[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 77 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5883-S5921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 1495, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 1495) 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 9:55 
a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the chair and the 
ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I wish to be heard for 
3 minutes each, if we could have the vote at the end of that. We ask 
unanimous consent to please accommodate us so we would have the vote 6 
minutes from now and divide the time for 3 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will you tell me when my 3 minutes has 
expired so I can then yield the remainder to my friend?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be informed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, around here we have a lot of tough issues. 
We have a lot of disagreements. We try to work together. I have to say 
on this bill, this Water Resources Development Act, we have a bill that 
is the product of major bipartisan cooperation. Senator Inhofe and I 
are very proud of the work that has been done on both sides of the 
aisle. We have had tremendous help from our committee. The chair and 
ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees this, Chairman Baucus 
and Ranking Member Isakson, have been extraordinarily helpful, and all 
colleagues have as well.
  It is rare to have a bill that is supported by the National 
Association of Manufacturers and the Laborers Union, the American Farm 
Bureau and the Carpenters Union, the National Waterways Conference, the 
Associated General Contractors, and the Operating

[[Page S5884]]

Engineers. So we are here today to tell the Senate that this bill is a 
win-win for everyone in this country. We urge our colleagues who have 
amendments to consider them carefully, because we have worked so hard 
to balance this bill. It is a delicate balance. I know I have 
colleagues on my side who have ideas that I support, but I have an 
agreement, as does Senator Baucus, as do Senator Isakson and Senator 
Inhofe, that we will oppose all amendments that are not unanimously 
agreed to by the four of us in order to keep the balance in this bill. 
If we have amendments all four of us can agree to, they will be placed 
in a managers' package.
  We want colleagues to please come to this floor as soon as possible 
with their amendments so we can see how we can dispose of them. Even 
though we will probably not be voting tomorrow or Monday, we will be 
working here on this bill.
  This bill makes a huge commitment to the people of Louisiana. It puts 
Louisiana's coast on a category 5 protection path. It is fiscally 
responsible.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent to do something very important, 
which is to have printed in the Record the CBO cost estimate associated 
with the substitute text that will be considered by the Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: As you requested, CBO has reviewed a 
     proposed amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1248, 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, as ordered 
     reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works on March 29, 2007. The amendment was provided to CBO by 
     your office on May 7, 2007. Based on a preliminary review of 
     the amendment, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1248 with 
     the proposed amendment would increase discretionary outlays 
     by $7.1 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by an 
     additional $6.8 billion over the 10 years after 2012, 
     assuming appropriation of the necessary sums. In addition, 
     CBO estimates that enacting the bill with the proposed 
     amendment would increase direct spending by $6 million in 
     2008, by $4 million over the 2008-2012 period, and by $5 
     million over the 2008-2017 period. Enacting the bill would 
     not affect federal revenues.
       The bill with the proposed amendment contains no 
     intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Federal participation in the 
     levee safety program and in water resource projects and 
     programs authorized by this bill would benefit state, local, 
     and tribal governments. Any costs incurred by those 
     governments to comply with the conditions of this federal 
     assistance would be incurred voluntarily.
       Based on a preliminary review of the bill, CBO found no new 
     private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
       The estimated budgetary impact of the legislation with the 
     proposed amendment is shown in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2008      2009      2010      2011      2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated authorization level.................................     1,649     1,725     1,648     1,571     1,454
Estimated outlays.............................................       909     1,448     1,651     1,599     1,501
 
                                         CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING. \1\
 
Estimated budget authority....................................         6        -2         *         *         *
Estimated outlays.............................................         6        -2         *         *        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: * = less than $500,000.
\1\ Annual changes in direct spending after 2012 would sum to less than $500,000 a year.

       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tyler 
     Kruzich.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
                                                         Director.

                Water Resources Development Act of 2007

       Summary: The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 would 
     authorize the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to conduct 
     water resource studies and undertake specified projects and 
     programs for flood control, inland navigation, shoreline 
     protection, and environmental restoration. The bill would 
     authorize the agency to conduct studies on water resource 
     needs, to complete feasibility studies for specified 
     projects, and to convey ownership of certain federal 
     properties. Finally, the bill would extend, terminate, or 
     modify existing authorizations for various water projects and 
     would authorize new programs to develop water resources and 
     protect the environment.
       Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including 
     adjustments for increases in anticipated inflation, CBO 
     estimates that implementing the legislation would cost about 
     $5.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $26 
     billion over the 10 years after 2012. In particular, section 
     1003(0) would effectively authorize the Corps to construct 
     projects in southern Louisiana to protect the region from a 
     hurricane storm surge that results from a category 5 
     hurricane. Cost estimates to provide that level of protection 
     in the New Orleans region are not available. However, based 
     on the anticipated cost of flood protection projects 
     envisioned for this region, CBO expects that additional flood 
     protection efforts would cost at least $15 billion during the 
     decade following 2012 and perhaps much more. (Some 
     construction costs and operations and maintenance would 
     continue or commence after those first 15 years.)
       The bill would convey parcels of land to various nonfederal 
     entities and would forgive the obligation of some local 
     government agencies to pay certain project costs. The bill 
     also would allow the Corps to collect and spend fees charged 
     for training courses offered by the Corps and for processing 
     certain permits issued by the Corps. CBO estimates that 
     enacting those provisions would increase net direct spending 
     by $6 million in 2008, by $4 million over the 2008-2012 
     period, and by $5 million over the 2008-2017 period. Enacting 
     the bill would not affect revenues.
       The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-
     sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act (UMRA). Federal participation in the levee safety program 
     and in water resource projects and programs authorized by 
     this bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments. 
     Any costs incurred by those governments to comply with the 
     conditions of this federal assistance would be incurred 
     voluntarily.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of the legislation is shown in the following 
     table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
     function 300 (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2008      2009      2010      2011      2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated authorization level.................................     1,224     1,350     1,265     1,209     1,197
Estimated outlays.............................................       674     1,112     1,272     1,233     1,197
 
                                         CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING: \1\
Estimated budget authority....................................         6        -2         *         *         *
Estimated outlays.............................................         6        -2         *         *         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
\1\ Annual changes in direct spending after 2012 would sum to less than $500,000 a year.

       Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
     bill will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2008 and 
     that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each 
     fiscal year.


                   Spending Subject to Appropriation

       The bill would authorize new projects related to 
     environmental restoration, shoreline protection, and 
     navigation. It also would modify many existing Corps projects 
     and programs by increasing the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to construct or maintain them or by increasing 
     the federal share of project costs. Assuming appropriation of 
     the necessary funds, CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
     would cost $5.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an 
     additional $26 billion over the 10 years after 2012, 
     including at least $15 billion that would be authorized by 
     section 1003(0).
       For newly authorized water projects specified in the bill, 
     the Corps provided CBO with estimates of the annual budget 
     authority needed to meet project design and construction 
     schedules. CBO adjusted those estimates to reflect the impact 
     of anticipated inflation during the time between project 
     authorization and the appropriation of construction costs. 
     Estimated outlays are based on historical spending rates for 
     Corps projects.
       Significant New Authorizations. The legislation would 
     authorize the Corps to conduct water resource studies and 
     undertake specified projects and programs for flood control, 
     inland navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental 
     restoration. For example, the bill would authorize the 
     construction of enhanced navigation improvements for the 
     Upper Mississippi River at an estimated federal cost of $1.8 
     billion and an ecosystem restoration project, also on the 
     Upper Mississippi River, at an estimated federal cost of $1.6 
     billion. Another large project that would be authorized by 
     this bill is the Indian River Lagoon project in the Florida 
     Everglades at an estimated federal cost of $683 million. 
     Construction of those projects would likely take more than 15 
     years.
       Hurricane Damage. Several provisions in title I would 
     authorize coastal restoration projects and water control 
     infrastructure in Louisiana that are needed to correct 
     hurricane damage. For example, the Morganza to the Gulf of 
     Mexico Hurricane Protection Project would seek to reduce 
     hurricane and flood damages across 1,700 square miles of 
     coastal Louisiana at an estimated federal cost of $576 
     million. Other projects would improve flood protection 
     infrastructure within New Orleans and its vicinity. The cost 
     of those provisions would approach $2 billion. CBO expects 
     that most of those projects would be built over the next five 
     to 10 years. Improvements resulting from the completion of 
     those projects could reduce the costs of damages from future 
     storms and the amount of federal funds needed for recovery 
     from such events.
       Section 1003(o) of the bill would authorize the Secretary 
     to construct projects in southern Louisiana that would 
     provide protection

[[Page S5885]]

     for a storm surge equivalent to a category 5 hurricane (or a 
     500-year storm, which is a storm that has a l-in-500 chance 
     of hitting the city in any given year) if the Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure each pass a 
     resolution approving those projects.
       Very preliminary cost estimates from Corps officials 
     indicate that the cost of protecting New Orleans from a 
     hurricane storm surge that has a l-in-100 chance of flooding 
     the city in any given year could reach a total of $15 
     billion. No preliminary cost estimates are available for the 
     resources that would be needed to protect southern Louisiana 
     from the storm surge that would result from a category 5 
     hurricane. CBO estimates that at least $15 billion would be 
     needed to provide storm-surge protection under section 
     1003(o) from much more severe storms.
       Federal Share of Project Costs. Most projects undertaken by 
     the Corps are required to have a specific portion of costs 
     covered by local interests, and the remaining costs are 
     considered the federal share of the total project cost. 
     Section 2001 would allow local interests that have provided 
     in-kind contributions for the construction of water resources 
     projects to have the value of such contributions credited 
     toward the local share of the total construction cost of such 
     projects. Under the bill, the Corps would be authorized to 
     credit in-kind contributions of local participants on 
     projects. Based on information from the Corps, CBO expects 
     that any credit toward in-kind contributions would not 
     significantly affect the federal share of total project 
     costs.
       Deauthorizations. The bill would withdraw the authority for 
     the Corps to build more than 50 projects authorized in 
     previous legislation. Based on information from the Corps, 
     however, CBO does not expect that the agency would begin any 
     significant work under current law for most of those projects 
     during the next five years (or longer). Some of those 
     projects do not have a local sponsor to pay nonfederal costs, 
     others do not pass certain tests for economic viability, and 
     still others do not pass certain tests for environmental 
     protection. Consequently, CBO estimates that cancelling the 
     authority to build those projects would provide no 
     significant savings over the next several years.


