost of $16,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,830,000.
(2) Licking river, cynthiana, kentucky.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky,
at a total cost of $17,800,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $11,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,230,000.
(3) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation,
Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total cost of $204,600,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $129,700,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $74,900,000, except that the
Secretary, in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia
Parishes, Louisiana, is directed to use available dredged
material and rock placement on the south bank of the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of the Freshwater
Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm surge protection.
(4) Hudson-raritan estuary, liberty state park, new
jersey.--The project for ecosystem restoration, Hudson-
Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey, at a total
cost of $33,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,480,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,570,000.
(5) Jamaica bay, marine park and plumb beach, queens and
brooklyn, new york.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total
estimated cost of $204,159,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $132,703,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$71,456,000.
(6) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek,
Ohio, at a total cost of $18,730,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,170,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $6,560,000.
(7) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South
Carolina, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,940,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000
for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,632,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $13,568,000.
(8) Craney island eastward expansion, virginia.--The
project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion,
Virginia, at a total cost of $671,340,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $26,220,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $645,120,000.

SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for
navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 15, 2004.
(2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem
restoration authorized by Congress for--
(A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the
confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St.
Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River
Mile 854.0; and
(B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the
Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to
T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
(b) Authorization of Construction of Navigation
Improvements.--
(1) Small scale and nonstructural measures.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general
conformance with the Plan--
(i) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20,
22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
(ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
(iii) conduct development and testing of an appointment
scheduling system.
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of the
projects authorized under this paragraph shall be
$246,000,000. The costs of construction of the projects shall
be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund
of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain available
until expended.
(2) New locks.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general
conformance with the Plan, construct new 1,200-foot locks at
Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River
and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois
Waterway.
(B) Mitigation.--The Secretary shall conduct mitigation for
the new locks and small scale and nonstructural measures
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(C) Concurrence.--The mitigation required under
subparagraph (B) for the projects authorized under paragraphs
(1) and (2), including any acquisition of lands or interests
in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with
lands and interests for the projects authorized under
paragraphs (1) and (2), and physical construction required
for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken
concurrently with the physical construction of such projects.
(D) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of the
projects authorized under this paragraph shall be
$1,870,000,000. The costs of construction on the projects
shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
(c) Ecosystem Restoration Authorization.--
(1) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability
of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with
requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the
operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental
impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological
integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent
with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation,
ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the
sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Plan.
(B) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may
include, but are not limited to--
(i) island building;
(ii) construction of fish passages;
(iii) floodplain restoration;
(iv) water level management (including water drawdown);
(v) backwater restoration;
(vi) side channel restoration;
(vii) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
(viii) island and shoreline protection;
(ix) topographical diversity;
(x) dam point control;
(xi) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
(xii) tributary confluence restoration;
(xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit the
environment;
(xiv) land easement authority; and
(xv) land acquisition.
(C) Cost sharing.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and
(iii), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an
ecosystem restoration project under this paragraph shall be
65 percent.
(ii) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the
case of a project under this subparagraph for ecosystem
restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out
the project shall be 100 percent if the project--

(I) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a
connected backwater;
(II) modifies the operation or structures for navigation;
or
(III) is located on federally owned land.

(iii) Savings clause.--Nothing in this paragraph affects
the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
(iv) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding
section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5(b)), for any project carried out under this section,
a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with
the consent of the affected local government.
(D) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an
interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a
willing owner through conveyance of--
(i) fee title to the land; or
(ii) a flood plain conservation easement.
(3) Ecosystem restoration preconstruction engineering and
design.--

[[Page S7863]]

(A) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction
of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the
Secretary shall--
(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify
specific performance measures designed to demonstrate
ecosystem restoration;
(ii) establish the without-project condition or baseline
for each performance indicator; and
(iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem
restoration, identify specific target goals for each
performance indicator.
(B) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under
subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise specific measurable
environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality,
hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the
population and distribution of which are representative of
the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic
and terrestrial species.
(C) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as
part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan
for the performance measures identified under subparagraph
(A)(i), including--
(i) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
(ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project
completion.
(4) Specific projects authorization.--
(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $1,650,000,000, of which not more
than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described
in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more than $43,000,000 shall
be available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(x).
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(B) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made
available under subparagraph (A), not more than $35,000,000
for each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition
under paragraph (2)(D).
(C) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects
described in clauses (ii) and (x) of paragraph (2)(B), the
total cost of any single project carried out under this
subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(5) Implementation reports.--
(A) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 5
years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives an implementation report that--
(i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities
for ecosystem restoration projects; and
(ii) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
(B) Advisory panel.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an
advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the
development of each implementation report under subparagraph
(A).
(ii) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--

(I) 1 representative of each of the State resource agencies
(or a designee of the Governor of the State) from each of the
States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;
(II) 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture;
(III) 1 representative of the Department of Transportation;
(IV) 1 representative of the United States Geological
Survey;
(V) 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service;
(VI) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(VII) 1 representative of affected landowners;
(VIII) 2 representatives of conservation and environmental
advocacy groups; and
(IX) 2 representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy
groups.

(iii) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as
chairperson of the advisory panel.
(iv) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory
Panel or any working group established by the Advisory Panel.
(6) Ranking system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed
projects.
(B) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight
to projects that restore natural river processes, including
those projects listed in paragraph (2)(B).
(d) Comparable Progress.--
(1) In general.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering,
design, and construction for projects authorized under this
section, the Secretary shall--
(A) select appropriate milestones; and
(B) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
(2) No comparable rate.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1)(B) that projects authorized under this
subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable
rate, annual funding requests for the projects will be
adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion
at a comparable rate in the future.

SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,
LOUISIANA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for
ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana,
substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
(b) Priorities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
(A) any portion of the program identified in the report
described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration
feature;
(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
(i) protects a major population area of the Pontchartain,
Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and
(ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area
of the State of Louisiana; and
(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project
that--
(i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River
diversion project; and
(ii) protects a major population area.
(c) Modifications.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to make
modifications as necessary to the 5 near-term critical
ecosystem restoration features identified in the report
referred to in subsection (a), due to the impact of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the project areas.
(2) Integration.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
modifications under paragraph (1) are fully integrated with
the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat.
2247).
(3) Construction.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to construct
the projects modified under this subsection.
(B) Reports.--
(i) In general.--Before beginning construction of the
projects, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any
modifications to the 5 near-term projects, including cost
changes, to the Louisiana Water Resources Council established
by subsection (n)(1) (referred to in this section as the
``Council'') for approval.
(ii) Submission to congress.--On approval of a report under
clause (i), the Council shall submit the report to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives.
(4) Applicability of other provisions.--Section 902 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280)
shall not apply to the 5 near-term projects authorized by
this section.
(d) Demonstration Program.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to conduct a
demonstration program within the applicable project area to
evaluate new technologies and the applicability of the
technologies to the program.
(2) Cost limitation.--The cost of an individual project
under this subsection shall be not more than $25,000,000.
(e) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to use such sums
as are necessary to conduct a program for the beneficial use
of dredged material.
(2) Consideration.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the beneficial
use of sediment from the Illinois River System for wetlands
restoration in wetlands-depleted watersheds.
(f) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress feasibility reports on the
features included in table 3 of the report referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) Projects identified in reports.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit the reports
described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Construction.--The Secretary shall be authorized to
construct the projects identified in the reports at the time
the Committees referred to in subparagraph (A) each adopt a
resolution approving the project.
(g) Nongovernmental Organizations.--A nongovernmental
organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion
of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this
section.
(h) Comprehensive Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Governor of the State of Louisiana, shall--
(A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, and
restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, submit to Congress
the plan, or an update of the plan; and
(C) ensure that the plan is fully integrated with the
analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat.
2247).
(2) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a
description of--
(A) the framework of a long-term program that provides for
the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration
of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-
Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related
land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem,
including protection of a critical resource, habitat, or
infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a
hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;
(B) the means by which a new technology, or an improved
technique, can be integrated into the program under
subsection (a);
(C) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in
carrying out the program under subsection (a); and
(D) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by
which success of the comprehensive plan shall be measured.
(3) Consideration.--In developing the comprehensive plan,
the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating
into the program under subsection (a)--
(A) a related Federal or State project carried out on the
date on which the plan is developed;
(B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; or

[[Page S7864]]

(C) any other project or activity identified in--
(i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
(ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
(iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
(iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast
2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
(i) Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be
known as the ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and
Restoration Task Force'' (referred to in this subsection as
the ``Task Force'').
(2) Membership.--The Task Force shall consist of the
following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal
agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an
equivalent level):
(A) The Secretary.
(B) The Secretary of the Interior.
(C) The Secretary of Commerce.
(D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(F) The Secretary of Transportation.
(G) The Secretary of Energy.
(H) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana appointed
by the Governor of that State.
(3) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to
the Secretary regarding--
(A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and
activities for addressing conservation, protection,
restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem;
(B) financial participation by each agency represented on
the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and
maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including
recommendations--
(i) that identify funds from current agency missions and
budgets; and
(ii) for coordinating individual agency budget requests;
and
(C) the comprehensive plan under subsection (h).
(4) Working groups.--The Task Force may establish such
working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary
to assist the Task Force in carrying out this subsection.
(5) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task
Force or any working group of the Task Force.
(j) Science and Technology.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a coastal
Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established by
paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical,
chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in coastal Louisiana;
(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical,
geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in
coastal Louisiana; and
(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and
methods to carry out this subsection.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such
working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
(4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out
this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or
cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including
a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with
scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of
aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and
enhancement through science and technology.
(k) Analysis of Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision
of law, in carrying out an activity to conserve, protect,
restore, or maintain the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the
Secretary may determine that the environmental benefits
provided by the program under this section outweigh the
disadvantage of an activity under this section.
(2) Determination of cost-effectiveness.--If the Secretary
determines that an activity under this section is cost-
effective, no further economic justification for the activity
shall be required.
(l) Studies.--
(1) Degradation.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences under which the National
Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify--
(A) the cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal
Area ecosystem that occurred as a result of an activity
approved by the Secretary; and
(B) the sources of the degradation.
(2) Financing.--On completion, and taking into account the
results, of the study conducted under paragraph (1), the
Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest,
shall study--
(A) financing alternatives for the program under subsection
(a); and
(B) potential reductions in the expenditure of Federal
funds in emergency responses that would occur as a result of
ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area.
(m) Project Modifications.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary, in cooperation with any non-
Federal interest, shall review each federally-authorized
water resources project in the coastal Louisiana area in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act to determine
whether--
(A) each project is in accordance with the program under
subsection (a); and
(B) the project could contribute to ecosystem restoration
under subsection (a) through modification of the operations
or features of the project.
(2) Modifications.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
Secretary may carry out the modifications described in
paragraph (1)(B).
(3) Public notice and comment.--Before completing the
report required under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall
provide an opportunity for public notice and comment.
(4) Report.--
(A) In general.--Before modifying an operation or feature
of a project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report
describing the modification.
(B) Inclusion.--A report under subparagraph (A) shall
include such information relating to the timeline and cost of
a modification as the Secretary determines to be relevant.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000.
(n) Louisiana Water Resources Council.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Mississippi River Commission, a subgroup to be known as the
``Louisiana Water Resources Council''.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the Council are--
(A) to manage and oversee each aspect of the implementation
of a system-wide, comprehensive plan for projects of the
Corps of Engineers (including the study, planning,
engineering, design, and construction of the projects or
components of projects and the functions or activities of the
Corps of Engineers relating to other projects) that addresses
hurricane protection, flood control, ecosystem restoration,
storm surge damage reduction, or navigation in the Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita disaster areas in the State of Louisiana;
and
(B) to demonstrate and evaluate a streamlined approach to
authorization of water resources projects to be studied,
designed, and constructed by the Corps of Engineers.
(3) Membership.--
(A) In general.--The president of the Mississippi River
Commission shall appoint members of the Council, after
considering recommendations of the Governor of Louisiana.
(B) Requirements.--The Council shall be composed of--
(i) 2 individuals with expertise in coastal ecosystem
restoration, including the interaction of saltwater and
freshwater estuaries; and
(ii) 2 individual with expertise in geology or civil
engineering relating to hurricane and flood damage reduction
and navigation.
(C) Chairperson.--In addition to the members appointed
under subparagraph (B), the Council shall be chaired by 1 of
the 3 officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Mississippi
River Commission.
(4) Duties.--With respect to modifications under subsection
(c), the Council shall--
(A) review and approve or disapprove the reports completed
by the Secretary; and
(B) on approval, submit the reports to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(5) Termination.--
(A) In general.--The Council shall terminate on the date
that is 6 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Effect.--Any project modification under subsection (c)
that has not been approved by the Council and submitted to
Congress by the date described in subparagraph (A) shall not
proceed to construction before the date on which the
modification is statutorily approved by Congress.
(o) Other Projects.--
(1) In general.--With respect to the projects identified in
the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat.
2247), the Secretary shall submit a report describing the
projects to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
(2) Construction.--The Secretary shall be authorized to
construct the projects at the time the Committees referred to
in paragraph (1) each adopt a resolution approving the
project.
(p) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives a report evaluating the alternative
means of authorizing Corps of Engineers water resources
projects under subsections (c)(3), (f)(2), and (o)(2).
(2) Inclusions.--The report shall include a description
of--
(A) the projects authorized and undertaken under this
section;
(B) the construction status of the projects; and
(C) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects.
(3) External review.--The Secretary shall enter into a
contract with the National Academy of Science to perform an
external review of the demonstration program under subsection
(d), which shall be submitted to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

The Secretary--
(1) shall conduct a study for flood damage reduction, Cache
River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas; and

[[Page S7865]]

(2) if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Little rock port, arkansas.--Project for navigation,
Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas.
(2) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
(3) Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee harbor,
michigan and wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Outer
Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and
Wisconsin.
(4) Middle bass island state park, middle bass island,
ohio.--Project for navigation, Middle Bass Island State Park,
Middle Bass Island, Ohio.

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) San diego river, california.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including
efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.
(2) Suison marsh, san pablo bay, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Pablo Bay, California.
(3) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(4) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(5) College lake, lynchburg, virginia.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Provisions

SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 221'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS.'';

and
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the
construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable
separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal
interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such
construction under any provision of law, shall not be
commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
written partnership agreement with the district engineer for
the district in which the project will be carried out under
which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for implementation or construction of the
project or the appropriate element of the project, as the
case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required
if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs
associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the
agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution
required from the non-Federal interest and are less than
$25,000.
``(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages
in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.
``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any such
agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the
State which derives its powers from the State constitution,
or a governmental entity created by the State legislature,
the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future
appropriations for such performance and payment when
obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with
constitutional or statutory limitations of the State or a
political subdivision of the State.
``(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
``(A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall
provide that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project
implemented under general continuing authority, the value of
in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest,
including--
``(i) the costs of planning (including data collection),
design, management, mitigation, construction, and
construction services that are provided by the non-Federal
interest for implementation of the project; and
``(ii) the value of materials or services provided before
execution of an agreement for the project, including--

``(I) efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the
project; and
``(II) materials and services provided after an agreement
is executed.

``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-kind
contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary
determines that the property or service provided as an in-
kind contribution is integral to the project.
``(C) Limitations.--Credit authorized for a project--
``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project;
``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-
Federal interest provide land, an easement or right-of-way,
or an area for disposal of dredged material for the project;
and
``(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of
the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-
Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.''.

SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities
(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies,
international organizations, or foreign governments to
address problems of national significance to the United
States.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Secretary of State''
and inserting ``Department of State''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``$250,000 for fiscal year 2001'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal
year thereafter''; and
(B) by striking ``or international organizations'' and
inserting ``, international organizations, or foreign
governments''.

SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals from
the non-Federal interest, including the private sector, in
training classes and courses offered by the Corps of
Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines that
it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to
include those individuals as participants.
(b) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--An individual from a non-Federal interest
attending a training class or course described in subsection
(a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided to the
individual.
(2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training
received under subsection (a), up to the actual cost of the
training--
(A) may be retained by the Secretary;
(B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account used
for paying training costs; and
(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without
further appropriation, for training purposes.
(3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph
(2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training
provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the
Treasury of the United States.

SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

(a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each
year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on
the expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated
expenditures for the current fiscal year.
(b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in
subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed
accounting of the following information:
(1) With respect to general construction, information on--
(A) projects currently under construction, including--
(i) allocations to date;
(ii) the number of years remaining to complete
construction;
(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule; and
(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to
complete during the current fiscal year; and
(B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing
agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design,
including--
(i) the number of years the project is expected to require
for completion; and
(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule.
(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland
and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law
95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for
the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance
of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
(3) With respect to general investigations and
reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
(A) the number of active studies;
(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for
construction;
(C) the number of initiated studies; and
(D) the number of studies expected to be completed during
the fiscal year.
(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received
for interagency and international support activities under
section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
(5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
(6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
(8) Other revenues and fees collected.
(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications,
a list of individual permit applications and nationwide
permit notifications, including--
(A) the date on which each permit application is filed;
(B) the date on which each permit application is determined
to be complete; and
(C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants,
withdraws, or denies each permit.
(10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of
authorized projects for which no funds have

[[Page S7866]]

been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including,
for each project--
(A) the authorization date;
(B) the last allocation date;
(C) the percentage of construction completed;
(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the
project; and
(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

SEC. 2005. PLANNING.

(a) Matters To Be Addressed in Planning.--Section 904 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Enhancing'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Enhancing''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed
after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
``(1) the water resource project and each separable element
is cost-effective; and
``(2) the water resource project complies with Federal,
State, and local laws (including regulations) and public
policies.''.
(b) Planning Process Improvements.--The Chief of
Engineers--
(1) shall, not later than 2 years after the date on which
the feasibility study cost sharing agreement is signed for a
project, subject to the availability of appropriations--
(A) complete the feasibility study for the project; and
(B) sign the report of the Chief of Engineers for the
project;
(2) may, with the approval of the Secretary, extend the
deadline established under paragraph (1) for not to exceed 4
years, for a complex or controversial study; and
(3)(A) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost
estimates; and
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, shall--
(i) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation;
and
(ii) submit to Congress a report that includes suggested
amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280).
(c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage
Reduction Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for
flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the
calculation of benefits and costs--
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding
following completion of the proposed project;
(2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of human
life and residual risk to human safety following completion
of the proposed project; and
(3) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of
the proposed project.
(d) Centers of Specialized Planning Expertise.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish centers of
expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water
resource projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order
to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts
of the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Duties.--A center of expertise established under this
subsection shall--
(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district
commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project planning,
development, and implementation;
(B) provide peer reviews of new major scientific,
engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that
will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with
respect to feasibility studies;
(C) provide support for external peer review panels
convened by the Secretary; and
(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the
Secretary.
(e) Completion of Corps of Engineers Reports.--
(1) Alternatives.--
(A) In general.--Feasibility and other studies and
assessments of water resource problems and projects shall
include recommendations for alternatives--
(i) that, as determined by the non-Federal interests for
the projects, promote integrated water resources management;
and
(ii) for which the non-Federal interests are willing to
provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments.
(B) Scope and purposes.--The scope and purposes of studies
and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall not be
constrained by budgetary or other policy as a result of the
inclusion of alternatives described in that subparagraph.
(C) Reports of chief of engineers.--The reports of the
Chief of Engineers shall be based solely on the best
technical solutions to water resource needs and problems.
(2) Report completion.--The completion of a report of the
Chief of Engineers for a project--
(A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being given
to potential changes in policy or priority for project
consideration; and
(B) shall be submitted, on completion, to--
(i) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(f) Completion Review.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later than 90 days after the date of completion of a report
of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water
resource project, the Secretary shall--
(A) review the report; and
(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding
the water resource project to Congress.
(2) Prior reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the
Chief of Engineers recommending a water resource project that
is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall complete review of, and provide
recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance
with paragraph (1).