                            Direct Spending

       CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase 
     net direct spending by $6 million in 2008, by $4 million over 
     the 2008-2012 period, and by $5 million total over the 2008-
     2017 period. Components of this estimate are described below.
       Various Land Conveyances. The bill would authorize the 
     conveyance at fair market value of 650 acres of federal land 
     at the Richard B. Russell Lake in South Carolina to the 
     state. The bill also would authorize the conveyance at fair 
     market value of 900 acres of federal land located in 
     Grayson County, Texas, to the town of Denison, Texas. 
     Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that 
     the federal government would receive about $3 million in 
     each of 2008 and 2009 from those sales.
       The bill also would convey certain federal land in 
     Arkansas, Missouri, Georgia, Kansas, and Oregon. CBO 
     estimates that those conveyances would have no significant 
     impact on the federal budget.
       Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. Section 3078 would eliminate the 
     obligation of the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to pay 
     outstanding interest due on its water storage contract with 
     the Corps. CBO estimates that this provision would result in 
     a loss of receipts of about $9 million in 2008. The city has 
     no further obligations to pay the federal government under 
     this storage contract after 2008.
       Waurika Lake Project. Section 3082 would eliminate the 
     obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District 
     in Oklahoma to pay its outstanding debt related to the 
     construction of a water conveyance project. Because of an 
     accounting error, the Corps inadvertently undercharged the 
     district for costs associated with a land purchase related to 
     the water project in the early 1980s. Under terms of the 
     construction contract, the district is required to pay all 
     costs associated with building the project, including the 
     full cost of the land purchases. The section would eliminate 
     the requirement for the district to pay the difference 
     between the full cost of the property and the initial 
     (undercharged) amounts. CBO estimates that enacting this 
     section would cost less than $200,000 a year over the 2008-
     2017 period.
       Fees for Training and Processing Permits. Title II would 
     allow the Corps to accept and spend fees collected in 
     conjunction with its training courses. Title II also would 
     make permanent the Corps' current authority to accept and 
     spend funds contributed by private firms to expedite the 
     evaluation of permit applications submitted to the Corps. CBO 
     estimates that the Corps would collect and spend less than 
     $500,000 during each year under those provisions and that the 
     net budgetary impact would be negligible.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The 
     legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in UMRA. Grant funds authorized in the 
     bill would benefit state governments that participate in a 
     national program to improve levee safety. State, local, and 
     tribal governments also would benefit from water resource 
     projects and other programs authorized in the bill. 
     Governments that choose to participate in those programs and 
     projects would incur costs to comply with the conditions of 
     the federal assistance, including cost-sharing requirements, 
     but such costs would be incurred voluntarily. In addition, 
     some state and local governments participating in ongoing 
     water resources projects would benefit from provisions in the 
     bill that would alter existing cost-sharing obligations. Many 
     of those provisions would make it easier for non federal 
     participants to meet their obligations by giving them credit 
     for expenses they have already incurred or by expanding the 
     types of expenditures counted towards the nonfederal share.
       Previous CBO estimate: On March 29, 2007, CBO transmitted a 
     cost estimate for H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure on March 15, 2007. Assuming 
     appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimated that 
     implementing H.R. 1495 would cost about $6.7 billion over the 
     2008-2012 period and an additional $6.5 billion over the 10 
     years after 2012. In addition, CBO estimated that enacting 
     H.R. 1495 would decrease net direct spending by $6 million in 
     2008, $9 million over the 2008-2012 period, and $8 million 
     over the 2008-2017 period. The differences in the cost 
     estimates stem from different levels of authorized funding 
     and from differences in direct spending provisions. In 
     particular, the House bill does not contain the provision 
     regarding Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich; Impact 
     on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
       Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what we are very proud of, both Senator 
Inhofe and I, is that the CBO comes in with a cost estimate that is 
$13.9 billion, which is about $2 billion less than the House-passed 
bill.
  So for all of those reasons, we urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to 
proceed on this bill.
  I yield the remaining time to my friend and colleague Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the leader and the chairman of the 
committee. Let me make one comment which I think is very important. We 
had such a short period of time to talk before this, and I hope anyone 
who has any concern over this bill at least will go ahead on the motion 
to proceed.
  Let me make one comment that surprises a lot of people. It is true I 
used to chair this committee before the Democrats took the majority, 
and now Senator Boxer is the chairman. Senator Boxer is a very proud 
liberal Democrat and I am a very proud conservative Republican. I think 
it is important for people to understand that, because there are areas 
where we agree. We understand we have a crisis in this country on 
infrastructure.
  I have often said--and I am ranked No. 1 as the most conservative 
Member of the Senate--I feel we need to spend in areas of national 
defense and infrastructure, and this bill is the second most important 
infrastructure bill that is out there. We are far beyond the time we 
should have had this. It has been some 7 years since we have had an 
infrastructure bill.
  Let me say to my conservative friends, it was misreported that this 
is going to be a $30.5 billion bill. It is less than half of that. It 
is less than the House has sent over. I can tell my colleagues this: If 
we don't pass this--this is not a spending bill; this is a 
reauthorization bill. This is not an appropriations bill. So if we 
don't do this, then it will be done without any guidelines. We followed 
guidelines. Perhaps they are not quite as good as they were a year ago, 
but still, they are guidelines in terms of what we will consider and 
what we won't. But if we don't pass this, then we will be doing it 
without any type of discipline at all. So I think it is very important 
that we agree to move on to the bill.
  I yield my last minute to the Senator from Georgia, who is the 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member and I commend 
the chairman on great work on this bill. I want to make one point. This 
is not a spending bill; this is an investment bill. It is an investment 
in safe drinking water. It is an investment in storm water management. 
It is an investment in flood control and water resources of the United 
States of America. It is fiscally responsible and it is accountable. We 
have worked together in an absolutely bipartisan way to accomplish 
that.

[[Page S5886]]

  I encourage each of our Members to come and vote for the motion to 
proceed. If they have an amendment, bring it early, and let's go 
forward with the most important bill we may do in this session of the 
Congress of the United States.
  I want to add to that it is bipartisan, it is fiscally responsible, 
and it is the first time we have reauthorized it in 7 years. It is long 
overdue and important for us to do it now.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, even though the disclosure requirements of 
S. 1 have not been enacted, Senator Inhofe and I believe we should 
comply with the intent of that legislation, so I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record a listing of all the project-related 
provisions of the substitute text and the proponents of those 
provisions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.001



[[Page S5888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.002



[[Page S5889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.003



[[Page S5890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.004



[[Page S5891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.005



[[Page S5892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.006



[[Page S5893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.007



[[Page S5894]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.008



[[Page S5895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS10MY07.009



[[Page S5896]]

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 128, H.R. 1495, Water Resources 
     Development Act.
         Harry Reid, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Patty 
           Murray, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Claire McCaskill, 
           Bernard Sanders, Tom Carper, Max Baucus, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Ben Cardin, Robert Menendez, Ken Salazar, 
           Edward Kennedy, H.R. Clinton, Amy Klobuchar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 1495, 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, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--7

     Allard
     Bunning
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Crapo
     Johnson
     McCain
     Rockefeller
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 7. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
speak in morning business under the time that is allotted to me 
postcloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Iraq Funding

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week, the Congress sent the President 
an emergency supplemental spending bill for Iraq. That bill provided 
every dollar our troops need and every dollar the President requested 
and then some.
  It also provided what a majority of Americans expect and that is they 
expect a plan to start to bring home American troops, to bring this war 
to a responsible end, and to not escalate it indefinitely as this 
President is doing.
  In vetoing the bill, the President not only denied our troops the 
funding they needed, but he denied the American people what they have 
clearly stated they want: a responsible path out of Iraq. That is what 
the 2006 election was about. That is what every poll is about. That is 
what the Senator from West Virginia, whom I see on the floor, and I and 
others have been saying for some time now. I might add, that is also 
what I think an awful lot of our Republican colleagues want.
  I raised a few eyebrows when I said a month ago that I don't think 
there are more than a dozen members of the opposition who truly believe 
this policy of unrelenting escalation with no end in sight in Iraq is 
one they support. The question is: What do we do in the face of the 
President's recalcitrance?
  We all know, and again I refer to my friend from West Virginia, the 
most learned person in the Senate--I don't go back as far as he does, 
but I go back to trying to end the war in Vietnam. I remember how 
painfully long that process was. Once the whole Nation and the Senate 
had turned against the war, it was still painfully difficult to end.
  So if it were up to me, I would send the same emergency spending bill 
back to the President and have the votes, with the money for our troops 
and the plan that is in that legislation to end the war, which the 
people expect. I would send it back to him again and again and again 
and again and let him veto it again and again and again and again. Any 
reasonable person listening to my speaking might ask: Why would you do 
that, not a fool's errand? I believe the more we keep this front and 
center, the more we relentlessly push on this President to abandon his 
flawed policy, the more pressure will be brought upon our colleagues 
who, in their hearts, know this is not the right policy but are voting 
with the President instead of with the troops.
  I must admit straight up, this is about building pressure. We are 
going to need 67 votes to end this war--67 votes in the Senate. So that 
means, although I had a great conversation with Tim Johnson last 
night--I might say, he sounded wonderful--although that means until 
Senator Johnson comes back, we need 17 Republican Senators to change 
their minds. That is why we have to keep pushing. We have to let the 
President demonstrate time and again that he is totally out of touch 
with what our troops need, what the American people want, and where 
America's interests lie. In a sense, this reminds me a little bit of 
Richard Nixon. He seems divorced from reality. He seems divorced from 
what is going on around him. I don't quite understand it. I have been 
here 34 years. It reminds me of Nixon during Watergate.
  Here we had the Attorney General testify before our Judiciary 
Committee with a terrible appearance, and the President says he did 
wonderfully. The President says the war is going well. The President 
said the response to Katrina initially was great. There seems to be a 
disconnect here. So the only thing I know to do is to continually force 
him to demonstrate again and again, until he changes his mind, how out 
of touch he is, to build pressure in the Congress.
  The truth is, votes matter. We need the votes to stop this war 
because I am convinced this President has made a decision with his Vice 
President to keep this from completely blowing up and hand it off to 
the next President. The problem is, in the meantime, a lot of people 
are going to lose their lives--a lot of Americans and a whole lot more 
Iraqis. But I recognize, as I said, the reality that it takes 60 votes 
to send the same supplemental back to the President, as it would take 
60 votes to formally deauthorize the war, as my friend from West 
Virginia is attempting to do, as I and Carl Levin talked about, and we 
introduced legislation similar to that, to deauthorize the war and 
reauthorize a more limited mission. We need, though, 60 votes. It is 
just as people talk about cutting off funding, we still need 60 votes. 
It would take, obviously, 67 votes then to overcome a Presidential 
veto.
  The reason I say this is we all are frustrated on this floor. Right 
now, we don't have those votes. We don't have the votes right now to 
send back the same supplemental.
  What should we do next? In my view, first, anything we send back to 
the President must and will provide every dollar the troops need. As 
long as we are on the frontlines, I will vote for the money to protect 
them. That money must include funding for additional Mine Resistant 
Ambush Protected Vehicles, so-called MRAPs.

[[Page S5897]]

  The amendment I offered was overwhelmingly adopted. The vast majority 
of deaths and injuries are from roadside bombs. They are responsible 
for 70 percent of our casualties in Iraq. These new V-shaped hull 
vehicles that will take the place of heavily armored humvees have a 
four to five times greater prospect of protecting troops inside those 
vehicles. They can literally cut our casualty rates by two-thirds.
  As a matter of fact, depending on what we do send back to the 
President, it is my intention, if somehow we make no progress, to take 
this money out for those vehicles and move it separately because it 
literally, literally, literally can change the lives of our soldiers in 
the field. Our military wants them; our soldiers need them.
  Defense Secretary Gates said MRAPs are ``the highest priority 
acquisition program. Any and all options to accelerate the production 
and fielding of this capability should be identified, assessed, and 
applied.'' I am happy to hear him say that because originally they 
didn't ask for this money to fast-forward the funding of these 
vehicles. The Secretary is right. I think it would be unconscionable 
not to get as many of these new vehicles as possible in the field as 
fast as possible.