SEC. 2006. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a Water
Resources Planning Coordinating Committee (referred to in
this subsection as the ``Coordinating Committee'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Coordinating Committee shall be
composed of the following members (or a designee of the
member):
(A) The Secretary of the Interior.
(B) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(C) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(D) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(E) The Secretary of Transportation.
(F) The Secretary of Energy.
(G) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(H) The Secretary of Commerce.
(I) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(J) The Chairperson of the Council on Environmental
Quality.
(2) Chairperson and executive director.--The President
shall appoint--
(A) 1 member of the Coordinating Committee to serve as
Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee for a term of 2
years; and
(B) an Executive Director to supervise the activities of
the Coordinating Committee.
(3) Function.--The function of the Coordinating Committee
shall be to carry out the duties and responsibilities set
forth under this section.
(c) 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;
(2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains;
(3) minimize vulnerabilities in any case in which a
floodplain must be used;
(4) protect and restore the functions of natural systems;
and
(5) mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural systems.
(d) Water Resource Priorities Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Coordinating Committee, in
collaboration with the Secretary, 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--
(A) the risk to human life;
(B) the risk to property; and
(C) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the
United States.
(2) Inclusions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) an assessment of the extent to which programs in the
United States relating to flooding address flood risk
reduction priorities;
(B) the extent to which those programs may be
unintentionally encouraging development and economic activity
in floodprone areas;
(C) recommendations for improving those programs with
respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and
(D) proposals for implementing the recommendations.
(e) 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
Secretary and the Coordinating Committee shall, in
collaboration with each other, review and propose updates and
revisions to modernize the planning principles and
guidelines, regulations, and circulars by which the Corps of
Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects. In carrying
out the review, the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary
shall consult with the National Academy of Sciences for
recommendations regarding updating planning documents.
(2) Proposed revisions.--In conducting a review under
paragraph (1), the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary
shall consider revisions to improve water resources project
planning through, among other things--
(A) requiring the use of modern economic principles and
analytical techniques, credible schedules for project
construction, and current discount rates as used by other
Federal agencies;
(B) eliminating biases and disincentives to providing
projects to low-income communities, including fully
accounting for the prevention of loss of life under section
904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2281);
(C) 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;
(D) promoting environmental restoration projects that
reestablish natural processes;
(E) assessing and evaluating the impacts of a project in
the context of other projects within a region or watershed;
(F) 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;
(G) encouraging wetlands conservation; and
(H) ensuring the effective implementation of the policies
of this Act.
(3) Public participation.--The Coordinating Committee and
the Secretary shall solicit public and expert comments
regarding any revision proposed under paragraph (2).

[[Page S7867]]

(4) Revision of planning guidance.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which a review under paragraph (1) is completed, the
Secretary, after providing notice and an opportunity for
public comment in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5,
and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known
as the ``Administrative Procedure Act''), shall implement
such proposed updates and revisions to the planning
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the
Corps of Engineers under paragraph (2) as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(B) Effect.--Effective beginning on the date on which the
Secretary implements the first update or revision under
paragraph (1), subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17)
shall not apply to the Corps of Engineers.
(5) Report.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations
of the Senate, and to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, a report describing any revision of planning
guidance under paragraph (4).
(B) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the report
under subparagraph (A) in the Federal Register.

SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction activities.--The term ``construction
activities'' means development of detailed engineering and
design specifications during the preconstruction engineering
and design phase and the engineering and design phase of a
water resources project carried out by the Corps of
Engineers, and other activities carried out on a water
resources project prior to completion of the construction and
to turning the project over to the local cost-share partner.
(2) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a
feasibility report, reevaluation report, or environmental
impact statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Director of Independent Review.--The Secretary shall
appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of
Independent Review. The Director shall be selected from among
individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering,
hydrology, biology, economics, or another discipline related
to water resources management. The Secretary shall ensure, to
the maximum extent practicable, that the Director does not
have a financial, professional, or other conflict of interest
with projects subject to review. The Director of Independent
Review shall carry out the duties set forth in this section
and such other duties as the Secretary deems appropriate.
(c) Sound Project Planning.--
(1) Projects subject to planning review.--The Secretary
shall ensure that each project study for a water resources
project shall be reviewed by an independent panel of experts
established under this subsection if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$40,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of a State in which the water resources
project is located in whole or in part, or the Governor of a
State within the drainage basin in which a water resources
project is located and that would be directly affected
economically or environmentally as a result of the project,
requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an
independent panel of experts for the project;
(C) the head of a Federal agency with authority to review
the project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on public safety, or on
environmental, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, 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 on his or her own initiative,
or shall determine within 30 days of receipt of a written
request for a controversy determination by any party, that
the project is controversial because--
(i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size,
nature, potential safety risks, or effects of the project; or
(ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic,
or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
(2) Project planning review panels.--
(A) Project planning review panel membership.--For each
water resources project subject to review under this
subsection, the Director of Independent Review shall
establish a panel of independent experts that shall be
composed of not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent
experts (including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1
biologist, and 1 economist) who represent a range of areas of
expertise. The Director of Independent Review shall apply the
National Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee
members to ensure that members have no conflict with the
project being reviewed, and shall consult with the National
Academy of Sciences in developing lists of individuals to
serve on panels of experts under this subsection. An
individual serving on a panel under this subsection shall be
compensated at a rate of pay to be determined by the
Secretary, and shall be allowed travel expenses.
(B) Duties of project planning review panels.--An
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection shall review the project study, receive from the
public written and oral comments concerning the project
study, and submit a written report to the Secretary that
shall contain the panel's conclusions and recommendations
regarding project study issues identified as significant by
the panel, including issues such as--
(i) economic and environmental assumptions and projections;
(ii) project evaluation data;
(iii) economic or environmental analyses;
(iv) engineering analyses;
(v) formulation of alternative plans;
(vi) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
(vii) models used in evaluation of economic or
environmental impacts of proposed projects; and
(viii) any related biological opinions.
(C) Project planning review record.--
(i) In general.--After receiving a report from an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration any
recommendations contained in the report and shall immediately
make the report available to the public on the internet.
(ii) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall prepare a
written explanation of any recommendations of the independent
panel of experts established under this subsection not
adopted by the Secretary. Recommendations and findings of the
independent panel of experts rejected without good cause
shown, as determined by judicial review, shall be given equal
deference as the recommendations and findings of the
Secretary during a judicial proceeding relating to the water
resources project.
(iii) Submission to congress and public availability.--The
report of the independent panel of experts established under
this subsection and the written explanation of the Secretary
required by clause (ii) shall be included with the report of
the Chief of Engineers to Congress, shall be published in the
Federal Register, and shall be made available to the public
on the Internet.
(D) Deadlines for project planning reviews.--
(i) In general.--Independent review of a project study
shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief of
Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
(ii) Deadline for project planning review panel studies.--
An independent panel of experts established under this
subsection shall complete its review of the project study and
submit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 days
after the date of establishment of the panel, or not later
than 90 days after the close of the public comment period on
a draft project study that includes a preferred alternative,
whichever is later. The Secretary may extend these deadlines
for good cause.
(iii) Failure to complete review and report.--If an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection does not submit to the Secretary a report by the
deadline established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers
may continue project planning without delay.
(iv) Duration of panels.--An independent panel of experts
established under this subsection shall terminate on the date
of submission of the report by the panel. Panels may be
established as early in the planning process as deemed
appropriate by the Director of Independent Review, but shall
be appointed no later than 90 days before the release for
public comment of a draft study subject to review under
subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days after a
determination that review is necessary under subsection
(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D).
(E) Effect on existing guidance.--The project planning
review required by this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy
any external review required by Engineering Circular 1105-2-
408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision Documents.
(d) Safety Assurance.--
(1) Projects subject to safety assurance review.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the construction activities for
any flood damage reduction project shall be reviewed by an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection if the Director of Independent Review makes a
determination that an independent review is necessary to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare on any project--
(A) for which the reliability of performance under
emergency conditions is critical;
(B) that uses innovative materials or techniques;
(C) for which the project design is lacking in redundancy,
or that has a unique construction sequencing or a short or
overlapping design construction schedule; or
(D) other than a project described in subparagraphs (A)
through (C), as the Director of Independent Review determines
to be appropriate.
(2) Safety assurance review panels.--At the appropriate
point in the development of detailed engineering and design
specifications for each water resources project subject to
review under this subsection, the Director of Independent
Review shall establish an independent panel of experts to
review and report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
construction activities for the project. An independent panel
of experts under this subsection shall be composed of not
less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts selected from
among individuals who are distinguished experts in
engineering, hydrology, or other pertinent disciplines. The
Director of Independent Review shall apply the National
Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee members
to ensure that panel members have no conflict with the
project being reviewed. An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate
of pay to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be
allowed travel expenses.
(3) Deadlines for safety assurance reviews.--An independent
panel of experts established under this subsection shall
submit a written report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
the construction activities prior to the initiation of
physical construction and periodically thereafter until
construction activities are completed on a publicly available
schedule determined by the Director of Independent Review for
the purposes of assuring the public safety. The Director

[[Page S7868]]

of Independent Review shall ensure that these reviews be
carried out in a way to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare, while not causing unnecessary delays in
construction activities.
(4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a
written report from an independent panel of experts
established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) take into consideration recommendations contained in
the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations
not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation
available to the public on the Internet; and
(B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(e) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of
experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a
Federal expense and shall not exceed--
(A) $250,000, 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, at the written request of the
Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost
limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any authority of the Secretary to cause
or conduct a peer review of the engineering, scientific, or
technical basis of any water resources project in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2008. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

(a) Completion of Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is
amended by adding at the following:
``(3) Completion of mitigation.--In any case in which it is
not technically practicable to complete mitigation by the
last day of construction of the project or separable element
of the project because of the nature of the mitigation to be
undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required
mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning
after the last day of construction of the project or
separable element of the project.''.
(b) Use of Consolidated Mitigation.--Section 906(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Use of consolidated mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that other
forms of compensatory mitigation are not practicable or are
less environmentally desirable, the Secretary may purchase
available credits from a mitigation bank or conservation bank
that is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance for
the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations Banks (60
Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal laws (including
regulations).
``(B) Service area.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
service area of the mitigation bank or conservation bank
shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat.
``(C) Responsibility relieved.--Purchase of credits from a
mitigation bank or conservation bank for a water resources
project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal interest
from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating
mitigation success.''.
(c) Mitigation Requirements.--Section 906(d) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``to the Congress
unless such report contains'' and inserting ``to Congress,
and shall not select a project alternative in any final
record of decision, environmental impact statement, or
environmental assessment, unless the proposal, record of
decision, environmental impact statement, or environmental
assessment contains''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, and other
habitat types are mitigated to not less than in-kind
conditions'' after ``mitigated in-kind''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
``(A) In general.--To mitigate losses to flood damage
reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a
water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that the
mitigation plan for each water resources project complies
fully with the mitigation standards and policies established
pursuant to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
``(B) Inclusions.--A specific mitigation plan for a water
resources project under paragraph (1) shall include, at a
minimum--
``(i) a plan for monitoring the implementation and
ecological success of each mitigation measure, including a
designation of the entities that will be responsible for the
monitoring;
``(ii) the criteria for ecological success by which the
mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful;
``(iii) land and interests in land to be acquired for the
mitigation plan and the basis for a determination that the
land and interests are available for acquisition;
``(iv) a description of--

``(I) the types and amount of restoration activities to be
conducted; and
``(II) the resource functions and values that will result
from the mitigation plan; and

``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions in
cases in which monitoring demonstrates that mitigation
measures are not achieving ecological success in accordance
with criteria under clause (ii).
``(4) Determination of success.--
``(A) In general.--A mitigation plan under this subsection
shall be considered to be successful at the time at which the
criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved under the
plan, as determined by monitoring under paragraph (3)(B)(i).
``(B) Consultation.--In determining whether a mitigation
plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall consult annually with appropriate Federal agencies and
each State in which the applicable project is located on at
least the following:
``(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as of the
date on which the report is submitted.
``(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve
ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan.
``(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that success.
``(iv) Any recommendations for improving the likelihood of
success.
``(C) Reporting.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
completion of the annual consultation, the Federal agencies
consulted shall, and each State in which the project is
located may, submit to the Secretary a report that describes
the results of the consultation described in (B).
``(D) Action by secretary.--The Secretary shall respond in
writing to the substance and recommendations contained in
each report under subparagraph (C) by not later than 30 days
after the date of receipt of the report.
``(5) Monitoring.--Mitigation monitoring shall continue
until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met
the ecological success criteria.''.
(d) Status Report.--
(1) In general.--Concurrent with the submission of the
President to Congress of the request of the President for
appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report describing the status of
construction of projects that require mitigation under
section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283) and the status of that mitigation.
(2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the
status of--
(A) all projects that are under construction as of the date
of the report;
(B) all projects for which the President requests funding
for the next fiscal year; and
(C) all projects that have completed construction, but have
not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
(e) Mitigation Tracking System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources
project undertaken 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 any other habitat
type affected by the project, project operation, or permitted
activity;
(B) the quantity and type of mitigation measures required
with respect to the project, project operation, or permitted
activity;
(C) the quantity and type of mitigation measures that have
been completed with respect to the project, project
operation, or permitted activity; and
(D) the status of monitoring of the mitigation measures
carried out with respect to the project, project operation,
or permitted activity.
(2) Requirements.--The recordkeeping system under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) include information relating to the impacts and
mitigation measures relating to projects described in
paragraph (1) that occur after November 17, 1986; 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. 2009. STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

``(a) Federal-State Cooperation.--
``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Technical assistance.--
``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency
or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at
Federal expense, technical assistance to the agency or non-
Federal interest in managing water resources.
``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this
paragraph may include provision and integration of
hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';
(3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``this section'' each
place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
(4) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``up to \1/2\ of
the'' and inserting ``the'';
(5) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``(c) There is'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
(B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``the provisions of

[[Page S7869]]

this section except that not more than $500,000 shall be
expended in any one year in any one State.'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 for
each fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 for each
fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and State
agencies to provide assistance to rural and small
communities.''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on
performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the
Secretary shall list in the annual civil works budget
submitted to Congress the individual activities proposed for
funding under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.''.

SEC. 2010. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall carry out a program to provide public access
to water resource and related water quality data in the
custody of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
(1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in
water resource project development and regulation under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344); and
(2) appropriately employ geographic information system
technology and linkages to water resource models and
analytical techniques.
(c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in
carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary
shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements
with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal
agencies.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each fiscal year.

SEC. 2011. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
FEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) In General.--Section 211(e)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(6)) is amended
by adding at the end following:
``(E) Budget priority.--
``(i) In general.--Budget priority for projects under this
section shall be proportionate to the percentage of project
completion.
``(ii) Completed project.--A completed project shall have
the same priority as a project with a contractor on site.''.
(b) Construction of Flood Control Projects by Non-Federal
Interests.--Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(9) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An
element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland
Underflow Plan, Illinois.
``(10) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul,
minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul
Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
``(11) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first
section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804, chapter
535) (commonly known as the `River and Harbor Act of 1938')
and modified by section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53
Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly known as the `Flood
Control Act of 1939'), except that, subject to the approval
of the Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal
interest may design and construct an alternative to such
project.
``(12) Halls bayou, texas.--The Halls Bayou element of the
project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries,
Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note),
except that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as
provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may design
and construct an alternative to such project.
``(13) Menomonee river watershed, wisconsin.--The project
for the Menominee River Watershed, Wisconsin.''.

SEC. 2012. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read
as follows:

``SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

``(a) In General.--In connection with sediment obtained
through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an
authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional
Sediment Management plans and carry out projects at locations
identified in the plan prepared under subsection (e), or
identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the
Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification,
or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water
resources projects, for--
``(1) the protection of property;
``(2) the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic
and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and
``(3) the transport and placement of suitable sediment
``(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c),
projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out
in any case in which the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of
the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost
of the project; and
``(2) the project would not result in environmental
degradation.
``(c) Determination of Planning and Project Costs.--
``(1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation with the
appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, the
Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
develop at Federal expense plans and projects for regional
management of sediment obtained in conjunction with
construction, operation, and maintenance of Federal water
resources projects.
``(2) Costs of construction.--
``(A) In general.--Costs associated with construction of a
project under this section or identified in a Regional
Sediment Management plan shall be limited solely to
construction costs that are in excess of those costs
necessary to carry out the dredging for construction,
operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water
resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent
with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
``(B) Cost sharing.--The determination of any non-Federal
share of the construction cost shall be based on the cost
sharing as specified in subsections (a) through (d) of
section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water resource
project using the dredged resource.
``(C) Total cost.--Total Federal costs associated with
construction of a project under this section shall not exceed
$5,000,000 without Congressional approval.
``(3) Operation, maintenance, replacement, and
rehabilitation costs.--Operation, maintenance, replacement,
and rehabilitation costs associated with a project are a non-
Federal sponsor responsibility.
``(d) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method for
Environmental Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--In developing and carrying out a Federal
water resources project involving the disposal of material,
the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal
interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost option
if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the
disposal method are reasonable in relation to the
environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic
environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and
control of shoreline erosion.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of such incremental
costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).
``(e) State and Regional Plans.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may--
``(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a
comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment management
plan within the boundaries of the State;
``(2) encourage State participation in the implementation
of the plan; and
``(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out
the plan.
``(f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management
projects in the vicinity of--
``(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
``(2) Fletcher Cove, California;
``(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
and
``(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000
during each fiscal year, to remain available until expended,
for the Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of
which up to $5,000,000 shall be used for the development of
regional sediment management plans as provided in subsection
(e).
``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
(b) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
(2) Existing projects.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, may complete any project being carried
out under section 145 on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 2013. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting
the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT
MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.

``(a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and
Protection Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out construction
of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects
not specifically authorized by Congress that otherwise comply
with the first section of this Act if the Secretary
determines that such construction is advisable.
``(2) Local cooperation.--The local cooperation requirement
under the first section of this Act shall apply to a project
under this section.
``(3) Completeness.--A project under this section--
``(A) shall be complete; and
``(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional
improvement to ensure the successful operation of the
project, except for participation in periodic beach
nourishment in accordance with--
``(i) the first section of this Act; and
``(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after
submission of a survey report.
``(b) National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, shall conduct a

[[Page S7870]]

national shoreline erosion control development and
demonstration program (referred to in this section as the
`program').
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The program shall include provisions
for--
``(i) projects consisting of planning, design,
construction, and adequate monitoring of prototype engineered
and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion
control devices and methods;
``(ii) detailed engineering and environmental reports on
the results of each project carried out under the program;
and
``(iii) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private
property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit
educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.
``(B) Determination of feasibility.--A project under this
section shall not be carried out until the Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, determines that the project
is feasible.
``(C) Emphasis.--A project carried out under the program
shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(i) the development and demonstration of innovative
technologies;
``(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline
site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design,
including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization;
``(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project design
and project formulation tools the purposes of which are to
improve the physical performance, and lower the lifecycle
costs, of the projects;
``(iv) natural designs, including the use of native and
naturalized vegetation or temporary structures that minimize
permanent structural alterations to the shoreline;
``(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent
shorefront communities;
``(vi) the potential for long-term protection afforded by
the technology; and
``(vii) recommendations developed from evaluations of the
program established under the Shoreline Erosion Control
Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962-5 note; 88 Stat.
26), including--

``(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade;
``(II) proper filtration;
``(III) durable components;
``(IV) adequate connection between units; and
``(V) consideration of additional relevant information.

``(D) Sites.--
``(i) In general.--Each project under the program shall be
carried out at--

``(I) a privately owned site with substantial public
access; or
``(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in tidal
waters.

``(ii) Selection.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, shall develop criteria for the selection of
sites for projects under the program, including criteria
based on--

``(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions;
``(II) the size of the population that is dependent on the
beaches for recreation or the protection of private property
or public infrastructure;
``(III) the rate of erosion;
``(IV) significant natural resources or habitats and
environmentally sensitive areas; and
``(V) significant threatened historic structures or
landmarks.

``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in
consultation with--
``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with
respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of
preventing and controlling shoreline erosion;
``(B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
``(C) private organizations;
``(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established
by the first section of Public Law 88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1);
and
``(E) applicable university research facilities.
``(4) Completion of demonstration.--After carrying out the
initial construction and evaluation of the performance and
lifecycle cost of a demonstration project under this section,
the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may--
``(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest of the
project, amend the agreement for a federally-authorized shore
protection project in existence on the date on which initial
construction of the demonstration project is complete to
incorporate the demonstration project as a feature of the
shore protection project, with the future cost of the
demonstration project to be determined by the cost-sharing
ratio of the shore protection project; or
``(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the
completed demonstration project to the non-Federal or other
Federal agency interest of the project.
``(5) Agreements.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with the non-
Federal or other Federal agency interest of a project under
this section--
``(A) to share the costs of construction, operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the program;
``(B) to share the costs of removing a project or project
element constructed under the program, if the Secretary
determines that the project or project element is detrimental
to private property, public infrastructure, or public safety;
or
``(C) to specify ownership of a completed project that the
Chief of Engineers determines will not be part of a Corps of
Engineers project.
``(6) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year
beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report describing--
``(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments made
under the program during the preceding year; and
``(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to the
program.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may expend, from any appropriations made available to the
Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not
more than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the
Federal share of the costs of construction of small shore and
beach restoration and protection projects or small projects
under the program.
``(2) Limitation.--The total amount expended for a project
under this section shall--
``(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal
participation in the project (including periodic nourishment
as provided for under the first section of this Act), as
determined by the Secretary; and
``(B) be not more than $3,000,000.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 5 the Act entitled ``An Act
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting
the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.; 110 Stat. 3700) is repealed.