  Second, if we don't have the votes now for a hard timetable, which is 
what is in the bill that was vetoed, a hard timetable that came out of 
the language Senator Levin and I worked on putting in the bill, if, in 
fact, we don't have the votes now for that hard timetable to start 
getting our troops out of Iraq, any bill we send back to the President 
must limit dramatically the mission of the troops in Iraq.
  We must get our troops out of the middle of this sectarian civil war 
that we cannot end militarily. Having 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 troops in 
a city of 6,200,000 people knocking on doors in the middle of a civil 
war is just foolhardy. Instead, we should focus our military on a much 
more limited mission that is in the national interest, that we can 
achieve with fewer troops, and that is doable; that is, training the 
Iraqi Army, preventing al-Qaida from occupying territory in parts of 
Anbar Province, and--and--force protection.
  If we limit the mission in that way, the President will not be able 
to justify keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq, especially at a time when 
our military is dangerously overstretched, threatening the readiness of 
our troops and the ability to retain those now serving, to recruit 
those who may wish to serve in the future, and--and--to provide a 
National Guard at home that is needed for natural disasters at home, as 
we have recently seen in Kansas.
  Just this week, we have seen how overstretching is hurting us at 
home. When a tornado wiped 80 square blocks of Greensburg, KS, off the 
map, the State's National Guard was slow in responding. Why? Because 
much of its manpower and equipment is in Iraq.
  Across the country, our Governors have been warning for months that 
their National Guards are not prepared for the next local disaster 
because they are tied down overseas; or, even if they are home, because 
they took their equipment overseas when they were deployed and were 
unable to bring it back, they are ill prepared in terms of manpower 
and/or equipment. So if we limit the mission of our troops in Iraq to a 
more rational mission, the President will have to start bringing troops 
home now, with or without a hard timetable.
  He will have to start listening to our Governors. He will have to 
start listening to our troops and their families who have told so many 
of us about the strain of going back to Iraq on third and fourth tours, 
about being ordered to stay longer each time they go, about not having 
the year at home between deployments that they were promised. He will 
have to start listening because he won't have an excuse not to.
  Third, if we can't get a hard timeline into this emergency spending 
bill, we should add it to the next bill we vote on, and to the one 
after that, and to the one after that. We have to be relentless. Sooner 
or later, our colleagues will stop voting with the President and start 
backing what the American people want: a responsible end to this war.
  Until we have the votes to force the President to change course, we 
have to keep the pressure on for change every single day. That is what 
I have been doing, and that is what I will continue to do until this 
policy levee that the President has erected breaks.
  The fact is, the fundamental strategy under which the President has 
operated is flawed. The idea that through force we are going to be able 
to establish a strong central democratic government in Baghdad is 
simply not possible. It is simply not possible. It is not going to 
happen in the lifetime of any Member of this Senate.
  Starting to get our troops out of Iraq, and getting most of them out 
by early next year, is the first step toward bringing this war to a 
responsible end. Just as important, we have to have a plan for what we 
leave behind so we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the 
region that undermines our interests for decades.
  I don't want my son going to Iraq, but I also don't want my grandson 
going to that part of the world in the next 15 years. How we leave and 
what we leave behind will impact on that second question. We have to 
have a plan to bring stability to Iraq as we leave, and that requires a 
political solution. Everyone--everyone--from the President on, says 
there is no military solution to Iraq; there is a political solution 
only. But he hasn't offered a political solution.
  I know my colleagues have heard me talk about my plan for a political 
settlement in Iraq for more than a year now. It calls for separating 
the warring factions, giving them breathing room in their own regions, 
as their constitution provides, with control over the fabric of their 
daily lives--such as police protection, education, marriage, jobs, 
religion--and a limited central government that would be responsible 
for distributing oil revenues, which should be the glue that holds this 
country together, responsible for the army and responsible for the 
borders.

  Every passing day makes my plan, the Biden-Gelb plan, more urgent and 
more relevant. Look at what is happening in Ramadi, where al-Qaida has 
a stronghold. The administration rightly points to some successes in 
getting Sunni tribal leaders to turn on al-Qaida in Iraq and getting 
thousands of young Sunni men to sign up for the Ramadi police force and 
protection forces. Listen carefully to how this happened, as described 
by the Los Angeles Times:

       Fed up with the insurgents' killings and their acts of 
     intimidation in Ramadi, the Sunni sheiks came to the 
     coalition in September to tell the U.S.-led force that they 
     were ready to cooperate and would urge their tribes to supply 
     recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Even the most 
     optimistic U.S. colonel was not prepared for the flood of 
     recruits once the sheiks got the word out that joining the 
     Army, police, and provincial forces had their approval. 
     Recently, 1,500 Iraqi youths showed up to enlist in the 
     police, more than the recruiters could take.

  Continuing to quote.

       Another change that helped recruiting was a policy 
     introduced in February promising recruits from Al Anbar that 
     they would be based close to home if they enlisted. Within 2 
     days of that switch, 400 youths had signed up.

  So you have Sunnis joining the police and army in their own regions, 
staying in their regions to deal with Sunni extremists in the midst of 
their own region, and becoming part of the anti-al-Qaida solution.
  What is that all about? It is what I have been saying for a long 
time: give them local control and they will have the prospect of 
bringing this country to a peaceful settlement. That is a whole lot 
better than having them take the fight to the Shiites and becoming part 
of the sectarian nightmare.
  It makes sense for our troops to be in Anbar, helping local Sunnis 
defeat al-Qaida. That is what we should limit their mission to. It does 
not make sense for them to be going door to door in Baghdad, a city of 
6.2 million people, and getting caught in the crossfire of a self-
sustaining civil war. It makes sense for us to focus on a political 
settlement by bringing problems and responsibilities down to the local 
level, giving each group an opportunity to advance its interests 
peacefully, not with bombs and death squads but with a political 
compromise.
  It does not make sense to send more and more troops into Iraq in 
pursuit of a strategy that has virtually no prospect for success. The 
administration hopes the surge will buy time for Prime Minister 
Maliki's government to

[[Page S5898]]

get its act together. But there is no trust within that government, no 
trust of the government by the people it purports to serve, and no 
capacity on the part of the government to deliver the services or 
security that is needed. There is little prospect that the government 
will build that trust and capacity any time soon.
  In short, the most basic premise of the President's approach, and 
that of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, is that the 
Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government that looks 
out for their interests equally and is fundamentally fair. That whole 
notion, I have been saying for over 4 years, is fundamentally flawed. 
It is not achievable. So instead of escalating this war with no end in 
sight, we have to start bringing our troops home with the goal of 
getting most of them out by early next year.
  As the President rails against those of us who have been proposing 
that, I remind him his former Secretary of State Baker, his father's 
former Secretary of State Eagleburger, were part of a commission that 
said we should get our troops out by March of 2008. The British, in 
Basra, did essentially what I am suggesting. They redeployed their 
troops out of the cities, did not engage in the civil war, and began to 
draw them down. Are they abandoning?
  Instead of escalating this war, we have to start to bring our troops 
home, and we have to help Iraq make the transition to the decentralized 
federal system that is called for in their constitution. Making 
federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and 
allow our troops to leave without leaving chaos behind.
  This war must end, but it is still within our power to end it 
responsibly. That is a mission that can unite Americans and protect our 
interests, and that is a mission that is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to again invite Members to come 
to the floor. The order is H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development 
Act. We have had a chance now to act on a motion to proceed. We are on 
that right now. I know there are several Members who have said they 
want to come to the floor with statements and amendments. I join 
Senator Boxer, the chairman of our committee, in encouraging people to 
bring their amendments down and give us a chance to look at them.
  I have to say, I was a little disappointed that we did not have a 
unanimous vote on the motion to proceed. Let me again say this, and I 
say this to my conservative friends, the Water Resources Development 
Act that is under consideration now is very similar to the one we acted 
on a year ago. In fact, it started out to be the same thing. I wanted 
to use the same criteria on the current bill that we used last year. 
However, on environmental infrastructure projects, there are a lot of 
people who wanted some of those to be considered. Frankly, I would have 
preferred not to. But nonetheless, that is now part of the criteria. 
There is a limited number of those projects.
  We have criteria that go along the line of making sure there is local 
support. We do not have any waivers for local support of these efforts, 
so the participation has to be there from the local governments to 
demonstrate clearly these are important projects to be considered.
  Speaking as a conservative, let me emphasize there are certain things 
conservatives believe Government should be doing. The top two in my 
category are armed services--we have to defend America; that is our 
function; that is what we are supposed to be doing--and second is 
infrastructure. Way back in the Eisenhower administration, we started a 
system of national highways. It has been very successful. But we have a 
problem in the way we have been funding them with user fees, with a 
Federal gasoline excise tax. It has worked fairly well. However, we are 
to the point now where the last bill we passed 2 years ago, the 
Transportation reauthorization bill, was one where, even though it was 
a very large bill in terms of spending that amount of money, it did 
nothing more than maintain what we currently have. That is not 
adequate.
  You might say that has nothing to do with the Water Resources 
Development Act. It does. Right now, looking into the future, I see 
nothing but serious problems. We know 10 years from now the traffic on 
our highway system throughout America is going to double and probably 
triple in 20 years. If something is not done to increase the road 
capacity, it is going to be chaotic. The two things that have the most 
favorable effect on surface transportation are our rail and waterway 
system. That is what this is all about, our waterway system.
  We are going to be talking in a lot more detail about this, but I 
want to say, particularly to those out there who believe there may be 
projects they don't like: These projects meet a criteria. If we were 
not to pass the Water Resources Development Act, if we were to say we 
are not going to pass it--maybe people are fabricating some reason, 
they don't like one or two projects that are in there--No. 1, as it is 
now, those projects have met the criteria, and, No. 2, if we do not 
pass this bill, we will have no spending discipline on these projects. 
They will simply go and get appropriations, and they can be things that 
have nothing to do with meeting important criteria.
  Look at this as a criterion bill to reduce spending, runaway 
spending; to reduce money being spent on things that do not meet the 
criteria in terms of the Corps of Engineers' reports to make sure they 
meet environmental and other requirements.
  It may surprise a lot of people to know that in my State of Oklahoma, 
we actually have a navigational waterway. A lot of people are not aware 
of that. In fact, it was the best kept secret for many years. But we 
carry grain and oil products and petroleum products back and forth all 
the way from my city of Tulsa, OK, it is called the Port of Catoosa, 
down through the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers and distributed 
throughout the water system. It is something absolutely necessary. If 
we did not have that, if we were not able to pass legislation to expand 
that capacity, then that traffic is going to fall on our highways.
  I can assure you right now the same committee considering the water 
bill now is going to be considering the highway reauthorization, 
probably in a couple of years. It is going to make it that much more 
traumatic if we do not get this done.
  I will give an example. In the State of Oklahoma, 98 percent of the 
way we have a 12-foot channel. However, if it is only 2 percent that is 
a 9-foot channel, that restricts the entire channel. I think we all 
understand that.
  While that is not in this bill--I don't have anything self-serving 
about this comment because that has already been authorized, that has 
been authorized for years--it is that type of thing that, if we are to 
shut down for any reason or dramatically restrict our waterways, all 
that is going to fall on our highways. It is a serious problem.
  I reemphasize to those who are my conservative friends--we have 
rankings around here. One of the unique things about the Senate and 
House of Representatives is that if people want to know how their 
Members are voting, if you are concerned about overtaxation, you have a 
number of organizations--the National Taxpayers Union, the National Tax 
Limitation Committee, and others--that rank us as to how we vote on tax 
increases. If you are concerned about overregulation of small 
business--I spent 35 years in small business so I know a little bit 
about overregulation--if you are concerned about that, the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses ranks all Members, Democrats and 
Republicans, House and Senate, as to how they vote on regulatory issues 
that might inhibit the expansion of small businesses.
  The same thing is true with how people vote on defending America. The 
Center for Security Policy ranks all Democrats and Republicans, House 
and Senate, on how they vote on defense issues, which is a real 
critical thing that we are dealing with right now.
  The same is true in terms of people who are conservatives. The 
American Conservative Union ranks all Members of the House and Senate. 
I have to say to my conservative friends, I am, as of

[[Page S5899]]

2 weeks ago, again, considered and ranked as the No. 1 most 
conservative Member of the Senate. I am proud of that. So I don't want 
anyone to run around saying we are passing a bill that is somehow going 
out and doing projects that should not be done.