SEC. 2014. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930
(33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions,
it is the policy of the United States to promote shore
protection projects and related research that encourage the
protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches,
including beach restoration and periodic beach renourishment
for a period of 50 years, on a comprehensive and coordinated
basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and
private enterprises.
(b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference
shall be given to--
(1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
funds; and
(2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or
mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to
Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
(c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to
each shore protection and beach renourishment project
(including shore protection and beach renourishment projects
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act).

SEC. 2015. COST SHARING FOR MONITORING.

(a) In General.--Costs incurred for monitoring for an
ecosystem restoration project shall be cost-shared--
(1) in accordance with the formula relating to the
applicable original construction project; and
(2) for a maximum period of 10 years.
(b) Aggregate Limitation.--Monitoring costs for an
ecosystem restoration project--
(1) shall not exceed in the aggregate, for a 10-year
period, an amount equal to 5 percent of the cost of the
applicable original construction project; and
(2) after the 10-year period, shall be 100 percent non-
Federal.

SEC. 2016. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS.

For each of the following projects, the Corps of Engineers
shall include ecosystem restoration benefits in the
calculation of benefits for the project:
(1) Grayson's Creek, California.
(2) Seven Oaks, California.
(3) Oxford, California.
(4) Walnut Creek, California.
(5) Wildcat Phase II, California.

SEC. 2017. FUNDING TO EXPEDITE THE EVALUATION AND PROCESSING
OF PERMITS.

Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by
striking ``In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the'' and
inserting ``The''.

SEC. 2018. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a
program to allow electronic submission of permit applications
for permits under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Limitations.--This section does not preclude the
submission of a hard copy, as required.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

SEC. 2019. IMPROVEMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT AT CORPS OF
ENGINEERS RESERVOIRS.

(a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance,
by the Corps of Engineers, of reservoirs in operation as of
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry
out the measures described in subsection (c) to support the
water resource needs of project sponsors and any affected
State, local, or tribal government for authorized project
purposes.
(b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out the
measures described in subsection (c) in cooperation and
coordination with project sponsors and any affected State,
local, or tribal government.
(c) Measures.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
may--
(1) conduct a study to identify unused, underused, or
additional water storage capacity at reservoirs;
(2) review an operational plan and identify any change to
maximize an authorized project purpose to improve water
storage capacity and enhance efficiency of releases and
withdrawal of water;
(3) improve and update data, data collection, and
forecasting models to maximize an authorized project purpose
and improve water storage capacity and delivery to water
users; and
(4) conduct a sediment study and implement any sediment
management or removal measure.

[[Page S7871]]

(d) Revenues for Special Cases.--
(1) Costs of water supply storage.--In the case of a
reservoir operated or maintained by the Corps of Engineers on
the date of enactment of this Act, the storage charge for a
future contract or contract renewal for the first cost of
water supply storage at the reservoir shall be the lesser of
the estimated cost of purposes foregone, replacement costs,
or the updated cost of storage.
(2) Reallocation.--In the case of a water supply that is
reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or
industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the
reservoir shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of
project purposes.
(3) Credit for affected project purposes.--In the case of a
reallocation that adversely affects hydropower generation,
the Secretary shall defer to the Administrator of the
respective Power Marketing Administration to calculate the
impact of such a reallocation on the rates for hydroelectric
power.

SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.

Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C.
622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal
hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of
Engineers.''.

SEC. 2021. EXTRAORDINARY RAINFALL EVENTS.

In the State of Louisiana, extraordinary rainfall events
such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which occurred during
calendar year 2005, and Hurricane Andrew, which occurred
during calendar year 1992, shall not be considered in making
a determination with respect to the ordinary high water mark
for purposes of carrying out section 10 of the Act of March
3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) (commonly known as the ``Rivers and
Harbors Act'').

SEC. 2022. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105
Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the
Army,'' after ``the Secretary of Energy,''.

SEC. 2023. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS SPONSORS.

Section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A non-Federal interest shall be'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `non-Federal
interest' means''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Inclusions.--The term `non-Federal interest' includes
a nonprofit organization acting with the consent of the
affected unit of government.''.

SEC. 2024. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique
tracking number to each water resources project under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, to be used by each Federal
agency throughout the life of the project.
(b) Report Repository.--
(1) In general.--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.
(2) Availability to public.--
(A) In general.--Each document described in paragraph (1)
shall be made available to the public for review, and an
electronic copy of each document shall be made permanently
available to the public through the Internet website of the
Corps of Engineers.
(B) Cost.--The Secretary shall charge the requestor for the
cost of duplication of the requested document.

SEC. 2025. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

Sections 101, 106, and 108 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2252-2254), are repealed.

SEC. 2026. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``National Dam Safety Program Act of 2006''.
(b) Reauthorization.--Section 13 of the National Dam Safety
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467j) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding ``, and $8,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, to remain available
until expended'' after ``expended'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``$500,000'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and $2,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011, to remain available until
expended'';
(4) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and $700,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011, to remain available until
expended''; and
(5) in subsection (e), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and $1,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2011, to remain available until
expended''.

SEC. 2027. EXTENSION OF SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--Before the date on which the applicable
period for Federal financial participation in a shore
protection project terminates, the Secretary, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to review the shore
protection project to determine whether it would be feasible
to extend the period of Federal financial participation
relating to the project.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report describing the results of each review conducted under
subsection (a).

Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

SEC. 2031. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE
TRANSPORTATION.

Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the
Army is hereby authorized to'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE
TRANSPORTATION.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``(b) Not more'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Allotment.--Not more''; and
(B) by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting
``$7,000,000'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) Local'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Local Contributions.--Local'';
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Non-Federal'' and
inserting the following:
``(d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal'';
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ``(e) Each'' and
inserting the following:
``(e) Completion.--Each''; and
(6) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f) This'' and
inserting the following:
``(f) Applicability.--This''.

SEC. 2032. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION DUE TO EMERGENCIES AT
SHORES AND STREAMBANKS.

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$20,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,500,000''.

SEC. 2033. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.'';

(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``an aquatic'' and
inserting ``a freshwater aquatic''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``$25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$75,000,000''.

SEC. 2034. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS
PROGRAM.

Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS
PROGRAM.'';

and
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000''.

SEC. 2035. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE ESTUARIES AND COASTAL
HABITATS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out an estuary
habitat restoration project if the Secretary determines that
the project--
(1) will improve the elements and features of an estuary
(as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902));
(2) is in the public interest; and
(3) is cost-effective.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
construction of any project under this section--
(1) shall be 35 percent; and
(2) shall include the costs of all land, easements, rights-
of-way, and necessary relocations.
(c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this
section shall commence only after a non-Federal interest has
entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay--
(1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction
required under subsection (b); and
(2) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, 100 percent of the costs of any operation,
maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation of the project.
(d) Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds
may be allocated under this section for a project at any 1
location.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
each fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 2036. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES.

Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(33 U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f);
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (e) as
subsections (b) through (f), respectively;
(3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section,
the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of
the affected local government, nonprofit entities,
notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).'';
(4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
(A) by inserting ``, and construction'' before
``assistance''; and
(B) by inserting ``, including, with the consent of the
affected local government, nonprofit entities,'' after ``non-
Federal interests'';
(5) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2))--
(A) by inserting ``physical hazards and'' after
``adverse''; and
(B) by striking ``drainage from'';
(6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``50'' and inserting ``25''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried
out under this section shall be 100 percent.

[[Page S7872]]

``(h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance
under this section shall not relieve from liability any
person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State
law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages,
restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal
year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 2037. SMALL PROJECTS FOR THE REHABILITATION AND REMOVAL
OF DAMS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a small dam
removal or rehabilitation project if the Secretary determines
that the project will improve the quality of the environment
or is in the public interest.
(b) Cost Sharing.--A non-Federal interest shall provide 35
percent of the cost of the removal or remediation of any
project carried out under this section, including provision
of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary
relocations.
(c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this
section shall be commenced only after a non-Federal interest
has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to
pay--
(1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction
required by this section; and
(2) 100 percent of any operation and maintenance cost.
(d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single location.
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal year.

SEC. 2038. REMOTE, MARITIME-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop eligibility
criteria for Federal participation in navigation projects
located in economically disadvantaged communities that are--
(1) dependent on water transportation for subsistence; and
(2) located in--
(A) remote areas of the United States;
(B) American Samoa;
(C) Guam;
(D) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
(E) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or
(F) the United States Virgin Islands.
(b) Administration.--The criteria developed under this
section--
(1) shall--
(A) provide for economic expansion; and
(B) identify opportunities for promoting economic growth;
and
(2) shall not require project justification solely on the
basis of National Economic Development benefits received.

SEC. 2039. AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS.

(a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary
determines that a project needs to be continued for the
purpose of public health and safety--
``(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the increased
projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of the
original estimated project costs and in accordance with the
statutorily-determined cost share; and
``(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined Federal
share, the Secretary shall pay all increased costs remaining
after payment of 20 percent of the increased costs by the
non-Federal interest under paragraph (1).
``(f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the
authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership
agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the
Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the
partnership agreement.''.
(b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4190) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall'' and
inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``injunction, for'' and inserting
``injunction and payment of liquidated damages, for''; and
(ii) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under
this section,''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``any civil penalty
imposed under this section,'' and inserting ``any liquidated
damages,''.
(c) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only
to partnership agreements entered into after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the district
engineer for the district in which a project is located may
amend the partnership agreement for the project entered into
on or before the date of enactment of this Act--
(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project;
and
(B) if construction on the project has not been initiated
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) References.--
(1) Cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a law,
regulation, document, or other paper of the United States to
a cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement
shall be considered to be a reference to a partnership
agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively.
(2) Partnership agreements.--Any reference to a partnership
agreement or project partnership agreement in this Act (other
than in this section) shall be considered to be a reference
to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation
agreement, respectively.

SEC. 2040. PROGRAM NAMES.

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) is amended by striking ``Sec. 205. That the'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND
OBTAIN RISK MINIMIZATION.

``The''.

Subtitle C--National Levee Safety Program

SEC. 2051. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``National Levee Safety
Program Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2052. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Assessment.--The term ``assessment'' means the periodic
engineering evaluation of a levee by a registered
professional engineer to--
(A) review the engineering features of the levee; and
(B) develop a risk-based performance evaluation of the
levee, taking into consideration potential consequences of
failure or overtopping of the levee.
(2) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the National
Levee Safety Committee established by section 2053(a).
(3) Inspection.--The term ``inspection'' means an annual
review of a levee to verify whether the owner or operator of
the levee is conducting required operation and maintenance in
accordance with established levee maintenance standards.
(4) Levee.--The term ``levee'' means an embankment
(including a floodwall) that--
(A) is designed, constructed, or operated for the purpose
of flood or storm damage reduction;
(B) reduces the risk of loss of human life or risk to the
public safety; and
(C) is not otherwise defined as a dam by the Federal
Guidelines for Dam Safety.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
(7) State levee safety agency.--The term ``State levee
safety agency'' means the State agency that has regulatory
authority over the safety of any non-Federal levee in a
State.
(8) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

SEC. 2053. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a National
Levee Safety Committee, consisting of representatives of
Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governments, in
accordance with this subsection.
(2) Federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency and the
head of the International Boundary Waters Commission may
designate a representative to serve on the Committee.
(B) Action by secretary.--The Secretary shall ensure, to
the maximum extent practicable, that--
(i) each Federal agency that designs, owns, operates, or
maintains a levee is represented on the Committee; and
(ii) each Federal agency that has responsibility for
emergency preparedness or response activities is represented
on the Committee.
(3) Tribal, state, and local governments.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint 8 members to
the Committee--
(i) 3 of whom shall represent tribal governments affected
by levees, based on recommendations of tribal governments;
(ii) 3 of whom shall represent State levee safety agencies,
based on recommendations of Governors of the States; and
(iii) 2 of whom shall represent local governments, based on
recommendations of Governors of the States.
(B) Requirement.--In appointing members under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall ensure broad geographic
representation, to the maximum extent practicable.
(4) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as Chairperson
of the Committee.
(5) Other members.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Committee, may invite to participate in meetings of the
Committee, as appropriate, 1 or more of the following:
(A) Representatives of the National Laboratories.
(B) Levee safety experts.
(C) Environmental organizations.
(D) Members of private industry.
(E) Any other individual or entity, as the Committee
determines to be appropriate.
(b) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Committee shall--
(A) advise the Secretary in implementing the national levee
safety program under section 2054;
(B) support the establishment and maintenance of effective
programs, policies, and guidelines to enhance levee safety
for the protection of human life and property throughout the
United States; and
(C) support coordination and information exchange between
Federal agencies and State levee safety agencies that share
common problems and responsibilities relating to levee
safety, including planning, design, construction, operation,
emergency action planning, inspections, maintenance,
regulation or licensing, technical or financial assistance,
research, and data management.

[[Page S7873]]

(c) Powers.--
(1) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Committee may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Committee considers to
be necessary to carry out this section.
(B) Provision of information.--On request of the Committee,
the head of a Federal agency shall provide the information to
the Committee.
(2) Contracts.--The Committee may enter into any contract
the Committee determines to be necessary to carry out a duty
of the Committee.
(d) Working Groups.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish working groups
to assist the Committee in carrying out this section.
(2) Membership.--A working group under paragraph (1) shall
be composed of--
(A) members of the Committee; and
(B) any other individual, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(e) Compensation of Members.--
(1) Federal employees.--A member of the Committee who is an
officer or employee of the United States shall serve without
compensation in addition to compensation received for the
services of the member as an officer or employee of the
United States.
(2) Other members.--A member of the Committee who is not an
officer or employee of the United States shall serve without
compensation.
(f) Travel Expenses.--
(1) Representatives of federal agencies.--To the extent
amounts are made available in advance in appropriations Acts,
a member of the Committee who represents a Federal agency
shall be reimbursed with appropriations for travel expenses
by the agency of the member, 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 home or regular place of business of
the member in the performance of services for the Committee.
(2) Other individuals.--To the extent amounts are made
available in advance in appropriations Acts, a member of the
Committee who represents a State levee safety agency, a
member of the Committee who represents the private sector,
and a member of a working group created under subsection (d)
shall be reimbursed for travel expenses by the Secretary,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for an employee of an agency under subchapter 1 of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from
home or regular place of business of the member in
performance of services for the Committee.
(g) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Committee.

SEC. 2054. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Committee and State levee safety agencies, shall establish
and maintain a national levee safety program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program under this
section are--
(1) to ensure that new and existing levees are safe through
the development of technologically and economically feasible
programs and procedures for hazard reduction relating to
levees;
(2) to encourage appropriate engineering policies and
procedures to be used for levee site investigation, design,
construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency
preparedness;
(3) to encourage the establishment and implementation of
effective levee safety programs in each State;
(4) to develop and support public education and awareness
projects to increase public acceptance and support of State
levee safety programs;
(5) to develop technical assistance materials for Federal
and State levee safety programs;
(6) to develop methods of providing technical assistance
relating to levee safety to non-Federal entities; and
(7) to develop technical assistance materials, seminars,
and guidelines to improve the security of levees in the
United States.
(c) Strategic Plan.--In carrying out the program under this
section, the Secretary, in coordination with the Committee,
shall prepare a strategic plan--
(1) to establish goals, priorities, and target dates to
improve the safety of levees in the United States;
(2) to cooperate and coordinate with, and provide
assistance to, State levee safety agencies, to the maximum
extent practicable;
(3) to share information among Federal agencies, State and
local governments, and private entities relating to levee
safety; and
(4) to provide information to the public relating to risks
associated with levee failure or overtopping.
(d) Federal Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under this
section, the Secretary, in coordination with the Committee,
shall establish Federal guidelines relating to levee safety.
(2) Incorporation of federal activities.--The Federal
guidelines under paragraph (1) shall incorporate, to the
maximum extent practicable, any activity carried out by a
Federal agency as of the date on which the guidelines are
established.
(e) Incorporation of Existing Activities.--The program
under this section shall incorporate, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(1) any activity carried out by a State or local
government, or a private entity, relating to the
construction, operation, or maintenance of a levee; and
(2) any activity carried out by a Federal agency to support
an effort by a State levee safety agency to develop and
implement an effective levee safety program.
(f) Inventory of Levees.--The Secretary shall develop,
maintain, and periodically publish an inventory of levees in
the United States, including the results of any levee
assessment conducted under this section and inspection.
(g) Assessments of Levees.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), as
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall conduct an assessment of each levee in
the United States that protects human life or the public
safety to determine the potential for a failure or
overtopping of the levee that would pose a risk of loss of
human life or a risk to the public safety.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary may exclude from assessment
under paragraph (1) any non-Federal levee the failure or
overtopping of which would not pose a risk of loss of human
life or a risk to the public safety.
(3) Prioritization.--In determining the order in which to
assess levees under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give
priority to levees the failure or overtopping of which would
constitute the highest risk of loss of human life or a risk
to the public safety, as determined by the Secretary.
(4) Determination.--In assessing levees under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall take into consideration the
potential of a levee to fail or overtop because of--
(A) hydrologic or hydraulic conditions;
(B) storm surges;
(C) geotechnical conditions;
(D) inadequate operating procedures;
(E) structural, mechanical, or design deficiencies; or
(F) other conditions that exist or may occur in the
vicinity of the levee.
(5) State participation.--On request of a State levee
safety agency, with respect to any levee the failure of which
would affect the State, the Secretary shall--
(A) provide information to the State levee safety agency
relating to the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the levee; and
(B) allow an official of the State levee safety agency to
participate in the assessment of the levee.
(6) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date on which
a levee is assessed under this section, the Secretary shall
provide to the Governor of the State in which the levee is
located a notice describing the results of the assessment,
including--
(A) a description of the results of the assessment under
this subsection;
(B) a description of any hazardous condition discovered
during the assessment; and
(C) on request of the Governor, information relating to any
remedial measure necessary to mitigate or avoid any hazardous
condition discovered during the assessment.
(7) Subsequent assessments.--
(A) In general.--After the date on which a levee is
initially assessed under this subsection, the Secretary shall
conduct a subsequent assessment of the levee not less
frequently than once every 5 years.
(B) State assessment of non-federal levees.--
(i) In general.--Each State shall conduct assessments of
non-Federal levees located within the State in accordance
with the applicable State levee safety program.
(ii) Availability of information.--Each State shall make
the results of the assessments under clause (i) available for
inclusion in the national inventory under subsection (f).
(iii) Non-federal levees.--

(I) In general.--On request of the Governor of a State, the
Secretary may assess a non-Federal levee in the State.
(II) Cost.--The State shall pay 100 percent of the cost of
an assessment under subclause (I).
(III) Funding.--The Secretary may accept funds from any
levee owner for the purposes of conducting engineering
assessments to determine the performance and structural
integrity of a levee.

(h) State Levee Safety Programs.--
(1) Assistance to states.--In carrying out the program
under this section, the Secretary shall provide funds to
State levee safety agencies (or another appropriate State
agency, as designated by the Governor of the State) to assist
States in establishing, maintaining, and improving levee
safety programs.
(2) Application.--
(A) In general.--To receive funds under this subsection, a
State levee safety agency shall submit to the Secretary an
application in such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(B) Inclusion.--An application under subparagraph (A) shall
include an agreement between the State levee safety agency
and the Secretary under which the State levee safety agency
shall, in accordance with State law--
(i) review and approve plans and specifications to
construct, enlarge, modify, remove, or abandon a levee in the
State;
(ii) perform periodic evaluations during levee construction
to ensure compliance with the approved plans and
specifications;
(iii) approve the construction of a levee in the State
before the date on which the levee becomes operational;
(iv) assess, at least once every 5 years, all levees and
reservoirs in the State the failure of which would cause a
significant risk of loss of human life or risk to the public
safety to determine whether the levees and reservoirs are
safe;
(v) establish a procedure for more detailed and frequent
safety evaluations;
(vi) ensure that assessments are led by a State-registered
professional engineer with related experience in levee design
and construction;
(vii) issue notices, if necessary, to require owners of
levees to perform necessary maintenance or remedial work,
improve security, revise operating procedures, or take other
actions, including breaching levees;
(viii) contribute funds to--

(I) ensure timely repairs or other changes to, or removal
of, a levee in order to reduce the risk

[[Page S7874]]

of loss of human life and the risk to public safety; and
(II) if the owner of a levee does not take an action
described in subclause (I), take appropriate action as
expeditiously as practicable;

(ix) establish a system of emergency procedures and
emergency response plans to be used if a levee fails or if
the failure of a levee is imminent;
(x) identify--

(I) each levee the failure of which could be reasonably
expected to endanger human life;
(II) the maximum area that could be flooded if a levee
failed; and
(III) necessary public facilities that would be affected by
the flooding; and

(xi) for the period during which the funds are provided,
maintain or exceed the aggregate expenditures of the State
during the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year during
which the funds are provided to ensure levee safety.
(3) Determination of secretary.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date on
which the Secretary receives an application under paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall approve or disapprove the
application.
(B) Notice of disapproval.--If the Secretary disapproves an
application under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
immediately provide to the State levee safety agency a
written notice of the disapproval, including a description
of--
(i) the reasons for the disapproval; and
(ii) changes necessary for approval of the application, if
any.
(C) Failure to determine.--If the Secretary fails to make a
determination by the deadline under subparagraph (A), the
application shall be considered to be approved.
(4) Review of state levee safety programs.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the
Committee, may periodically review any program carried out
using funds under this subsection.
(B) Inadequate programs.--If the Secretary determines under
a review under subparagraph (A) that a program is inadequate
to reasonably protect human life and property, the Secretary
shall, until the Secretary determines the program to be
adequate--
(i) revoke the approval of the program; and
(ii) withhold assistance under this subsection.
(i) Reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the end of
each odd-numbered fiscal year, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Committee, shall submit to Congress a report
describing--
(1) the status of the program under this section;
(2) the progress made by Federal agencies during the 2
preceding fiscal years in implementing Federal guidelines for
levee safety;
(3) the progress made by State levee safety agencies
participating in the program; and
(4) recommendations for legislative or other action that
the Secretary considers to be necessary, if any.
(j) Research.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Committee, shall carry out a program of technical and
archival research to develop and support--
(1) improved techniques, historical experience, and
equipment for rapid and effective levee construction,
rehabilitation, and assessment or inspection;
(2) the development of devices for the continued monitoring
of levee safety;
(3) the development and maintenance of information
resources systems required to manage levee safety projects;
and
(4) public policy initiatives and other improvements
relating to levee safety engineering, security, and
management.
(k) Participation by State Levee Safety Agencies.--In
carrying out the levee safety program under this section, the
Secretary shall--
(1) solicit participation from State levee safety agencies;
and
(2) periodically update State levee safety agencies and
Congress on the status of the program.
(l) Levee Safety Training.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Committee, shall establish a program under which the
Secretary shall provide training for State levee safety
agency staff and inspectors to a State that has, or intends
to develop, a State levee safety program, on request of the
State.
(m) Effect of Subtitle.--Nothing in this subtitle--
(1) creates any Federal liability relating to the recovery
of a levee caused by an action or failure to act;
(2) relieves an owner or operator of a levee of any legal
duty, obligation, or liability relating to the ownership or
operation of the levee; or
(3) except as provided in subsection (g)(7)(B)(iii)(III),
preempts any applicable Federal or State law.

SEC. 2055. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
(1) $50,000,000 to establish and maintain the inventory
under section 2054(f);
(2) $424,000,000 to carry out levee safety assessments
under section 2054(g);
(3) to provide funds for State levee safety programs under
section 2054(h)--
(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011;
(4) $2,000,000 to carry out research under section 2054(j);
(5) $1,000,000 to carry out levee safety training under
section 2054(l); and
(6) $150,000 to provide travel expenses to members of the
Committee under section 2053(f).

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 3001. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis,
necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the
entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak,
Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

SEC. 3002. SITKA, ALASKA.

The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation,
Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the Secretary to take
such action as is necessary to correct design deficiencies in
the Sitka Harbor Breakwater, at full Federal expense. The
estimated cost is $6,300,000.

SEC. 3003. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a new
project management office located in the city of Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, at a location within the vicinity of the city, at
full Federal expense.
(b) Transfer of Land and Structures.--The Secretary shall
sell, convey, or otherwise transfer to the city of
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value, the land and
structures associated with the existing project management
office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility for
demolition of the existing project management office.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $32,000,000.

SEC. 3004. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Rio De Flag,
Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total cost of $54,100,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $19,100,000.

SEC. 3005. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of authorized
and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and
Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of $8,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.

SEC. 3006. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND
LOUISIANA.

(a) In General.--Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of
1950 (64 Stat. 170) is amended in the matter under the
heading ``RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN'' by striking ``at Calion,
Arkansas'' and inserting ``improvements at Calion, Arkansas
(including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control
project for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in
the project all flood control, drainage, and power
improvements in the basin above the lower end of the left
bank Ouachita River levee)''.
(b) Modification.--Section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941
(55 Stat. 642, chapter 377), is amended in the second
sentence of subsection (a) in the matter under the heading
``LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER'' by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``Provided, That the Ouachita River
Levees, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the Act
of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569), shall remain as
a component of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project
and afforded operation and maintenance responsibilities as
directed in section 3 of that Act (45 Stat. 535)''.

SEC. 3007. ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, St. Francis
River Basin, Arkansas, and Missouri, authorized the Act of
June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as modified, is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake
channel stabilization and sediment removal measures on the
St. Francis River and tributaries as an integral part of the
original project.
(b) No Separable Element.--The measures undertaken under
subsection (a) shall not be considered to be a separable
element of the project.

SEC. 3008. ST. FRANCIS BASIN LAND TRANSFER, ARKANSAS AND
MISSOURI.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to
subsection (b), all right, title, and interest to land within
the State acquired by the Federal Government as mitigation
land for the project for flood control, St. Francis Basin,
Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Act of May
15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.) (commonly known as the
``Flood Control Act of 1928'').
(b) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under
this section shall be subject to--
(A) the condition that the State of Arkansas (including the
successors and assigns of the State) agree to operate,
maintain, and manage the land at no cost or expense to the
United States and for fish and wildlife, recreation, and
environmental purposes; and
(B) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be in the interest of the United States.
(2) Reversion.--If the State (or a successor or assign of
the State) ceases to operate, maintain, and manage the land
in accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property shall revert to the United
States, at the option of the Secretary.

SEC. 3009. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,
ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.

(a) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall continue
construction of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System, Arkansas and Oklahoma, to operate and maintain the
navigation channel to the authorized depth of the channel, in
accordance with section 136 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117
Stat. 1842).

[[Page S7875]]

(b) Mitigation.--
(1) In general.--As mitigation for any incidental taking
relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, the
Secretary shall determine the need for, and construct
modifications in, the structures and operations of the
Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, Oklahoma,
including the construction of low water dams and islands to
provide nesting and foraging habitat for the interior least
tern, in accordance with the study entitled ``Arkansas River
Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to States''.
(2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project under this subsection shall be 35 percent.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

SEC. 3010. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Cache Creek
Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is
modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of
the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the
storm drainage system of the city of Woodland, including all
appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and
environmental protection features.
(b) Objectives.--Mitigation under subsection (a) shall
restore the pre-project capacity of the city (1,360 cubic
feet per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass,
including--
(1) channel improvements;
(2) an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo
Bypass; and
(3) a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county
storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per
second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.

SEC. 3011. CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA.

In addition to funds made available pursuant to the Water
Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act
(Public Law 108-361) to carry out section 103(f)(3)(D) of
that Act (118 Stat. 1696), there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out projects described in that section
$106,000,000, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton
Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is
modified to include the diked bayland parcel known as ``Bel
Marin Keys Unit V'' at an estimated total cost of
$221,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $166,200,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $55,500,000, as part of
the project to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers
dated July 19, 2004.

SEC. 3013. LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE
DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA.

Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended in
the third sentence by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2007''.

SEC. 3014. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Report.--The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry
Channel, Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4148), is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a
limited reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance
of the project is feasible.
(b) Authorization of Project.--If the Secretary determines
that maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary
shall carry out the maintenance.

SEC. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek,
California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to complete the project,
in accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as
specified in section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), at a total remaining cost of
$105,000,000, with an estimated remaining Federal cost of
$65,000,000 and an estimated remaining non-Federal cost of
$40,000,000.

SEC. 3016. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for
Magpie Creek, California, authorized by section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to
direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements
applicable to nonstructural flood control under section
103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land
acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater
storage.
(b) Crediting.--The crediting allowed under subsection (a)
shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project.

SEC. 3017. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) Cooperative Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall participate with
appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of
a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and
aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in the
14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine Flat
Dam, California, in a manner that--
(A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement;
and
(B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water
rights holders.
(2) Goals and principles.--The cooperative program
described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out--
(A) substantially in accordance with the goals and
principles of the document entitled ``Kings River Fisheries
Management Program Framework Agreement'' and dated May 29,
1999, between the California Department of Fish and Game and
the Kings River Water Association and the Kings River
Conservation District; and
(B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement.
(b) Participation by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--In furtherance of the goals of the
agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall
participate in the planning, design, and construction of
projects and pilot projects on the Kings River and its
tributaries to enhance aquatic habitat and water availability
for fisheries purposes (including maintenance of a trout
fishery) in accordance with flood control operations, water
rights, and beneficial uses in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Projects.--Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may
include--
(A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance,
and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; and
(B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create
opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream of Pine
Flat Reservoir.
(c) No Authorization of Certain Dam-Related Projects.--
Nothing in this section authorizes any project for the
raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel
intake structure at Pine Flat Dam.
(d) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable,
studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act,
including data and environmental documentation in the
document entitled ``Final Feasibility Report and Report of
the Chief of Engineers for Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Restoration'' and dated July 19, 2002.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Project planning, design, and construction.--The
Federal share of the cost of planning, design, and
construction of a project under subsection (b) shall be 65
percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of construction of any project under subsection (b) the
value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of any land,
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or
relocations provided by the non-Federal interest for use in
carrying out the project.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide not more
than 50 percent of the non-Federal share required under this
clause in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other
in-kind contributions.
(f) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 3018. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation
Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the
authorized depth of -30 mean lower low water.

SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) Credit for Non-Federal Work.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward that
portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of any flood
damage reduction project authorized before the date of
enactment of this Act that is to be paid by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the Federal
share of the flood control project authorized by section 9159
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106
Stat. 1944).
(2) Federal share.--In determining the Federal share of the
project authorized by section 9159(b) of that Act, the
Secretary shall include all audit verified costs for
planning, engineering, construction, acquisition of project
land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and
environmental mitigation for all project elements that the
Secretary determines to be cost-effective.
(3) Amount credited.--The amount credited shall be equal to
the Federal share determined under this section, reduced by
the total of all reimbursements paid to the non-Federal
interests for work under section 9159(b) of that Act before
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Folsom Dam.--Section 128(a) of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2259), is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretaries''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Technical reviews.--The Secretaries'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``In developing''
and inserting the following:
``(3) Improvements.--
``(A) In general.--In developing'';
(4) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In conducting''
and inserting the following:
``(B) Use of funds.--In conducting''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Project alternative solutions study.--The
Secretaries, in cooperation with non-Federal agencies, are
directed to expedite their respective activities, including
the formulation of all necessary studies and decision
documents, in furtherance of the collaborative effort known
as the `Project Alternative Solutions Study', as well as
planning, engineering, and design, including preparation of
plans and specifications, of any features recommended for
authorization by the Secretary of the Army under paragraph
(6).

[[Page S7876]]

``(5) Consolidation of technical reviews and design
activities.--The Secretary of the Army shall consolidate
technical reviews and design activities for--
``(A) the project for flood damage reduction authorized by
section 101(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 274); and
``(B) the project for flood damage reduction, dam safety,
and environmental restoration authorized by sections 128 and
134 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842).
``(6) Report.--The recommendations of the Secretary of the
Army, along with the views of the Secretary of the Interior
and relevant non-Federal agencies resulting from the
activities directed in paragraphs (4) and (5), shall be
forwarded to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives by not later
than June 30, 2007, and shall provide status reports by not
later than September 30, 2006, and quarterly thereafter.
``(7) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed as
deauthorizing the full range of project features and
parameters of the projects listed in paragraph (5), nor shall
it limit any previous authorizations granted by Congress.''.

SEC. 3020. CONDITIONAL DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY, PORT
OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Conditional Declaration of Nonnavigability.--If the
Secretary determines, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and non-Federal entities, that projects proposed to
be carried out by non-Federal entities within the portions of
the San Francisco, California, waterfront described in
subsection (b) are not in the public interest, the portions
shall be declared not to be navigable water of the United
States for the purposes of section 9 of the Act of March 3,
1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33
U.S.C. 525 et seq.).
(b) Portions of Waterfront.--The portions of the San
Francisco, California, waterfront referred to in subsection
(a) are those that are, or will be, bulkheaded, filled, or
otherwise occupied by permanent structures and that are
located as follows: beginning at the intersection of the
northeasterly prolongation of the portion of the
northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying between Beale
Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line of Spear
Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction
of the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence
southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the
State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770,
as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the easterly
line of Townsend Street along a line that is parallel and
distant 10 feet from the existing southern boundary of Pier
40 to its point of intersection with the United States
Government pier-head line; thence northerly along said pier-
head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and
distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary
line of Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line
and its northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection
with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly
from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32, thence
westerly along last said parallel line to its intersection
with the United States Government pier-head line; to the
northwesterly line of Bryan Street northwesterly; thence
southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street
to the point of beginning.
(c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--If, by the date
that is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any
portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront
described in subsection (b) has not been bulkheaded, filled,
or otherwise occupied by 1 or more permanent structures, or
if work in connection with any activity carried out pursuant
to applicable Federal law requiring a permit, including
sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
401), is not commenced by the date that is 5 years after the
date of issuance of such a permit, the declaration of
nonnavigability for the portion under this section shall
cease to be effective.

SEC. 3021. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Salton sea authority.--The term ``Salton Sea
Authority'' means the Joint Powers Authority established
under the laws of the State of California by a joint power
agreement signed on June 2, 1993.
(2) Salton sea science office.--The term ``Salton Sea
Science Office'' means the Office established by the United
States Geological Survey and currently located in La Quinta,
California.
(b) Pilot Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the preferred
restoration concept plan approved by the Salton Sea Authority
to determine that the pilot projects are economically
justified, technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
meet the objectives of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public
Law 105-372). If the Secretary makes a positive
determination, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with
the Salton Sea Authority and, in consultation with the Salton
Sea Science Office, carry out the pilot project for
improvement of the environment in the Salton Sea, except that
the Secretary shall be a party to each contract for
construction under this subsection.
(2) Local participation.--In prioritizing pilot projects
under this section, the Secretary shall--
(A) consult with the Salton Sea Authority and the Salton
Sea Science Office; and
(B) consider the priorities of the Salton Sea Authority.
(3) Cost sharing.--Before carrying out a pilot project
under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written
agreement with the Salton Sea Authority that requires the
non-Federal interest to--
(A) pay 35 percent of the total costs of the pilot project;
(B) acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the pilot project; and
(C) hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the pilot project,
except any claim or damage that may arise from the negligence
of the Federal Government or a contractor of the Federal
Government.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $26,000,000,
of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for any 1 pilot
project under this section.

SEC. 3022. SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION CREEK,
CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara
Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by
section 101(b)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project at a total cost of $30,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.

SEC. 3023. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation,
Upper Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section
101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct the project generally in accordance with the Upper
Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California,
Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total
cost of $244,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$130,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$113,900,000.

SEC. 3024. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin,
California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$37,700,000.

SEC. 3025. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN
HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New
Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of
the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known
and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend
Breakwater''.

SEC. 3026. ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation,
New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June
13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot
waterfront channel described in subsection (b), is
redesignated as an anchorage area.
(b) Description of Channel.--The channel referred to in
subsection (a) may be described as beginning at a point along
the western limit of the existing project, N. 188, 802.75, E.
779, 462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet
to a point N. 189, 554.87, E. 780, 612.53, thence running
southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N. 189, 319.88, E.
780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet
to a point N. 188, 864.63, E. 780, 288.08, thence running
southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N. 188, 301.88, E.
780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet
to the point of origin.

SEC. 3027. NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

(a) In General.--The portions of a 10-foot channel of the
project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919
(40 Stat. 1276) and described in subsection (b), are not
authorized.
(b) Description of Portions.--The portions of the channel
referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) Rectangular portion.--An approximately rectangular-
shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the
channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long
and is further described as commencing at a point N.
104,165.85, E. 417,662.71, thence running south 2406'55" E.
395.00 feet to a point N. 103,805.32, E. 417,824.10, thence
running south 0038'06" E. 87.84 feet to a point N.
103,717.49, E. 417,825.07, thence running north 2406'55" W.
480.00 feet, to a point N. 104,155.59, E. 417.628.96, thence
running north 7305'25" E. 35.28 feet to the point of origin.
(2) Parallelogram-shaped portion.--An area having the
approximate shape of a parallelogram along the northeasterly
portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in
paragraph (1), approximately 20 feet wide and 260 feet long,
and further described as commencing at a point N. 103,855.48,
E. 417,849.99, thence running south 3307'30" E. 133.40 feet
to a point N. 103,743.76, E. 417,922.89, thence running south
2407'04" E. 127.75 feet to a point N. 103,627.16, E.
417,975.09, thence running north 3307'30" W. 190.00 feet to
a point N. 103,786.28, E. 417,871.26, thence running north
1705'15" W. 72.39 feet to the point of origin.
(c) Modification.--The 10-foot channel portion of the
Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut navigation project described in
subsection (a) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
realign the channel to include, immediately north of the area
described in subsection (b)(2), a triangular section
described as commencing at a point N. 103,968.35, E.
417,815.29, thence running S.

[[Page S7877]]

1705'15" east 118.09 feet to a point N. 103,855.48, E.
417,849.99, thence running N. 3307'30" west 36.76 feet to a
point N. 103,886.27, E. 417,829.90, thence running N.
1005'26" west 83.37 feet to the point of origin.

SEC. 3028. ST. GEORGE'S BRIDGE, DELAWARE.

Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary shall assume ownership
responsibility for the replacement bridge not later than the
date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and
the contractors are released of their responsibility by the
State. In addition, the Secretary may not carry out any
action to close or remove the St. George's Bridge, Delaware,
without specific congressional authorization.''.

SEC. 3029. CHRISTINA RIVER, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall remove the shipwrecked
vessel known as the ``State of Pennsylvania'', and any debris
associated with that vessel, from the Christina River at
Wilmington, Delaware, in accordance with section 202(b) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C.
426m(b)).
(b) No Recovery of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall not be required to recover funds from the owner of the
vessel described in subsection (a) or any other vessel.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $425,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 3030. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR.
BRIDGE, DELAWARE.

(a) Designation.--The State Route 1 Bridge over the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in the State of Delaware is
designated as the ``Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law (including
regulations), map, document, paper, or other record of the
United States to the bridge described in subsection (a) shall
be considered to be a reference to the Senator William V.
Roth, Jr. Bridge.

SEC. 3031. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY, COMPREHENSIVE
EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

Section 601(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280)
shall apply to the individual project funding limits in
subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in
subparagraph (B).''.

SEC. 3032. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

(a) In General.--The project for shoreline protection,
Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section 418 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637), is
amended by striking ``7.1-mile reach'' and inserting ``7.6-
mile reach''.
(b) References.--Any reference to a 7.1-mile reach with
respect to the project described in subsection (a) shall be
considered to be a reference to a 7.6-mile reach with respect
to that project.

SEC. 3033. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS, EVERGLADES AND
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that
follows and inserting ``$95,000,000.''; and
(2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Federal share.--

``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
the Federal share of the cost of carrying out a project under
subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $25,000,000.
``(II) Seminole water conservation plan.--The Federal share
of the cost of carrying out the Seminole Water Conservation
Plan shall not exceed $30,000,000.''.

SEC. 3034. LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND HILLSBORO AQUIFER PILOT
PROJECTS, COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION,
FLORIDA.

Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(v) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, florida.--The pilot
projects for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and
Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
276), shall be treated for the purposes of this section as
being in the Plan and carried out in accordance with this
section, except that costs of operation and maintenance of
those projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.''.