  Sure, there are some projects in here that I don't like as well as 
others. I might not have had the same criteria as someone on the other 
side of the aisle might. But I have to say this, with the chairman of 
our committee, Senator Boxer, she and I have worked for a long time on 
this. She, as I said before, is a proud liberal Democrat. I am a proud 
conservative Republican. We agree on these things. We know Government 
has the function of making sure we do certain things. Certainly, the 
greatest Nation in the world has to have an infrastructure system that 
will accommodate transportation.
  This is a very important part of that. When we deploy units for 
training out of Oklahoma, we send the heavy equipment via channels.
  I have not told this story in a long time, but since I see Senator 
Boxer, I will tell it. Many years ago when I was in the State Senate, 
it occurred to me that our navigation way that makes us navigable in 
the State of Oklahoma was something nobody knew about. They said: We 
know about the Intercoastal Waterway, we know about the Arkansas River, 
we know about the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but they 
didn't know anything about the State of Oklahoma and the fact you can 
get all the way up there with barge traffic into my hometown of Tulsa, 
OK.
  A guy came to me with an idea. This is years ago. He was from 
Kellyville, OK. His name was Kelly. That must tell you something. He 
was the head of the World War II submarine veterans.
  He came to me and said: If you want to get the message across that we 
are navigable in Oklahoma, I can raise money to get a World War II 
surplus submarine from Orange, TX. With volunteers we can, together, if 
you will do the legislation in the State of Oklahoma and come help us 
on this, we can bring that submarine all the way from Orange, TX, up 
their waterway, up the Mississippi, over the Arkansas, to the Port of 
Catoosa--actually, the Port of Muskogee is where it ended up--and we 
can let the whole world know we have this navigation way. We did.
  All my political adversaries were against it. They said, in the State 
Senate, we are going to sink Inhofe with the submarine. It didn't work. 
The submarine is there now. It is proudly displayed in Muskogee, OK, 
letting all the world know we are able to barge material in and out of 
the State of Oklahoma.
  I have to say it is the Nation's most inland port. I invite you to 
come out and take a trip, I say to my friend Senator Boxer.
  The bottom line is this. We have to get the heavy stuff moved around. 
If it is not going to be on rail, if it is not going to be on the 
channel system, the waterway system we are talking about today, then it 
will have to be on the other surface transportation or highway system 
that is going to be so congested.
  That is what this is all about. I renew our request for Members who 
have amendments they want to bring to the floor, bring them now. We 
have lots of time. We have all day to be looking at these. We want to 
consider them. We want to give them our best consideration.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say thank you to Senator Inhofe. People 
see us tangling on a host of issues. I think it gives them a good 
feeling to know there are times when we see eye to eye. I would say, 
when those times occur, it should mean we can get our legislation 
through pretty quickly because we have worked hard to accommodate the 
views of both sides of the aisle.
  I am pleased the Senate voted overwhelmingly to start the process of 
considering the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I hope, in 
short order, we will find out we can actually move to the bill. We are 
technically on a motion to proceed to the bill, which is slowing us up 
a bit, but we think there are other issues causing that. We hope they 
will be resolved.
  This important legislation authorizes projects and policies of the 
Civic Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers and, as I said, it 
has tremendous support both from my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, the 
entire Environment and Public Works Committee--which runs the gamut of 
philosophies and geographies and all the rest.
  Colleagues asked to see the substitute bill we worked so hard on, 
that has a very good score from the Congressional Budget Office--less 
than the House-passed bill; fiscally responsible. A good chunk of it is 
aimed at Hurricane Katrina--which both Senator Inhofe and I feel very 
good about. We believe certainly Louisiana is in desperate need of 
help, and we have answered their call in a very strong way. I would say 
about 25 percent of the bill is actually dedicated to making sure 
Louisiana is made whole and is protected in the future.
  We hope our colleagues from Louisiana will feel good about this. If 
there are other things they want to offer, we ask them to come down and 
show us what they are. Senator Inhofe, Senator Isakson, Senator Baucus, 
and I have an agreement that unless the four of us agree on these 
amendments, we are going to oppose them. That is hard for us to do. We 
don't like to give up our freedom. But on this we are going to do it. 
Why? This bill is 7 years overdue--7 long years. There is enough blame 
to go around as to why it happened. We don't need to get into it. It is 
not important. Right now we have an opportunity to make up for lost 
time and get to where we are back on a track that makes sense. This is 
a great economy in this country. We need an infrastructure that matches 
our ambitions and our future dreams for a thriving business community, 
a place where workers can get good jobs. So we need this bill.
  What we are saying to colleagues is, first of all, some of you want 
to see the bill. Of course. The bill is available to you.
  The bill is available in both cloakrooms. The bill will be printed in 
the Record tonight. You have all been part of it. I think you all will 
be pleased with it. There is a CBO score that has been placed in the 
Record for you to see. There is huge support out here in America for 
this bill. We have letters coming in from disparate groups in this 
country which include farmers, which include workers' unions, 
contractors, all kinds of businesses. This is a very powerful message 
to the Senate to move forward. The House has passed the bill. Let's get 
to conference. Let's get a bill to the President's desk.
  Again, I say thank you to Senator Inhofe. I will say this a lot. But 
it has been a pleasure to work with him and his staff. My staff feels 
the same way. We have made great progress. This bill is a project of 
commitment, of bipartisan and partnership.
  I mentioned Senators Baucus and Isakson. They have been very 
important in terms of working with us on this package. Many members of 
the committee went to Louisiana to see the problem there. Senators 
Landrieu and Vitter were determined to show us their needs, and they 
did. Again, a lot of the work in this bill is directed toward 
Louisiana.
  I do want to thank members of the staff. Sometimes chairmen wait 
until the bill is finished to do that. But I want to do it now: My 
staff director, Bettina Poirier, and my deputy staff director, Ken 
Kopocis; Jeff Rosato and Tyler Rushforth for all their work. On Senator 
Inhofe's staff, I wanted to thank Andrew Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie 
Giancarlo, and Letmon Lee. Additionally, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and 
Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus and Mike Quiello with Senator Isakson.
  We have had many late-hour, emergency, stressful phone calls getting 
to this stage. We hope those phone calls will not have been in vain and 
that we have come up with a product everyone will be proud of.
  In so many ways this is the start of a new day because I believe we 
are now on track to restore the regular process of meeting the Nation's 
water resources needs as they arise. But we will not get done with this 
bill if colleagues do not come to the floor and let us see their 
amendments.
  I echo what Senator Inhofe said. Let's not play hide and seek with