SEC. 3035. LIDO KEY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.

The Secretary shall carry out the project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida,
based on the report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
22, 2004, at a total cost of $14,809,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $9,088,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $5,721,000, and at an estimated total cost $63,606,000 for
periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,803,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $31,803,000.

SEC. 3036. PORT SUTTON CHANNEL, TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Port Sutton Channel, Tampa
Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(12) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project
at a total cost of $12,900,000.

SEC. 3037. TAMPA HARBOR, CUT B, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles
long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary
determines that the improvements are necessary for navigation
safety.

SEC. 3038. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

(a) Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange land above 863
feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in
the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile
district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8,
1996, for land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is
required for wildlife management and protection of the water
quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
(2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges
under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal to
ensure that land exchanged is of equal value.
(b) Disposal and Acquisition of Land, Allatoona Lake,
Georgia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
(A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona
Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in
subsection (a)(1); and
(B) use the proceeds of the sale, without further
appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of
land required for wildlife management and protection of the
water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
(2) Terms and conditions.--
(A) Willing sellers.--Land acquired under this subsection
shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
(B) Basis.--The basis for all transactions under this
subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable
to the Secretary.
(C) Sharing of costs.--Each purchaser of land under this
subsection shall share in the associated environmental and
real estate costs of the purchase, including surveys and
associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to
in subsection (a)(1).
(D) Other conditions.--The Secretary may impose on the sale
and purchase of land under this subsection such other
conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

SEC. 3039. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out additional
general construction measures to allow for operation at lower
pool levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak
Dam, Idaho.
(b) Improvements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall provide for appropriate improvements to--
(1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers;
and
(2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this
Act, are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State Parks
and Recreation Department, with a total estimated project
cost of $5,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

SEC. 3040. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, as
constructed under the emergency conservation work program
established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et
seq.), is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding
Channel Project for the purposes of flood control and
ecosystem restoration, if the Secretary determines that the
rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible;
(2) to authorize and direct the Secretary to plan, design,
and construct the project at a total cost of $9,000,000;
(3) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any
portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-
kind contributions;
(4) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made
available under any other Federal program toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project if the use of the
funds is permitted under the other Federal program; and
(5) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project, to make a determination
under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the ability to pay of the non-
Federal interest.

SEC. 3041. PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO.

(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed
described in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to port and industrial use purposes are
extinguished;
(2) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted
that will compete with services and facilities offered by
public marinas is extinguished;
(3) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area in which the
elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(4) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area constituting wetland for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is required.

[[Page S7878]]

(b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County,
Idaho, 2.07 acres.
(2) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County,
Idaho, 7.32 acres.
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes with respect to
property covered by deeds described in subsection (b).

SEC. 3042. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

The Cache River Levee created for flood control at the
Cache River, Illinois, and authorized by the Act of June 28,
1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is modified to add
environmental restoration as a project purpose.

SEC. 3043. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan
and'' before ``the Chicago River''.

SEC. 3044. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel
portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the
Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156, chapter 425), extending
from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100
feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago,
Illinois, is redefined to be no wider than 66 feet.

SEC. 3045. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

Section 519(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000''
and inserting ``$20,000,000''.

SEC. 3046. MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS
RECONSTRUCTION PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) Definition of Reconstruction.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``reconstruction'' means any
action taken to address 1 or more major deficiencies of a
project caused by long-term degradation of the foundation,
construction materials, or engineering systems or components
of the project, the results of which render the project at
risk of not performing in compliance with the authorized
purposes of the project.
(2) Inclusions.--The term ``reconstruction'' includes the
incorporation by the Secretary of current design standards
and efficiency improvements in a project if the incorporation
does not significantly change the authorized scope, function,
or purpose of the project.
(b) Participation by Secretary.--The Secretary may
participate in the reconstruction of flood control projects
within Missouri and Illinois as a pilot program if the
Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required
as a result of improper operation and maintenance by the non-
Federal interest.
(c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Costs for reconstruction of a project
under this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the
non-Federal interest in the same percentages as the costs of
construction of the original project were shared.
(2) Operation, maintenance, and repair costs.--The costs of
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of a
project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(d) Critical Projects.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the following projects:
(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District,
Illinois.
(3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(4) City of St. Louis, Missouri.
(5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.
(e) Economic Justification.--Reconstruction efforts and
activities carried out under this section shall not require
economic justification.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 3047. SPUNKY BOTTOM, ILLINOIS.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Illinois
and Des Plaines River Basin, between Beardstown, Illinois,
and the mouth of the Illinois River, authorized by section 5
of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, chapter 688), is
modified to authorize ecosystem restoration as a project
purpose.
(b) Modifications.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
the limitation on the expenditure of Federal funds to carry
out project modifications in accordance with section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a), modifications to the project referred to in
subsection (a) shall be carried out at Spunky Bottoms,
Illinois, in accordance with subsection (a).
(2) Federal share.--Not more than $7,500,000 in Federal
funds may be expended under this section to carry out
modifications to the project referred to in subsection (a).
(3) Post-construction monitoring and management.--Of the
Federal funds expended under paragraph (2), not less than
$500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after
the date of completion of construction of the modifications
for use in carrying out post-construction monitoring and
adaptive management.
(c) Emergency Repair Assistance.--Notwithstanding any
modifications carried out under subsection (b), the project
described in subsection (a) shall remain eligible for
emergency repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), without consideration of
economic justification.

SEC. 3048. STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS.

(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to
Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New
Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the land described in subsection (c).
(b) Reversion.--If the land transferred under this section
ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery or for
another public purpose, the land shall revert to the United
States.
(c) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this
section is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas,
containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the
west line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner of
the NE\1/4\ of sec. 32, T. 20 S., R. 14 E., Coffey County,
Kansas.
(d) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance under this section shall be
at fair market value.
(2) Costs.--All costs associated with the conveyance shall
be paid by Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas.
(e) Other Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under this
section shall be subject to such other terms and conditions
as the Secretary considers necessary to protect the interests
of the United States.

SEC. 3049. MILFORD LAKE, MILFORD, KANSAS.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary shall convey at fair market value by quitclaim deed
to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located
in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and
maintenance of a fire station.
(b) Survey To Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and the description of the real property referred to in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in
public ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a
fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the
property shall revert to the United States, at the option of
the United States.

SEC. 3050. OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, OHIO,
PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 101(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2578) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(A) ⁱⁿ general.--
Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio River Mainstem'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) Authorization.--
``(i) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River
Basins)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following:
``(ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any ecosystem restoration
project carried out under this paragraph, with the consent of
the affected local government, a nonprofit entity may be
considered to be a non-Federal interest.
``(iii) Program implementation plan.--There is authorized
to be developed a program implementation plan of the Ohio
River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River
Basins) at full Federal expense.
``(iv) Pilot program.--There is authorized to be initiated
a completed pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.''.

SEC. 3051. MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA.

Section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) is amended by striking
``$219,600,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$430,000,000''.

SEC. 3052. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM,
LOUISIANA.

(a) In General.--The public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the
fee interest (exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals) of an
additional 20,000 acres of land in the Lower Atchafalaya
Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project.
(b) Modification.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), effective
beginning November 17, 1986, the public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project, is
modified to remove the $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum
Federal expenditure for the first costs of the public access
feature.
(2) First cost.--The authorized first cost of $250,000,000
for the total project (as defined in section 601(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142))
shall not be exceeded, except as authorized by section 902 of
that Act (100 Stat. 4183).
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 315(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603) is amended
by inserting before the period at the end the following:
``and may include Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, Louisiana, as
1 of the alternative sites''.

SEC. 3053. REGIONAL VISITOR CENTER, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN
FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

(a) Project for Flood Control.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(3) of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February
28, 1983 (relating to recreational development in the Lower
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway), the Secretary shall carry out
the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
System, Louisiana, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the
Act of August 15, 1985 (Public Law 99-88; 99 Stat. 313; 100
Stat. 4142).
(b) Visitors Center.--

[[Page S7879]]

(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers and in consultation with the State of Louisiana,
shall study, design, and construct a type A regional visitors
center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana.
(2) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--The cost of construction of the visitors
center shall be shared in accordance with the recreation
cost-share requirement under section 103(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)).
(B) Cost of upgrading.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of upgrading the visitors center from a type B to type A
regional visitors center shall be 100 percent.
(3) Agreement.--The project under this subsection shall be
initiated only after the Secretary and the non-Federal
interests enter into a binding agreement under which the non-
Federal interests shall--
(A) provide any land, easement, right-of-way, or dredged
material disposal area required for the project that is
owned, claimed, or controlled by--
(i) the State of Louisiana (including agencies and
political subdivisions of the State); or
(ii) any other non-Federal government entity authorized
under the laws of the State of Louisiana;
(B) pay 100 percent of the cost of the operation,
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the
project; and
(C) hold the United States free from liability for the
construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement,
and rehabilitation of the project, except for damages due to
the fault or negligence of the United States or a contractor
of the United States.
(4) Donations.--In carrying out the project under this
subsection, the Mississippi River Commission may accept the
donation of cash or other funds, land, materials, and
services from any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit
corporation, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.

SEC. 3054. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.

The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(74 Stat. 481), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
provide $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of
$15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu
River from mile 5 to mile 16 as the Chief of Engineers
determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging
needs and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas
for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

SEC. 3055. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, East
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section
101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 277), as amended by section 116 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 Stat. 140),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project substantially in accordance with the Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the
subsequent Post Authorization Change Report dated December
2004, at a total cost of $178,000,000.

SEC. 3056. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE, LOUISIANA.

(a) Port Facilities Relocation.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $175,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to support the relocation of Port of New Orleans
deep draft facilities from the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
(referred to in this section as the ``Outlet''), the Gulf
Intercoastal Waterway, and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal
to the Mississippi River.
(2) Administration.--
(A) In general.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall be administered by the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development (referred to in this section as the
``Assistant Secretary'') pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and
703 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), 3233).
(B) Requirement.--The Assistant Secretary shall make
amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) available to
the Port of New Orleans to relocate to the Mississippi River
within the State of Louisiana the port-owned facilities that
are occupied by businesses in the vicinity that may be
impacted due to the treatment of the Outlet under the
analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat.
2247).
(b) Revolving Loan Fund Grants.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Assistant Secretary $185,000,000, to
remain available until expended, to provide assistance
pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2),
3233) to 1 or more eligible recipients to establish revolving
loan funds to make loans for terms up to 20 years at or below
market interest rates (including interest-free loans) to
private businesses within the Port of New Orleans that may
need to relocate to the Mississippi River within the State of
Louisiana due to the treatment of the Outlet under the
analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat.
2247).
(c) Coordination With Secretary.--The Assistant Secretary
shall ensure that the programs described in subsections (a)
and (b) are fully coordinated with the Secretary to ensure
that facilities are relocated in a manner that is consistent
with the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane
protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2247).
(d) Administrative Expenses.--The Assistant Secretary may
use up to 2 percent of the amounts made available under
subsections (a) and (b) for administrative expenses.

SEC. 3057. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) WATERWAY,
LOUISIANA.

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red
River Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142)
and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613),
section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), is further
modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at
a total cost of $33,200,000;
(2) to permit the purchase of marginal farmland for
reforestation (in addition to the purchase of bottomland
hardwood); and
(3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry management
practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land
that meets habitat goals and objectives of the Corps of
Engineers and the State of Louisiana.

SEC. 3058. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project being carried out under section 111 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the
mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for
navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $20,000,000.

SEC. 3059. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized
by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat.
215, chapter 314), is modified by redesignating as an
anchorage area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-
foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line commencing
at a point N. 315,975.13, E. 1,004,424.86, thence running N.
61 27' 20.71" W. about 132.34 feet to a point N. 316,038.37,
E. 1,004,308.61.

SEC. 3060. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND
PROTECTION PROGRAM, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND
VIRGINIA.

Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000''
and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 3061. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND.

Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$25,750,000'';
(2) by striking ``$9,750,000'' and inserting
``$16,738,000''; and
(3) by striking ``$5,250,000'' and inserting
``$9,012,000''.

SEC. 3062. AUNT LYDIA'S COVE, MASSACHUSETTS.

(a) Deauthorization.--The portion of the project for
navigation, Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts, authorized
August 31, 1994, pursuant to section 107 of the Act of July
14, 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) (commonly known as the ``River and
Harbor Act of 1960''), consisting of the 8-foot deep
anchorage in the cove described in subsection (b) is
deauthorized.
(b) Description.--The portion of the project described in
subsection (a) is more particularly described as the portion
beginning at a point along the southern limit of the existing
project, N. 254332.00, E. 1023103.96, thence running
northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the western
limit of the existing project N. 255076.84, E. 1022945.07,
thence running southwesterly about 38.11 feet to a point N.
255038.99, E. 1022940.60, thence running southeasterly about
267.07 feet to a point N. 254772.00, E. 1022947.00, thence
running southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N.
254320.06, E. 1023044.84, thence running northeasterly about
60.31 feet to the point of origin.

SEC. 3063. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)(2)), the project for navigation, Fall River Harbor,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), shall remain
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, except that
the authorized depth of that portion of the project extending
riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall
River and Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
(b) Feasibility.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of deepening that portion of the
navigation channel of the navigation project for Fall River
Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731),
seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge Fall
River and Somerset, Massachusetts.
(c) Limitation.--The project described in subsection (a)
shall not be authorized for construction after the last day
of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act unless, during that period, funds have been
obligated for construction (including planning and design) of
the project.

SEC. 3064. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

Section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 326) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Management plan.--The term `management plan' means
the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair, Michigan,

[[Page S7880]]

that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this
section.
``(2) Partnership.--The term `Partnership' means the
partnership established by the Secretary under subsection
(b)(1).
``(b) Partnership.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and lead a
partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State)--
``(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal Government,
State and local governments, and other involved parties in
the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
watersheds; and
``(B) develop and implement projects consistent with the
management plan.
``(2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
``(A) In general.--Actions taken under this section by the
Partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore and
conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and
watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State
law.
``(B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this section
alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal
or State law.
``(c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
Management Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
strategic implementation plan in accordance with the
management plan;
``(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering
assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and
implementing activities consistent with the management plan;
``(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent with
the management plan; and
``(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical
assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State) and
interested nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and
implementation of projects to restore, conserve, manage, and
sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and associated
watersheds.
``(2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical
assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
paragraph (1) may be used in support of non-Federal
activities consistent with the management plan.
``(d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic
Implementation Plan.--In consultation with the Partnership
and after providing an opportunity for public review and
comment, the Secretary shall develop information to
supplement--
``(1) the management plan; and
``(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under
subsection (c)(1)(A).
``(e) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of technical assistance, or the cost of planning, design,
construction, and evaluation of a project under subsection
(c), and the cost of development of supplementary information
under subsection (d)--
``(A) shall be 25 percent of the total cost of the project
or development; and
``(B) may be provided through the provision of in-kind
services.
``(2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value
of any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas, or relocations provided for use in carrying
out a project under subsection (c).
``(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal sponsor for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity.
``(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of
projects carried out under this section shall be non-Federal
responsibilities.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each fiscal year.''.

SEC. 3065. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the cost limitation
described in section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)), the Secretary shall carry out the
project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, pursuant to
the authority provided under that section at a total Federal
cost of $9,000,000.
(b) Public Access and Recreational Facilities.--Section 321
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2605) is amended by inserting ``, and to provide public
access and recreational facilities'' after ``including any
required bridge construction''.

SEC. 3066. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston,
Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is
modified to include flood protection for the adjacent and
interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson and
Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the
feasibility report supplement, local flood protection,
Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $8,750,000.

SEC. 3067. BONNET CARRE FRESHWATER DIVERSION PROJECT,
MISSISSIPPI AND LOUISIANA.

(a) In General.--The project for environmental enhancement,
Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas, Mississippi and
Louisiana, authorized by section 3(a)(8) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013) is
modified to direct the Secretary to carry out that portion of
the project identified as the ``Bonnet Carre Freshwater
Diversion Project'', in accordance with this section.
(b) Non-Federal Financing Requirements.--
(1) Mississippi and louisiana.--
(A) In general.--The States of Mississippi and Louisiana
shall provide the funds needed during any fiscal year for
meeting the respective non-Federal cost sharing requirements
of each State for the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion
Project during that fiscal year by making deposits of the
necessary funds into an escrow account or into such other
account as the Secretary determines to be acceptable.
(B) Deadline.--Any deposits required under this paragraph
shall be made by the affected State by not later than 30 days
after receipt of notification from the Secretary that the
amounts are due.
(2) Failure to pay.--
(A) Louisiana.--In the case of deposits required to be made
by the State of Louisiana, the Secretary may not award any
new contract or proceed to the next phase of any feature
being carried out in the State of Louisiana under section
1003 if the State of Louisiana is not in compliance with
paragraph (1).
(B) Mississippi.--In the case of deposits required to be
made by the State of Mississippi, the Secretary may not award
any new contract or proceed to the next phase of any feature
being carried out as a part of the Bonnet Carre Freshwater
Diversion Project if the State of Mississippi is not in
compliance with paragraph (1).
(3) Allocation.--The non-Federal share of project costs
shall be allocated between the States of Mississippi and
Louisiana as described in the report to Congress on the
status and potential options and enhancement of the Bonnet
Carre Freshwater Diversion Project dated December 1996.
(4) Effect.--The modification of the Bonnet Carre
Freshwater Diversion Project by this section shall not reduce
the percentage of the cost of the project that is required to
be paid by the Federal Government as determined on the date
of enactment of section 3(a)(8) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013).
(c) Design Schedule.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall complete the design of
the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project by not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Missed deadline.--If the Secretary does not complete
the design of the project by the date described in paragraph
(1)--
(A) the Secretary shall assign such resources as the
Secretary determines to be available and necessary to
complete the design; and
(B) the authority of the Secretary to expend funds for
travel, official receptions, and official representations
shall be suspended until the design is complete.
(d) Construction Schedule.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall complete construction of
the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project by not later
than September 30, 2012.
(2) Missed deadline.--If the Secretary does not complete
the construction of the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion
Project by the date described in paragraph (1)--
(A) the Secretary shall assign such resources as the
Secretary determines to be available and necessary to
complete the construction; and
(B) the authority of the Secretary to expend funds for
travel, official receptions, and official representations
shall be suspended until the construction is complete.

SEC. 3068. LAND EXCHANGE, PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 2
parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42
acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri,
and consisting of Government Tract Numbers MIS-7 and a
portion of FM-46.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any existing
flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream
and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also known
as Grimes Island).
(b) Land Exchange.--Subject to subsection (c), on
conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all
right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land,
the Secretary shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
(c) Conditions.--
(1) Deeds.--
(A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the non-Federal
land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable
to the Secretary.
(B) Federal land.--The conveyance of the Federal land to
S.S.S., Inc., shall be--
(i) by quitclaim deed; and
(ii) subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions
that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River
9-Foot Navigation Project.
(C) Legal descriptions.--The Secretary shall, subject to
approval of S.S.S., Inc., provide a legal description of the
Federal land and non-Federal land for inclusion in the deeds
referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(2) Removal of improvements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may require the removal of,
or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, any improvements to
the non-Federal land before the completion of the exchange or
as a condition of the exchange.
(B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., removes any
improvements to the non-Federal land under subparagraph (A)--
(i) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the United
States relating to the removal; and
(ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any
cost associated with the removal or relocation of the
improvements.

[[Page S7881]]

(3) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require
S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs
associated with the exchange.
(4) Cash equalization payment.--If the appraised fair
market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the Federal
land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined
by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, S.S.S., Inc.,
shall make a cash equalization payment to the United States.
(5) Deadline.--The land exchange under subsection (b) shall
be completed not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3069. L-15 LEVEE, MISSOURI.

The portion of the L-15 levee system that is under the
jurisdiction of the Consolidated North County Levee District
and situated along the right descending bank of the
Mississippi River from the confluence of that river with the
Missouri River and running upstream approximately 14 miles
shall be considered to be a Federal levee for purposes of
cost sharing under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941
(33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3070. UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall offer to convey to the
State of Missouri, before January 31, 2006, all right, title,
and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of land
described in subsection (b) purchased for the Union Lake
Project that was deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed.
Reg. 40906), in accordance with section 1001 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).
(b) Land Description.--The land referred to in subsection
(a) is described as follows:
(1) Tract 500.--A tract of land situated in Franklin
County, Missouri, being part of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 7, and
the NW\1/4\ of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 8, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of
the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately
112.50 acres.
(2) Tract 605.--A tract of land situated in Franklin
County, Missouri, being part of the N\1/2\ of the NE, and
part of the SE of the NE of sec. 18, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of the
fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 93.00
acres.
(c) Conveyance.--On acceptance by the State of Missouri of
the offer by the Secretary under subsection (a), the land
described in subsection (b) shall immediately be conveyed, in
its current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri.

SEC. 3071. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

Section 325(f)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 3072. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MONTANA.

The Secretary may use funds appropriated to carry out the
Missouri River recovery and mitigation program to assist the
Bureau of Reclamation in the design and construction of the
Lower Yellowstone project of the Bureau, Intake, Montana, for
the purpose of ecosystem restoration.

SEC. 3073. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND
NORTH DAKOTA.

(a) Definition of Restoration Project.--In this section,
the term ``restoration project'' means a project that will
produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects,
and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related
benefits, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance
with other Federal programs, projects, and activities,
restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone
River and tributaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to
produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and
recreation benefits.
(c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried
out by--
(A) other Federal agencies;
(B) Indian tribes;
(C) conservation districts; and
(D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council;
and
(2) seek the full participation of the State of Montana.
(d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration
project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal interest for the restoration
project under which the non-Federal interest shall agree--
(1) to provide 35 percent of the total cost of the
restoration project, including necessary land, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
(2) to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility
studies and design during construction following execution of
a project cooperation agreement;
(3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after
the date of enactment of this Act that are associated with
the restoration project; and
(4) to hold the United States harmless for any claim of
damage that arises from the negligence of the Federal
Government or a contractor of the Federal Government in
carrying out the restoration project.
(e) Form of Non-Federal Share.--Not more than 50 percent of
the non-Federal share of the cost of a restoration project
carried out under this section may be provided in the form of
in-kind credit for work performed during construction of the
restoration project.
(f) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the
consent of the applicable local government, a nonprofit
entity may be a non-Federal interest for a restoration
project carried out under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

SEC. 3074. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH, NEVADA.

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project being carried out, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for
environmental restoration of McCarran Ranch, Nevada, shall be
$5,775,000.

SEC. 3075. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO.

(a) Restoration Projects.--
(1) Definition.--The term ``restoration project'' means a
project that will produce, consistent with other Federal
programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial
ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits.
(2) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out restoration
projects in the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the
headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, in the State of New
Mexico.
(b) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall select
restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande.
(c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities
being carried out by--
(1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program; and
(2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande
Bosque Initiative.
(d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration
project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with non-Federal interests that requires the non-
Federal interests to--
(1) provide 35 percent of the total cost of the restoration
projects including provisions for necessary lands, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
(2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after the date
of the enactment of this Act that are associated with the
restoration projects; and
(3) hold the United States harmless for any claim of damage
that arises from the negligence of the Federal Government or
a contractor of the Federal Government.
(e) Non-Federal Interests.--Not withstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal interest for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the local government.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 3076. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW YORK AND
CONNECTICUT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long
Island Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction
and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat.
(b) Cost-Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent
and may be provided through in-kind services and materials.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 3077. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$5,200,000'' and
inserting ``$18,200,000''.

SEC. 3078. NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public
interests with respect to a project, or group of projects
within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the
acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation
of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant
reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used
to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material,
which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction
technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the
Federal Government.
``(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the
agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation of a dredged material processing,
treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.
``(3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects
with appropriate combined cost-sharing between the various
projects, if the facility serves to manage dredged material
from multiple Federal projects located in the geographic
region of the facility.
``(4) Public financing.--
``(A) Agreements.--
``(i) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
The cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify--

``(I) the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing
when applicable to multiple Federal navigation projects; and
``(II) the responsibilities and risks of each of the
parties related to present and future dredged material
managed by the facility.

``(ii) Management of sediments.--

``(I) In general.--The cost-sharing agreement may include
the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of
Federal navigation

[[Page S7882]]

projects that do not have partnerships agreements.
``(II) Payments.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow the
non-Federal interest to receive reimbursable payments from
the Federal Government for commitments made by the non-
Federal interest for disposal or placement capacity at
dredged material treatment, processing, contaminant
reduction, or disposal facilities.

``(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow costs
incurred prior to execution of a partnership agreement for
construction or the purchase of equipment or capacity for the
project to be credited according to existing cost-sharing
rules.
``(B) Credit.--
``(i) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing in this
subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on
the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal
Government and any other non-Federal interest for the cost-
sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a
Federal navigation project.
``(ii) Credit for funds.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations
and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a non-Federal public interest of a Federal
navigation project may seek credit for funds provided for the
acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation
of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal
facility to the extent the facility is used to manage dredged
material from the Federal navigation project.
``(iii) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--The non-
Federal interest shall--

``(I) be responsible for providing all necessary land,
easement rights-of-way, or relocations associated with the
facility; and
``(II) receive credit for those items.''; and

(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as
redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after
``dredged material'' the first place it appears in each of
those paragraphs.

SEC. 3079. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA.

Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``$5,000,000'' and all that follows through ``2005'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 3080. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO.

Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$2,500,000'' and inserting
``$5,500,000''; and
(2) by adding before the period at the end the following:
``(which repair and rehabilitation shall include lowering the
crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet)''.

SEC. 3081. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL
TOWNSHIP, OHIO.

Increased operation and maintenance activities for the
Toussaint River Federal Navigation Project, Carroll Township,
Ohio, that are carried out in accordance with section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and relate
directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance, shall be
carried out at full Federal expense.

SEC. 3082. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the
Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with
present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake,
Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number
DACW56-79-C-0072 shall satisfy the obligations of the city
under that contract.

SEC. 3083. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA.

(a) Project Goal.--
(1) In general.--The goal for operation of Lake Eufaula
shall be to maximize the use of available storage in a
balanced approach that incorporates advice from
representatives from all the project purposes to ensure that
the full value of the reservoir is realized by the United
States.
(2) Recognition of purpose.--To achieve the goal described
in paragraph (1), recreation is recognized as a project
purpose at Lake Eufaula, pursuant to the Act of December 22,
1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1944'')
(58 Stat. 887, chapter 665).
(b) Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary shall establish
an advisory committee for the Lake Eufaula, Canadian River,
Oklahoma project authorized by the Act of July 24, 1946
(commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1946'')
(Public Law 79-525; 60 Stat. 634).
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the committee shall be
advisory only.
(3) Duties.--The committee shall provide information and
recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding the
operations of Lake Eufaula for the project purposes for Lake
Eufaula.
(4) Composition.--The Committee shall be composed of
members that equally represent the project purposes for Lake
Eufaula.
(c) Reallocation Study.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the appropriation of funds, the
Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
perform a reallocation study, at full Federal expense, to
develop and present recommendations concerning the best
value, while minimizing ecological damages, for current and
future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for the
authorized project purposes of flood control, water supply,
hydroelectric power, navigation, fish and wildlife, and
recreation.
(2) Factors for consideration.--The reallocation study
shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Lake
Eufaula Advisory Committee.
(d) Pool Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 360 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, to the extent feasible within
available project funds and subject to the completion and
approval of the reallocation study under subsection (c), the
Tulsa District Engineer, taking into consideration
recommendations of the Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee, shall
develop an interim management plan that accommodates all
project purposes for Lake Eufaula.
(2) Modifications.--A modification of the plan under
paragraph (1) shall not cause significant adverse impacts on
any existing permit, lease, license, contract, public law, or
project purpose, including flood control operation, relating
to Lake Eufaula.

SEC. 3084. RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, AND
RESERVATIONS, OKLAHOMA.

(a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, and
Reservations.--Each reversionary interest and use restriction
relating to public parks and recreation on the land conveyed
by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma
pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the sale
of certain lands to the State of Oklahoma'' (67 Stat. 62,
chapter 118) is terminated.
(b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release,
an amended deed, or another appropriate instrument to release
each interest and use restriction described in subsection
(a).

SEC. 3085. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA.

(a) Implementation of Program.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
implement an innovative program at the lakes located
primarily in the State of Oklahoma that are a part of an
authorized civil works project under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of
demonstrating the benefits of enhanced recreation facilities
and activities at those lakes.
(b) Requirements.--In implementing the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall, consistent with
authorized project purposes--
(1) pursue strategies that will enhance, to the maximum
extent practicable, recreation experiences at the lakes
included in the program;
(2) use creative management strategies that optimize
recreational activities; and
(3) ensure continued public access to recreation areas
located on or associated with the civil works project.
(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines
for the implementation of this section, to be developed in
coordination with the State of Oklahoma.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives a report describing the results of
the program under subsection (a).
(2) Inclusions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include a description of the projects undertaken under the
program, including--
(A) an estimate of the change in any related recreational
opportunities;
(B) a description of any leases entered into, including the
parties involved; and
(C) the financial conditions that the Corps of Engineers
used to justify those leases.
(3) Availability to public.--The Secretary shall make the
report available to the public in electronic and written
formats.
(e) Termination.--The authority provided by this section
shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date
of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3086. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master
Conservancy District payable to the United States Government
in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules--
(1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment
schedules that existed on June 3, 1986; and
(2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a
specific, separate, and written agreement between the
District and the United States.

SEC. 3087. LOOKOUT POINT PROJECT, LOWELL, OREGON.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
shall convey at fair market value to the Lowell School
District No. 71, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel consisting of approximately 0.98
acres of land, including 3 abandoned buildings on the land,
located in Lowell, Oregon, as described in subsection (b).
(b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land to be
conveyed under subsection (a) is more particularly described
as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the
west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of
the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to
Lowell, as platted and recorded on page 56 of volume 4, Lane
County Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of
Pioneer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of
beginning of this description; thence north on the west line
of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at
right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of
250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of
Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; and thence east
250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description
in sec. 14, T. 19 S., R. 1 W. of the Willamette Meridian,
Lane County, Oregon.
(c) Condition.--The Secretary shall not complete the
conveyance under subsection (a) until such time as the Forest
Service--

[[Page S7883]]

(1) completes and certifies that necessary environmental
remediation associated with the structures located on the
property is complete; and
(2) transfers the structures to the Corps of Engineers.
(d) Effect of Other Law.--
(1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to any conveyance under this section.
(2) Liability.--
(A) In general.--Lowell School District No, 71 shall hold
the United States harmless from any liability with respect to
activities carried out on the property described in
subsection (b) on or after the date of the conveyance under
subsection (a).
(B) Certain activities.--The United States shall be liable
with respect to any activity carried out on the property
described in subsection (b) before the date of conveyance
under subsection (a).

SEC. 3088. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct studies and
ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River
watershed from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the
Willamette River and tributaries.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section for the Upper
Willamette River watershed in consultation with the Governor
of the State of Oregon, the heads of appropriate Indian
tribes, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest
Service, and local entities.
(c) Authorized Activities.--In carrying out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall
undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and
restore fish and wildlife habitat.
(d) Cost Sharing Requirements.--
(1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be
subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent
of the cost of any ecosystem restoration project carried out
under this section.
(B) Items provided by non-federal interests.--
(i) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall provide all
land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal
areas, and relocations necessary for ecosystem restoration
projects to be carried out under this section.
(ii) Credit toward payment.--The value of the land,
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas,
and relocations provided under paragraph (1) shall be
credited toward the payment required under subsection (a).
(C) In-kind contributions.--100 percent of the non-Federal
share required under subsection (a) may be satisfied by the
provision of in-kind contributions.
(3) Operations and maintenance.--Non-Federal interests
shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating,
maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all
projects carried out under this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

SEC. 3089. TIOGA TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the Tioga
Township, Pennsylvania, at fair market value, all right,
title, and interest in and to the parcel of real property
located on the northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of
the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Floods Control Project, Tioga County,
Pennsylvania, consisting of approximately 8 acres, together
with any improvements on that property, in as-is condition,
for public ownership and use as the site of the
administrative offices and road maintenance complex for the
Township.
(b) Survey To Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of the real property described in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Reservation of Interests.--The Secretary shall reserve
such rights and interests in and to the property to be
conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the
operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes
Flood Control Project.
(d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in
public ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga
Township administrative offices and road maintenance complex
or for related public purposes, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property shall revert to the United
States, at the option of the United States.

SEC. 3090. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND
NEW YORK.

Section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3787) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Cooperation Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--In conducting the study and implementing
the strategy under this section, the Secretary shall enter
into cost-sharing and project cooperation agreements with the
Federal Government, State and local governments (with the
consent of the State and local governments), land trusts, or
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
wetland restoration.
``(2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation
agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for
implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and
water conservation measures.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Implementation of Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the
development, demonstration, and implementation of the
strategy under this section in cooperation with local
landowners, local government officials, and land trusts.
``(2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the
strategy under this subsection shall be designed to take
advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other agencies,
local municipalities, or nonprofit, nongovernmental
organizations with expertise in wetland restoration that
would increase the effectiveness or decrease the overall cost
of implementing recommended projects.''.

SEC. 3091. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND.

The Secretary may use amounts in the Environmental
Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites, under
section 2703(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, for the
removal of abandoned marine camels at any Formerly Used
Defense Site under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense that is undergoing (or is scheduled to undergo)
environmental remediation under chapter 160 of title 10,
United States Code (and other provisions of law), in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, in accordance with the Corps
of Engineers prioritization process under the Formerly Used
Defense Sites program.

SEC. 3092. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL AT RICHARD B. RUSSELL LAKE, SOUTH
CAROLINA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land
described in subsection (b)(1) that are managed, as of the
date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina
Department of Commerce for public recreation purposes for the
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966
(80 Stat. 1420).
(b) Land Description.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
parcels of land referred to in subsection (a) are the parcels
contained in the portion of land described in Army Lease
Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
(2) Retention of interests.--The United States shall
retain--
(A) ownership of all land included in the lease referred to
in paragraph (1) that would have been acquired for
operational purposes in accordance with the 1971
implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition
Policy; and
(B) such other land as is determined by the Secretary to be
required for authorized project purposes, including easement
rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
(3) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the
land described in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a
survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of the
survey to be paid by the State.
(c) General Provisions.--
(1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to the conveyance under this section.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require that the conveyance under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(3) Costs of conveyance.--
(A) In general.--The State shall be responsible for all
costs, including real estate transaction and environmental
compliance costs, associated with the conveyance under this
section.
(B) Form of contribution.--As determined appropriate by the
Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation to the United
States under subparagraph (A), the State may perform certain
environmental or real estate actions associated with the
conveyance under this section if those actions are performed
in close coordination with, and to the satisfaction of, the
United States.
(4) Liability.--The State shall hold the United States
harmless from any liability with respect to activities
carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the
real property conveyed under this section.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The State shall pay fair market value
consideration, as determined by the United States, for any
land included in the conveyance under this section.
(2) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline
Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers
shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development
of land conveyed under this section.
(3) Federal statutes.--The conveyance under this section
shall be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (including public review under
that Act) and other Federal statutes.
(4) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under
this section, the Secretary and the State shall comply with
all obligations of any cost sharing agreement between the
Secretary and the State in effect as of the date of the
conveyance.
(5) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage
the land not conveyed under this section in accordance with
the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-
0500.

SEC. 3093. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

(a) Membership.--Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is
amended--

[[Page S7884]]

(1) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
``(viii) rural water systems; and''.
(b) Reauthorization.--Section 907(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2712) is amended in the
first sentence by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

SEC. 3094. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT.

Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively;
(2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Non-federal share.--
``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
projects may be provided--
``(i) in cash;
``(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, or disposal areas;
``(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; or
``(iv) by any combination of the foregoing.
``(B) Private ownership.--Land needed for a project under
this authority may remain in private ownership subject to
easements that are--
``(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and
``(ii) necessary to assure achievement of the project
purposes.'';
(3) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.''
and inserting ``per year, and that authority shall extend
until Federal fiscal year 2015.''; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for
any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a regional or national nonprofit entity
with the consent of the affected local government.
``(g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.''

SEC. 3095. ANDERSON CREEK, JACKSON AND MADISON COUNTIES,
TENNESSEE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Anderson Creek, Jackson and
Madison Counties, Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that
the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable,
and economically justified.
(b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project,
Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee
Tributaries project--
(1) Anderson Creek shall not be considered to be an
authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project;
and
(2) the Anderson Creek flood damage reduction project shall
not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee
Tributaries Project.

SEC. 3096. HARRIS FORK CREEK, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY.

Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), the project for
flood control, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky,
authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c note; 90 Stat. 2920) shall remain
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary for a period of
7 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3097. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee
and Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and
modified by the section 334 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to
authorize the Secretary--
(1) to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the weir
originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of
Nonconnah Creek; and
(2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in the future so
that the weir functions properly.

SEC. 3098. OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER,
TENNESSEE.

(a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, Reservations.--
With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the
Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults,
Incorporated (commonly known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'')
at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee,
under section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat.
1087), the reversionary interests and the use restrictions
relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.
(b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release,
amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating
the release of interests required by subsection (a).
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects any remaining right or interest of the Corps of
Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any
project.

SEC. 3099. SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Sandy Creek, Jackson County,
Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.
(b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project,
Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee
Tributaries project--
(1) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an authorized
channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project; and
(2) the Sandy Creek flood damage reduction project shall
not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee
Tributaries Project.

SEC. 3100. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

Section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended by striking ``except that
the project is authorized only for construction of a
navigation channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide'' and
inserting ``except that the project is authorized for
construction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet deep by
100 feet wide''.

SEC. 3101. DENISON, TEXAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may offer to convey at fair
market value to the city of Denison, Texas (or a designee of
the city), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the approximately 900 acres of land located
in Grayson County, Texas, which is currently subject to an
Application for Lease for Public Park and Recreational
Purposes made by the city of Denison, dated August 17, 2005.
(b) Survey To Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and description of the real property referred to in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey paid for by
the city of Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city), that
is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Conveyance.--On acceptance by the city of Denison,
Texas (or a designee of the city), of an offer under
subsection (a), the Secretary may immediately convey the land
surveyed under subsection (b) by quitclaim deed to the city
of Denison, Texas (or a designee of the city).

SEC. 3102. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Freeport
Harbor, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide
that--
(1) all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery
of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers are a
Federal responsibility; and
(2) the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or
responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs
associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken
vessel COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport.
(b) Cost Sharing.--This section does not affect the
authorized cost sharing for the balance of the project
described in subsection (a).

SEC. 3103. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding the following:
``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou,
Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

SEC. 3104. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, VERMONT.

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with respect to the study entitled
``Connecticut River Restoration Authority'', dated May 23,
2001, a nonprofit entity may act as the non-Federal interest
for purposes of carrying out the activities described in the
agreement executed between The Nature Conservancy and the
Department of the Army on August 5, 2005.

SEC. 3105. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT.

Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2673) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and
preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in
subsection (b).''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
``(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
``(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
``(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
``(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
``(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
``(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
``(18) Lake Fairlee.
``(19) West Charleston Dam.''.

SEC. 3106. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER CHESTNUT,
AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL, VERMONT.

Under authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall revise the
existing General Design Memorandum to permit the use of
chemical means of control, when appropriate, of Eurasian
milfoil, water chestnuts, and other nonnative plants in the
Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.

SEC. 3107. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND RESTORATION,
VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
States of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study
and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration,
soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural
measures to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and
create wildlife habitat in the Upper Connecticut River
watershed.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
study and development of the strategy under subsection (a)
shall be 65 percent.

[[Page S7885]]

(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the study and development of the strategy may be provided
through the contribution of in-kind services and materials.
(c) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization with
wetland restoration experience may serve as the non-Federal
interest for the study and development of the strategy under
this section.
(d) Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the study and
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may
enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide
technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies and nonprofit organizations with wetland restoration
experience, including assistance for the implementation of
wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.
(e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out
development and implementation of the strategy under this
section in cooperation with local landowners and local
government officials.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 3108. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

(a) General Management Plan Development.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation with the States
of Vermont and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint
Commission, shall conduct a study and develop a general
management plan for ecosystem restoration of the Upper
Connecticut River ecosystem for the purposes of--
(A) habitat protection and restoration;
(B) streambank stabilization;
(C) restoration of stream stability;
(D) water quality improvement;
(E) invasive species control;
(F) wetland restoration;
(G) fish passage; and
(H) natural flow restoration.
(2) Existing plans.--In developing the general management
plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans
for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River.
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in any
critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River
Basin in accordance with the general management plan
developed under subsection (a).
(2) Eligible projects.--A critical restoration project
shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the
project--
(A) meets the purposes described in the general management
plan developed under subsection (a); and
(B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and Upper
Connecticut River watershed, consists of--
(i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, and
streams;
(ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat
restoration;
(iii) soil and water conservation;
(iv) restoration of natural flows;
(v) restoration of stream stability;
(vi) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for
coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage
installation, streambank stabilization, wetland restoration,
habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow
restoration;
(vii) water quality improvement;
(viii) invasive species control;
(ix) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat
restoration;
(x) improvements in fish migration; and
(xi) conduct of any other project or activity determined to
be appropriate by the Secretary.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any
project carried out under this section shall not be less than
65 percent.
(d) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization may
serve as the non-Federal interest for a project carried out
under this section.
(e) Crediting.--
(1) For work.--The Secretary shall provide credit,
including credit for in-kind contributions of up to 100
percent of the non-Federal share, for work (including design
work and materials) if the Secretary determines that the work
performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to the
product.
(2) For other contributions.--The non-Federal interest
shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary to
implement the projects.
(f) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements
to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal,
State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies, including
assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried
out under subsection (b).
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

SEC. 3109. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2671) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management,
and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration;
``(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary using
existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution,
multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and cover data
set; or'';
(2) in subsection (e)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``The non-Federal'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The non-Federal''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Approval of district engineer.--Approval of credit
for design work of less than $100,000 shall be determined by
the appropriate district engineer.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``up to 50 percent
of''; and
(3) in subsection (g), by striking ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$32,000,000''.

SEC. 3110. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA AND
MARYLAND.

Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Such projects''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Inclusions.--Such projects'';
(3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)(B)) and inserting the following:
``(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for
fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including--
``(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs;
``(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat;
``(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate
material in oyster bar and reef construction;
``(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster hatcheries;
and
``(v) activities relating to increasing the output of
native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of
restored sites to ensure ecological success.
``(3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The
restoration and rehabilitation activities described in
paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
``(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries
and harvest management areas; and
``(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and
fishery.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Definition of ecological success.--In this
subsection, the term `ecological success' means--
``(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass
by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and
``(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as
determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.''.

SEC. 3111. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total
cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.'' and
inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $600,000.''.

SEC. 3112. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.

(a) In General.--The Lower Columbia River levees and bank
protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to
the Wahkiakum County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but
without regard to any cost ceiling authorized before the date
of enactment of this Act, to direct the Secretary to provide
a 1-time placement of dredged material along portions of the
Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between
river miles 38 to 47, and the shoreline of Westport Beach,
Clatsop County, Oregon, between river miles 43 to 45, to
protect economic and environmental resources in the area from
further erosion.
(b) Coordination and Cost-Sharing Requirements.--The
Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)--
(1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies;
(2) in accordance with all applicable Federal law
(including regulations); and
(3) at full Federal expense.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.

SEC. 3113. LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.

(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed
described in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
(2) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area in which the
elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area constituting wetland for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) would be required for the use of fill material.
(b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) Auditor's File Numbers 432576, 443411, 499988, and
579771 of Whitman County, Washington.

[[Page S7886]]

(2) Auditor's File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 154511,
156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington.
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects any remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes in or to property
covered by a deed described in subsection (b).

SEC. 3114. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.

(a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the
McNary Lock and Dam Project and managed by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement Number
DACW68-4-00-13 with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla
District, is transferred from the Secretary to the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Easements.--The transfer of administrative jurisdiction
under subsection (a) shall be subject to easements in
existence as of the date of enactment of this Act on land
subject to the transfer.
(c) Rights of Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall retain rights described in paragraph (2) with
respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is
transferred under subsection (a).
(2) Rights.--The rights of the Secretary referred to in
paragraph (1) are the rights--
(A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the
standard project flood elevation;
(B) to manipulate the level of the McNary Project Pool;
(C) to access such land described in subsection (a) as may
be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment ranges
and carry out similar activities;
(D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, or
other environmental restoration features authorized by
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330);
(E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and
(F) to carry out management actions for the purpose of
reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies
that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act, any island included in the land described in
subsection (a).
(3) Coordination.--Before exercising a right described in
any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(d) Management.--
(1) In general.--The land described in subsection (a) shall
be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the
McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
(2) Cummins property.--
(A) Retention of credits.--Habitat unit credits described
in the memorandum entitled ``Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER
SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife
Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter
Supplement No. 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA
HMU'' provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of land
formerly known as the ``Cummins property'' shall be retained
by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the
parcel on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Site development plan.--The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service shall obtain prior approval of the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any
change to the previously approved site development plan for
the parcel of land formerly known as the ``Cummins
property''.
(3) Madame dorian recreation area.--The United States Fish
and Wildlife Service shall continue operation of the Madame
Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
(e) Administrative Costs.--The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service shall be responsible for all survey,
environmental compliance, and other administrative costs
required to implement the transfer of administrative
jurisdiction under subsection (a).

SEC. 3115. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.

The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower Snake
River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by section 101 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921),
is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct studies and
implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations and
improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife.

SEC. 3116. WHATCOM CREEK WATERWAY, BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON.

That portion of the project for navigation, Whatcom Creek
Waterway, Bellingham, Washington, authorized by the Act of
June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664, chapter 382) (commonly known as
the ``River and Harbor Act of 1910'') and the River and
Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), consisting of the last
2,900 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway, and
beginning at station 29+00 to station 0+00, shall not be
authorized as of the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3117. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia,
authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790), as modified by section 340 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the draft report of
the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, at an estimated total
cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000.

SEC. 3118. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--The McDowell County nonstructural
component of the project for flood control, Levisa and Tug
Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia,
Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94
Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take
measures to provide protection, throughout McDowell County,
West Virginia, from the reoccurrence of the greater of--
(1) the April 1977 flood;
(2) the July 2001 flood;
(3) the May 2002 flood; or
(4) the 100-year frequency event.
(b) Updates and Revisions.--The measures under subsection
(a) shall be carried out in accordance with, and during the
development of, the updates and revisions under section
2006(e)(2).

SEC. 3119. GREEN BAY HARBOR PROJECT, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN.

The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation
channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized by the
first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved July 5, 1884 (commonly known as the
``River and Harbor Act of 1884'') (23 Stat. 136, chapter
229), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to
a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.

SEC. 3120. UNDERWOOD CREEK DIVERSION FACILITY PROJECT,
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN.

Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project (County
Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.''.

SEC. 3121. OCONTO HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation,
Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of August 2,
1882 (22 Stat. 196, chapter 375), and the Act of June 25,
1910 (36 Stat. 664, chapter 382) (commonly known as the
``River and Harbor Act of 1910''), consisting of a 15-foot-
deep turning basin in the Oconto River, as described in
subsection (b), is no longer authorized.
(b) Project Description.--The project referred to in
subsection (a) is more particularly described as--
(1) beginning at a point along the western limit of the
existing project, N. 394,086.71, E. 2,530,202.71;
(2) thence northeasterly about 619.93 feet to a point N.
394,459.10, E. 2,530,698.33;
(3) thence southeasterly about 186.06 feet to a point N.
394,299.20, E. 2,530,793.47;
(4) thence southwesterly about 355.07 feet to a point N.
393,967.13, E. 2,530,667.76;
(5) thence southwesterly about 304.10 feet to a point N.
393,826.90, E. 2,530,397.92; and
(6) thence northwesterly about 324.97 feet to the point of
origin.

SEC. 3122. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4027) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting ``1278.42'';
(B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting ``1221.31''; and
(C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting ``1235.30''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Exception.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water
levels established under subsection (a) in accordance with
water control regulation manuals (or revisions to those
manuals) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments,
landowners, and commercial and recreational users.
``(2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control
regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and any
revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as of the date
on which the Secretary submits the manuals (or revisions) to
Congress.
``(3) Notification.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
not less than 14 days before operating any headwaters
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level
limits specified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a notice of intent to operate the
headwaters reservoir.
``(B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph (A) shall not
be required in any case in which--
``(i) the operation of a headwaters reservoir is necessary
to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of a dam;
or
``(ii) the drawdown of the water level of the reservoir is
in anticipation of a flood control operation.''.

SEC. 3123. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM AND RIVERFRONT
INTERPRETIVE SITE.

Section 103(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is amended by striking ``property
currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation in the
vicinity of the Mississippi River Bridge'' and inserting
``riverfront property''.

SEC. 3124. PILOT PROGRAM, MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

(a) In General.--In accordance with the project for
navigation, Mississippi River between

[[Page S7887]]

the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and
Illinois, authorized by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.
631, chapter 382) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor
Act of 1910''), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010,
chapter 47) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of
1927''), and the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), the
Secretary shall carry out over at least a 10-year period a
pilot program to restore and protect fish and wildlife
habitat in the middle Mississippi River.
(b) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--As part of the pilot program carried out
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct any
activities that are necessary to improve navigation through
the project referred to in subsection (a) while restoring and
protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the middle
Mississippi River system.
(2) Inclusions.--Activities authorized under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the modification of navigation training structures;
(B) the modification and creation of side channels;
(C) the modification and creation of islands;
(D) any studies and analysis necessary to develop adaptive
management principles; and
(E) the acquisition from willing sellers of any land
associated with a riparian corridor needed to carry out the
goals of the pilot program.
(c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The cost-sharing requirement
required under the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631,
chapter 382) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of
1910''), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter
47) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''),
and the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), for the project
referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to any activities
carried out under this section.

SEC. 3125. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any Upper
Mississippi River fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation
and enhancement project carried out under section 1103(e) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)), with the consent of the affected local government, a
nongovernmental organization may be considered to be a non-
Federal interest.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, including research on water
quality issues affecting the Mississippi River, including
elevated nutrient levels, and the development of remediation
strategies''.

SEC. 3126. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER.

(a) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2247), funds made available for recovery or mitigation
activities in the lower basin of the Missouri River may be
used for recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin
of the Missouri River, including the States of Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The matter under the heading
``missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas, iowa, and
nebraska'' of section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), as modified by
section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 306), is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary may carry out any recovery or
mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri
River, including the States of Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota, using funds made available under
this heading in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project
purposes of the Missouri River Mainstem System as authorized
by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known
as the `Flood Control Act of 1944') (58 Stat. 897).''.

SEC. 3127. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--Section
506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-22(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Before planning, designing,
or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall carry out a reconnaissance study--
``(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery,
ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and
``(B) to determine whether planning of a project under
paragraph (3) should proceed.''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(3)''.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Section 506(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Any reconnaissance study
under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at full Federal
expense.'';
(3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``(2) or (3)'' and inserting ``(3) or (4)''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection
(c)(3)''.

SEC. 3128. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.

Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by
striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.

SEC. 3129. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``through
2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.

SEC. 3130. UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM
NEW TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) Definition of Upper Ohio River and Tributaries
Navigation System.--In this section, the term ``Upper Ohio
River and Tributaries Navigation System'' means the
Allegheny, Kanawha, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers.
(b) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot
program to evaluate new technologies applicable to the Upper
Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System.
(2) Inclusions.--The program may include the design,
construction, or implementation of innovative technologies
and solutions for the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries
Navigation System, including projects for--
(A) improved navigation;
(B) environmental stewardship;
(C) increased navigation reliability; and
(D) reduced navigation costs.
(3) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be, with
respect to the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation
System--
(A) to increase the reliability and availability of
federally-owned and federally-operated navigation facilities;
(B) to decrease system operational risks; and
(C) to improve--
(i) vessel traffic management;
(ii) access; and
(iii) Federal asset management.
(c) Federal Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may
provide assistance for a project under this section only if
the project is federally owned.
(d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into local
cooperation agreements with non-Federal interests to provide
for the design, construction, installation, and operation of
the projects to be carried out under the program.
(2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered
into under this subsection shall include the following:
(A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation
with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a navigation
improvement project, including appropriate engineering plans
and specifications.
(B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of
such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to
ensure the effective long-term operation of the project.
(3) Cost sharing.--Total project costs under each local
cooperation agreement shall be cost-shared in accordance with
the formula relating to the applicable original construction
project.
(4) Expenditures.--
(A) In general.--Expenditures under the program may
include, for establishment at federally-owned property, such
as locks, dams, and bridges--
(i) transmitters;
(ii) responders;
(iii) hardware;
(iv) software; and
(v) wireless networks.
(B) Exclusions.--Transmitters, responders, hardware,
software, and wireless networks or other equipment installed
on privately-owned vessels or equipment shall not be eligible
under the program.
(e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of
the pilot program carried out under this section, together
with recommendations concerning whether the program or any
component of the program should be implemented on a national
basis.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,100,000, to
remain available until expended.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 4001. EURASIAN MILFOIL.

Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall carry out a
study, at full Federal expense, to develop national protocols
for the use of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for
biological control of Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of
Vermont and other northern tier States.

SEC. 4002. NATIONAL PORT STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a study of the
ability of coastal or deepwater port infrastructure to meet
current and projected national economic needs.
(b) Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall--
(1) consider--
(A) the availability of alternate transportation
destinations and modes;
(B) the impact of larger cargo vessels on existing port
capacity; and
(C) practicable, cost-effective congestion management
alternatives; and
(2) give particular consideration to the benefits and
proximity of proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway,
and other transportation infrastructure.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives a report that describes the results
of the study.

[[Page S7888]]

SEC. 4003. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL.

(a) In General.--To determine with improved accuracy the
environmental impacts of the project on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation Channel (referred to in this
section as the ``MKARN''), the Secretary shall carry out the
measures described in subsection (b) in a timely manner.
(b) Species Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with
Oklahoma State University, shall convene a panel of experts
with acknowledged expertise in wildlife biology and genetics
to review the available scientific information regarding the
genetic variation of various sturgeon species and possible
hybrids of those species that, as determined by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, may exist in any portion of
the MKARN.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall direct the panel to report
to the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and in the best scientific judgment of
the panel--
(A) the level of genetic variation between populations of
sturgeon sufficient to determine or establish that a
population is a measurably distinct species, subspecies, or
population segment; and
(B) whether any pallid sturgeons that may be found in the
MKARN (including any tributary of the MKARN) would qualify as
such a distinct species, subspecies, or population segment.

SEC. 4004. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
city of Los Angeles, shall--
(1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental ecosystem
restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of
Los Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the
goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan
published by the city of Los Angeles; and
(2) consider any locally-preferred project alternatives
developed through a full and open evaluation process for
inclusion in the study.
(b) Use of Existing Information and Measures.--In preparing
the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to
the maximum extent practicable--
(1) information obtained from the Los Angeles River
Revitalization Master Plan; and
(2) the development process of that plan.
(c) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to construct
demonstration projects in order to provide information to
develop the study under subsection (a)(1).
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
project under this subsection shall be not more than 65
percent.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

SEC. 4005. NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out a study for bank
stabilization and shore protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los
Angeles, California, under section 3 of the Act of August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).

SEC. 4006. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, SHORELINE SPECIAL STUDY.

Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ``32 months'' and
inserting ``44 months''.

SEC. 4007. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT, ST.
HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Flood Protection Project.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary shall review the project for
flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena,
California, generally in accordance with Enhanced Minimum
Plan A, as described in the final environmental impact report
prepared by the city of St. Helena, California, and certified
by the city to be in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act on February 24, 2004.
(2) Action on determination.--If the Secretary determines
under paragraph (1) that the project is economically
justified, technically sound, and environmentally acceptable,
the Secretary is authorized to carry out the project at a
total cost of $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$19,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,500,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for the project described
in subsection (a) shall be in accordance with section 103 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

SEC. 4008. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,
SHERMAN ISLAND, CALIFORNIA.

The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of
a project to use Sherman Island, California, as a dredged
material rehandling facility for the beneficial use of
dredged material to enhance the environment and meet other
water resource needs on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California, under section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).

SEC. 4009. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with non-
Federal interests, shall conduct a study of the feasibility
of carrying out a project for--
(1) flood protection of South San Francisco Bay shoreline;
(2) restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds
(including on land owned by other Federal agencies); and
(3) other related purposes, as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
(b) Independent Review.--To the extent required by
applicable Federal law, a national science panel shall
conduct an independent review of the study under subsection
(a).
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under subsection
(a).
(2) Inclusions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include recommendations of the Secretary with respect to the
project described in subsection (a) based on planning,
design, and land acquisition documents prepared by--
(A) the California State Coastal Conservancy;
(B) the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and
(C) other local interests.

SEC. 4010. SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete work as
expeditiously as practicable on the San Pablo watershed,
California, study authorized by section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1196) to determine the
feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving, and
protecting the San Pablo Bay Watershed.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study.

SEC. 4011. FOUNTAIN CREEK, NORTH OF PUEBLO, COLORADO.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the
Secretary shall expedite the completion of the Fountain
Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado, watershed study authorized
by a resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on
September 23, 1976.

SEC. 4012. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with State
water quality and resource and conservation agencies, shall
conduct regional and watershed-wide studies to address
selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, including
studies--
(1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and
(2) to determine whether specific selenium measures studied
should be recommended for use in demonstration projects.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

SEC. 4013. PROMONTORY POINT THIRD-PARTY REVIEW, CHICAGO
SHORELINE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct a
third-party review of the Promontory Point project along the
Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed
$450,000.
(2) Joint review.--The Buffalo and Seattle Districts of the
Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review under
paragraph (1).
(3) Standards.--The review shall be based on the standards
under part 68 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or
successor regulation), for implementation by the non-Federal
sponsor for the Chicago Shoreline Chicago, Illinois, project.
(b) Contributions.--The Secretary shall accept from a State
or political subdivision of a State voluntarily contributed
funds to initiate the third-party review.
(c) Treatment.--While the third-party review is of the
Promontory Point portion of the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago,
Illinois, project, the third-party review shall be separate
and distinct from the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois,
project.
(d) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects the
authorization for the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois,
project.

SEC. 4014. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation
improvement at Vidalia, Louisiana.

SEC. 4015. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN.

The Secretary shall study the feasibility of storm damage
reduction and beach erosion protection and other related
purposes along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.

SEC. 4016. MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, MIDDLE BASS ISLAND,
OHIO.

The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of
a project for navigation improvements, shoreline protection,
and other related purposes, including the rehabilitation the
harbor basin (including entrance breakwaters), interior
shoreline protection, dredging, and the development of a
public launch ramp facility, for Middle Bass Island State
Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.

SEC. 4017. JASPER COUNTY PORT FACILITY STUDY, SOUTH CAROLINA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may determine the
feasibility of providing improvements to the Savannah River
for navigation and related purposes that may be necessary to
support the location of container cargo and other port
facilities to be located in Jasper County, South Carolina,
near the vicinity of mile 6 of the Savannah Harbor Entrance
Channel.
(b) Consideration.--In making a determination under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration--
(1) landside infrastructure;
(2) the provision of any additional dredged material
disposal area for maintenance of the ongoing Savannah Harbor
Navigation project; and
(3) the results of a consultation with the Governor of the
State of Georgia and the Governor of the State of South
Carolina.

SEC. 4018. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study to
determine the technical soundness, economic feasibility, and
environmental acceptability of the plan prepared by the city
of Arlington, Texas, as generally described in the report
entitled ``Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation,
Arlington, Texas'', dated March 2006.

[[Page S7889]]

SEC. 4019. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL STUDY, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

(a) Dispersal Barrier Project.--The Secretary shall
determine, at full Federal expense, the feasibility of a
dispersal barrier project at the Lake Champlain Canal.
(b) Construction, Maintenance, and Operation.--If the
Secretary determines that the project described in subsection
(a) is feasible, the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and
operate a dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain Canal at
full Federal expense.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 5001. LAKES PROGRAM.

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of
silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
``(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
``(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;
``(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and
``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of
silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural
integrity.''.

SEC. 5002. ESTUARY RESTORATION.

(a) Purposes.--Section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``by implementing a coordinated Federal approach
to estuary habitat restoration activities, including the use
of common monitoring standards and a common system for
tracking restoration acreage'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and implement'' after
``to develop''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``through cooperative
agreements'' after ``restoration projects''.
(b) Definition of Estuary Habitat Restoration Plan.--
Section 103(6)(A) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``Federal or
State'' and inserting ``Federal, State, or regional''.
(c) Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--Section 104 of
the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``through the award of
contracts and cooperative agreements'' after ``assistance'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or State'' after
``Federal''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``or approach'' after
``technology'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Except''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Monitoring.--

``(I) Costs.--The costs of monitoring an estuary habitat
restoration project funded under this title may be included
in the total cost of the estuary habitat restoration project.
``(II) Goals.--The goals of the monitoring are--

``(aa) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration
project; and
``(bb) to allow adaptive management to ensure project
success.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or approach'' after
``technology''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(including
monitoring)'' after ``services'';
(4) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by inserting ``long-term''
before ``maintenance''; and
(5) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Small projects.--
``(A) Definition.--Small projects carried out under this
Act shall have a Federal share of less than $1,000,000.
``(B) Delegation of project implementation.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation of the
Council, shall consider delegating implementation of the
small project to--
``(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service);
``(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the
Department of Commerce;
``(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; or
``(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.
``(C) Funding.--Small projects delegated to another Federal
department or agency may be funded from the responsible
department or appropriations of the agency authorized by
section 109(a)(1).
``(D) Agreements.--The Federal department or agency to
which a small project is delegated shall enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal interest generally in
conformance with the criteria in subsections (d) and (e).
Cooperative agreements may be used for any delegated
project.''.
(d) Establishment of Estuary Habitat Restoration Council.--
Section 105(b) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2904(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy
developed under section 106;
``(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration
projects and contribution of project information to the
database developed under section 107; and
``(8) otherwise using the respective agency authorities of
the Council members to carry out this title.''.
(e) Monitoring of Estuary Habitat Restoration Projects.--
Section 107(d) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2906(d)) is amended by striking ``compile'' and
inserting ``have general data compilation, coordination, and
analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in
support of the strategy developed under this section,
including compilation of''.
(f) Reporting.--Section 108(a) of the Estuary Restoration
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is amended by striking
``third and fifth'' and inserting ``sixth, eighth, and
tenth''.
(g) Funding.--Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(D) and inserting the following:
``(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010;
``(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service),
$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
``(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of
the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010;
``(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010; and
``(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and other information compiled under
section 107'' after ``this title''; and
(B) by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
(h) General Provisions.--Section 110 of the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``or contracts'' after ``agreements''; and
(B) by inserting ``, nongovernmental organizations,'' after
``agencies''; and
(2) by striking subsections (d) and (e).

SEC. 5003. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE AND
MARYLAND.

(a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in
carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program
established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116
Stat. 275).
(b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water
resources projects in the States on the Delmarva Peninsula,
the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects,
to the maximum extent practicable, with any activities
carried out to implement a conservation corridor plan
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 2602
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16
U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

SEC. 5004. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS,
DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.

(a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of
the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas
Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 Stat.
176) and sections 2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact
(Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin Compact
(Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, North
Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers--
(1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the
Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin
Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
(2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
(3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with
the terms of those compacts.
(b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary shall
allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission,
Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin
Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the equitable funding
requirements of the respective interstate compacts.
(c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River
Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide
temporary water supply and conservation storage at the
Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during
which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or
drought emergency exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna
River Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to
provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at
Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the
Susquehanna River Basin, during any period in which the
Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought
emergency exists.

[[Page S7890]]

(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River
Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide
temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal
facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac
River Basin for any period during which the Commission has
determined that a drought warning or drought emergency
exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.

SEC. 5005. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
MARYLAND.

(a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery
County and Prince George's County, Maryland, and other
stakeholders, shall develop and make available to the public
a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the
restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the
Anacostia River and its tributaries.
(b) Public Availability.--On completion of the
comprehensive action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall make the plan available to the public.

SEC. 5006. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS
PROJECT, ILLINOIS.

(a) Treatment as Single Project.--The Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project (Barrier I) (as in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act), constructed
as a demonstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), and Barrier II, as authorized by
section 345 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118 Stat. 1352), shall be
considered to constitute a single project.
(b) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is authorized and directed, at full Federal
expense--
(A) to upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;
(B) to construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project
cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June
14, 2005;
(C) to operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as a
system to optimize effectiveness;
(D) to conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a full
range of options and technologies for reducing impacts of
hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; and
(E) to provide to each State a credit in an amount equal to
the amount of funds contributed by the State toward Barrier
II.
(2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit received
under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing responsibility for
an existing or future Federal project with the Corps of
Engineers in the State.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Nonindigenous aquatic nuisance prevention and
control.--Section 1202(i)(3)(C) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
4722(i)(3)(C)), is amended by striking ``, to carry out this
paragraph, $750,000'' and inserting ``such sums as are
necessary to carry out the dispersal barrier demonstration
project under this paragraph''.
(2) Barrier ii authorization.--Section 345 of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118
Stat. 1352), is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL
BARRIER, ILLINOIS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the project
for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 100
Stat. 4251).''.

SEC. 5007. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Rio
Grande Environmental Management Act of 2006''.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Rio grande compact.--The term ``Rio Grande Compact''
means the compact approved by Congress under the Act of May
31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785, chapter 155), and ratified by the
States.
(2) Rio grande basin.--The term ``Rio Grande Basin'' means
the Rio Grande (including all tributaries and their
headwaters) located--
(A) in the State of Colorado, from the Rio Grande
Reservoir, near Creede, Colorado, to the New Mexico State
border;
(B) in the State of New Mexico, from the Colorado State
border downstream to the Texas State border; and
(C) in the State of Texas, from the New Mexico State border
to the southern terminus of the Rio Grande at the Gulf of
Mexico.
(3) States.--The term ``States'' means the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
(c) Program Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, in the Rio
Grande Basin--
(A) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement; and
(B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, computerized
data inventory and analysis, applied research, and adaptive
management program.
(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and not
later than December 31 of every sixth year thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the States, shall submit to Congress a report that--
(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in
paragraph (1);
(B) describes the accomplishments of each program;
(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs
assessment; and
(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization
of the programs.
(d) State and Local Consultation and Cooperative Effort.--
For the purpose of ensuring the coordinated planning and
implementation of the programs described in subsection (c),
the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with the States and other appropriate entities
in the States the rights and interests of which might be
affected by specific program activities; and
(2) enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretary
of the Interior to provide for the direct participation of,
and transfer of funds to, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and any other agency or bureau of the Department of
the Interior for the planning, design, implementation, and
evaluation of those programs.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A)--
(A) shall be 35 percent;
(B) may be provided through in-kind services or direct cash
contributions; and
(C) shall include provision of necessary land, easements,
relocations, and disposal sites.
(2) Operation and maintenance.--The costs of operation and
maintenance of a project located on Federal land, or land
owned or operated by a State or local government, shall be
borne by the Federal, State, or local agency that has
jurisdiction over fish and wildlife activities on the land.
(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the
consent of the affected local government, a nonprofit entity
may be included as a non-Federal interest for any project
carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A).
(g) Effect on Other Law.--
(1) Water law.--Nothing in this section preempts any State
water law.
(2) Compacts and decrees.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall comply with the Rio Grande Compact, and
any applicable court decrees or Federal and State laws,
affecting water or water rights in the Rio Grande Basin.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal
year.

SEC. 5008. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MITIGATION,
RECOVERY AND RESTORATION, IOWA, KANSAS,
MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA,
SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING.

(a) Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee
established by subsection (b)(1), shall conduct a study of
the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine actions
required--
(1) to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat;
(2) to recover federally listed species under the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(3) to restore the ecosystem to prevent further declines
among other native species.
(b) Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than June 31, 2006, the
Secretary shall establish a committee to be known as the
``Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee''
(referred to in this section as the ``Committee'').
(2) Membership.--The Committee shall include
representatives from--
(A) Federal agencies;
(B) States located near the Missouri River Basin; and
(C) other appropriate entities, as determined by the
Secretary, including--
(i) water management and fish and wildlife agencies;
(ii) Indian tribes located near the Missouri River Basin;
and
(iii) nongovernmental stakeholders.
(3) Duties.--The Commission shall--
(A) with respect to the study under subsection (a), provide
guidance to the Secretary and any other affected Federal
agency, State agency, or Indian tribe;
(B) provide guidance to the Secretary with respect to the
Missouri River recovery and mitigation program in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, including
recommendations relating to--
(i) changes to the implementation strategy from the use of
adaptive management; and
(ii) the coordination of the development of consistent
policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities,
and priorities for the program;
(C) exchange information regarding programs, projects, and
activities of the agencies and entities represented on the
Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery
and mitigation program;
(D) establish such working groups as the Committee
determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the
duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public
policy and scientific issues;
(E) facilitate the resolution of interagency and
intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on
the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and
mitigation program;

[[Page S7891]]

(F) coordinate scientific and other research associated
with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation program; and
(G) annually prepare a work plan and associated budget
requests.
(4) Compensation; travel expenses.--
(A) Compensation.--Members of the Committee shall not
receive compensation from the Secretary in carrying out the
duties of the Committee under this section.
(B) Travel expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by a member
of the Committee in carrying out the duties of the Committee
under this section shall be paid by the agency, Indian tribe,
or unit of government represented by the member.
(c) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Committee.

SEC. 5009. LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION,
NEBRASKA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, may cooperate with and provide assistance to the
Lower Platte River natural resources districts in the State
of Nebraska to serve as local sponsors with respect to--
(1) conducting comprehensive watershed planning in the
natural resource districts;
(2) assessing water resources in the natural resource
districts; and
(3) providing project feasibility planning, design, and
construction assistance for water resource and watershed
management in the natural resource districts, including
projects for environmental restoration and flood damage
reduction.
(b) Funding.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity described in subsection (a) shall be
65 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of carrying out an activity described in subsection (a)--
(A) shall be 35 percent; and
(B) may be provided in cash or in-kind.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$12,000,000.

SEC. 5010. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

(a) Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota
and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and the Secretary of the
Treasury'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in
accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from
the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the
State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the
funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section
603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in
accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River
Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and
the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under
section 604, to be used to carry out the plans for
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
respectively, after the respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will
be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after
the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.''.
(b) Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.--Section 603 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388)
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest
earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States issued directly to the Fund.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the Fund in accordance with all of the requirements of
this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in the Fund
under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within
the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the `principal
account') and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund shall
be transferred to a separate account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing
amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be credited
to the interest account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the
principal account of the Fund shall be invested initially in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is divided into
3 substantially equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued
Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the
maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially
in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in
the eligible obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of obligations.--If the
Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be
reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer
than 1 year then available.
``(D) Investment of interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which
the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations
that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly
issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that
coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on
which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on
which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to
fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall
be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the
same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be
purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased
shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the
results of the investment activities and financial status of
the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.
``(4) Audits.--
``(A) In general.--The activities of the State of South
Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the `State') in
carrying out the plan of the State for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as
part of the annual audit that the State is required to
prepare under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
133 (or a successor circulation).
``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that conducts
an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) determine whether funds received by the State under
this section during the period covered by the audit were used
to carry out the plan of the State in accordance with this
section; and
``(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in the
written findings of the audit.
``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury
determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2)
with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable,
or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the
Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary
determines to be necessary.
``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult
with the State regarding the proposed modification.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``of the Treasury''
after Secretary''; and
(3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay
expenses associated with investing the Fund and auditing the
uses of amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.
(c) Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds.--Section 604
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
389) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited

[[Page S7892]]

under subsection (b) and the interest earned on those amounts
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States
issued directly to the Funds.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest each of the Funds in accordance with all of the
requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in each
Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the
`principal account') and invested as provided in subparagraph
(C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the principal account of each Fund shall
be transferred to a separate account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing
amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the
principal account of each Fund shall be invested initially in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is divided into
3 substantially equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued
Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the
maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially
in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in
the eligible obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of obligations.--If the
Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be
reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer
than 1 year then available.
``(D) Investment of the interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which
each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations
that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly
issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that
coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on
which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on
which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to
fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall
be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the
same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be
purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased
shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection
as the `Tribes') the results of the investment activities and
financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month
period.
``(4) Audits.--
``(A) In general.--The activities of the Tribes in carrying
out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as part of
the annual audit that the Tribes are required to prepare
under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or
a successor circulation).
``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that conducts
an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) determine whether funds received by the Tribes under
this section during the period covered by the audit were used
to carry out the plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance
with this section; and
``(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in the
written findings of the audit.
``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury
determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2)
with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable,
or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the
Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary
determines to be necessary.
``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult
with the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
expenses associated with investing the Funds and auditing the
uses of amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 5011. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate, design, and
construct structural modifications at full Federal cost to
the Union Village Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland
Dam (Ottauquechee River), North Springfield Dam (Black
River), Ball Mountain Dam (West River), and Townshend Dam
(West River), Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to
mitigate downstream impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 6001. LITTLE COVE CREEK, GLENCOE, ALABAMA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Little Cove Creek,
Glencoe, Alabama, authorized by the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312), is not authorized.

SEC. 6002. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity,
California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826), is not authorized.

SEC. 6003. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation,
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of July
3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in
Yellow Mill River and described in subsection (b), is not
authorized.
(b) Description of Project.--The project referred to in
subsection (a) is described as beginning at a point along the
eastern limit of the existing project, N. 123,649.75, E.
481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to
a point N. 123,683.03, E. 481,879.75, thence running
northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N. 125,030.08,
E. 482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet
to a point along the east limit of the existing channel, N.
125,133.87, E. 482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about
1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.

SEC. 6004. BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Bridgeport,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(26) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.

SEC. 6005. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Hartford,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(27) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.

SEC. 6006. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

The project for environmental infrastructure, New Haven,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(28) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.

SEC. 6007. INLAND WATERWAY FROM DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE
BAY, PART II, INSTALLATION OF FENDER PROTECTION
FOR BRIDGES, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

The project for the construction of bridge fenders for the
Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway of the
Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay,
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat.
1249), is not authorized.

SEC. 6008. SHINGLE CREEK BASIN, FLORIDA.

The project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida
Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6009. BREVOORT, INDIANA.

The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indiana,
authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (49
Stat. 1587), is not authorized.

SEC. 6010. MIDDLE WABASH, GREENFIELD BAYOU, INDIANA.

The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield
Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control
Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649), is not authorized.

SEC. 6011. LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6012. GREEN BAY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2, IOWA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee and
Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by
section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4821), is not authorized.

SEC. 6013. MUSCATINE HARBOR, IOWA.

The project for navigation at the Muscatine Harbor on the
Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166), is
not authorized.

SEC. 6014. BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATIONAL
AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE.

The project for recreation facilities at Big South Fork
National River and Recreational

[[Page S7893]]

Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized by section 108 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43), is
not authorized.

SEC. 6015. EAGLE CREEK LAKE, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood control and water supply, Eagle Creek
Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188), is not authorized.

SEC. 6016. HAZARD, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky,
authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6017. WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

The project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries,
Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section 401(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6018. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and
Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the of the
Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 644, chapter 377), and
section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(88 Stat. 12), is not authorized.

SEC. 6019. BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP, LOUISIANA.

The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation
improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump,
Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
1033, chapter 831), and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74
Stat. 481), are not authorized.

SEC. 6020. EASTERN RAPIDES AND SOUTH-CENTRAL AVOYELLES
PARISHES, LOUISIANA.

The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and South-
Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by section
201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6021. FORT LIVINGSTON, GRAND TERRE ISLAND, LOUISIANA.

The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort
Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the
Act of August 13, 1946 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control
Act of 1946'') (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.), is not authorized.

SEC. 6022. GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, LAKE BORGNE AND CHEF
MENTEUR, LOUISIANA.

The project for the construction of bulkheads and jetties
at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Louisiana, as part of the
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway authorized by the first section of
the River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 635), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6023. RED RIVER WATERWAY, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA TO
DAINGERFIELD, TEXAS.

The project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport,
Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by section 101
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6024. CASCO BAY, PORTLAND, MAINE.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Casco Bay in
the Vicinity of Portland, Maine, authorized by section 307 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841),
is not authorized.

SEC. 6025. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE.

The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine,
authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat.
12, chapter 19), is not authorized.

SEC. 6026. PENOBSCOT RIVER, BANGOR, MAINE.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Penobscot
River in the Vicinity of Bangor, Maine, authorized by section
307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4841), is not authorized.

SEC. 6027. SAINT JOHN RIVER BASIN, MAINE.

The project for research and demonstration program of
cropland irrigation and soil conservation techniques, Saint
John River Basin, Maine, authorized by section 1108 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. 4230), is
not authorized.

SEC. 6028. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE.

The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine,
authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919
(40 Stat. 1275, chapter 95), is not authorized.

SEC. 6029. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan,
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093), is not authorized.

SEC. 6030. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.

The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, Mississippi,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is not authorized.

SEC. 6031. PLATTE RIVER FLOOD AND RELATED STREAMBANK EROSION
CONTROL, NEBRASKA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River Flood
and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, authorized
by section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4149), is not authorized.

SEC. 6032. EPPING, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Epping, New
Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6033. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

The project for environmental infrastructure, Manchester,
New Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(7) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6034. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, CLAREMONT
TERMINAL, JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY.

The project for navigation, New York Harbor and adjacent
channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey,
authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is not authorized.

SEC. 6035. EISENHOWER AND SNELL LOCKS, NEW YORK.

The project for navigation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New
York, authorized by section 1163 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4258), is not authorized.

SEC. 6036. OLCOTT HARBOR, LAKE ONTARIO, NEW YORK.

The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario,
New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is not authorized.

SEC. 6037. OUTER HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New
York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817), is not authorized.

SEC. 6038. SUGAR CREEK BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH
CAROLINA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin,
North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4121), is not authorized.

SEC. 6039. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1958 ACT, OHIO.

The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (uncompleted
portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is not authorized.

SEC. 6040. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1960 ACT, OHIO.

The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (uncompleted
portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is not authorized.

SEC. 6041. CLEVELAND HARBOR, UNCOMPLETED PORTION OF CUT #4,
OHIO.

The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (uncompleted
portion of Cut #4), Ohio, authorized by the first section of
the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6042. COLUMBIA RIVER, SEAFARERS MEMORIAL, HAMMOND,
OREGON.

The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial,
Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078),
is not authorized.

SEC. 6043. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for navigation, Schuylkill River (Mouth to
Penrose Avenue), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 3(a)(12)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4013), is not authorized.

SEC. 6044. TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for flood control and recreation, Tioga-Hammond
Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, Pennsylvania, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313),
is not authorized.

SEC. 6045. TAMAQUA, PENNSYLVANIA.

The project for flood control, Tamaqua, Pennsylvania,
authorized by section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14), is not authorized.

SEC. 6046. NARRAGANSETT TOWN BEACH, NARRAGANSETT, RHODE
ISLAND.

The project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach,
Narragansett, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861), is
not authorized.

SEC. 6047. QUONSET POINT-DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND.

The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-Davisville,
Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is not
authorized.

SEC. 6048. ARROYO COLORADO, TEXAS.

The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado,
Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is not authorized.

SEC. 6049. CYPRESS CREEK-STRUCTURAL, TEXAS.

The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
Structural, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is
not authorized.

SEC. 6050. EAST FORK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, INCREMENT 2, EAST
FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS.

The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of
1962 (76 Stat. 1185), is not authorized.

SEC. 6051. FALFURRIAS, TEXAS.

The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas,
authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is not authorized.

SEC. 6052. PECAN BAYOU LAKE, TEXAS.

The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968
(82 Stat. 742), is not authorized.

SEC. 6053. LAKE OF THE PINES, TEXAS.

The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake of
the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below
Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27
Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24,
1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64
Stat. 163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968
(82 Stat. 731), is not authorized.

[[Page S7894]]

SEC. 6054. TENNESSEE COLONY LAKE, TEXAS.

The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity
River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is not authorized.

SEC. 6055. CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.

The portion of the project for navigation, City Waterway,
Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting of the last
1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the Waterway
beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at Station 80+00, is
not authorized.

SEC. 6056. KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston,
West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is not
authorized.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I thank all Senators for the passage of this very important
bill. There has been tremendous bipartisan cooperation. I especially
thank Senator Jeffords and Catharine Ransom, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and the
great leadership of our chairman, Senator Inhofe. He did an outstanding
job, with the great help of Angie Giancarlo, Ruth Van Mark and Stephen
Aaron.
On my staff I express a special thanks to a fellow, Letmon Lee, who
has worked on this tirelessly for better than 2 years, Karla Klingner,
on my staff, Brian Klippenstein, who worked so hard. I believe we have
a product we can take to the House.
It is long overdue that we pass the Water Resources Development Act.
It was due to be passed in 2002. We have finally done it. My thanks to
both sides.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Senator for his statement. I concur with
him wholeheartedly. Let's get on with it.
Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________