[[Page S5900]]

amendments. Let's get those amendments out. I have already been very 
open. I have told everybody there is an agreement with the big four on 
the committee; that we need to agree to them, to support them. It may 
well be there is an amendment on Senator Inhofe's side that he wouldn't 
vote for because one of us said it is not acceptable. The same thing 
could well happen on our side. That does not diminish anyone's right to 
offer these amendments. They have the right to do it. We support their 
right to do it because if they come soon, maybe we can work on these 
amendments together and get them included in the managers' package. So 
that would be the best of all worlds.
  I thank Senator Feingold because he and I had a chat. He is going to 
offer an amendment I do not agree with on prioritization of Corps 
projects. But he is going to come over here at noon. He is going to 
take his time then, and then he is not going to talk about this anymore 
until we have a vote. And he will do it in 2 minutes on Tuesday so that 
we can get the debate on these amendments over with now.
  So I ask other Senators with amendments, within the sound of our 
voices: Please come over with your amendments. We have all day, all day 
here with an open microphone for you. You can take as much time as you 
want. You can put your amendment out there. You can talk about it, and 
then Senator Inhofe and I can look it over, share it with Senators 
Isakson and Baucus.
  We want to accommodate everybody. We really do. If you meet the 
criteria we have set out--I think the criteria is well thought out. We 
want to make sure every project in this bill can be defended. That is 
important because we have precious few dollars to waste. So we want you 
to come over with your amendments. We are going to try to help 
everyone. We have already done so much to help you. We want to do more. 
We both agree, Senator Inhofe and I, that WRDA is an important bill, 
and it is overdue 7 years--too long to wait for a bill that authorizes 
essential flood control, navigation, ecosystem restoration; 7 years of 
projects being ready to go and unable to begin because, for whatever 
reason.
  Again, we did not--we could not get the political will, or we could 
not just push it over the finish line, as I like to say. So we had 7 
years of communities in your State and mine and Oklahoma and other 
places, people waiting to shore up their infrastructure needs, many of 
them vital to protecting homes and families from catastrophic flooding.
  Believe me, I can tell you, in my State flood control is one of the 
major priorities of Senator Feinstein and I, as well as Governor 
Schwarzenegger. It is quite bipartisan in the State legislature as 
well.
  So, yes, there are a lot of projects in the bill. It is the cost of 
waiting so long to act. So I think it is remarkable that given all the 
time that has gone on, we were able to put together a bill that is 
fiscally responsible. The bill before the Senate is less expensive than 
the bill passed by the House. The original bill had some ambiguous 
language that drove up the score. But I believe Senator Inhofe and I 
and others, we have corrected this problem. It was not easy. It took 
discipline, but we worked cooperatively in a bipartisan way.

  We have a bill that meets our communities' and our Nation's acute and 
unmet water infrastructure needs. It does it in a fiscally responsible 
way. Let me tell you what the bill does. Title I would authorize 47 
projects consistent with completed chief of engineers reports. Now, 
that is very important because these reports lay out what we have to 
do, what the cost will be.
  Those chief of engineers reports deal with flood control, navigation, 
and ecosystem restoration projects. These chief reports are the result 
of years of engineering science, economic analysis, environmental 
assessment, hours of Corps of Engineers work and expertise going into 
preparing these documents, concluding with the final review of the 
chief.
  Title I would also authorize new locks on the upper Mississippi 
River, Illinois waterway system, and the concurrent ecosystem 
restoration plan for those waters. This project is important to 
waterway goods movement, particularly grains from the heartland of 
America. That is why the farmers support this bill. We have an amazing 
coalition of people supporting this bill.
  If you cannot move goods, grain, from the heartland, we are in a lot 
of trouble. We will be in a lot of trouble if this bill does not get 
done. Senator Inhofe and I are committed to getting this done. We have 
our differences in this Chamber, and by the way, that is the way it 
should be. There are differences in this Chamber, but when it comes to 
this bill, it seems to me we have to set them aside. Those differences 
should be set aside.
  Title I also includes authorization for the Louisiana Coastal Area 
Ecosystem Restoration Program, to revert wetland loss and provide 
hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits.
  I will discuss this issue in depth at a later time. But we know the 
loss of wetlands is a major cause of flooding. Not even to get into the 
fact that our species need these wetlands, put that aside; the wetlands 
are flood control, natural flood control. We have lost so many wetlands 
that the Corps came to us and told us they believe it is a major cause 
of trouble now. We did not realize what we had until they were gone. So 
now we are restoring wetlands.
  Finally, title I includes small projects for flood damage reduction, 
navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, under the continuing 
authority programs of the Corps.
  Title II will make changes in Corps of Engineers authorities in how 
it carries out its programs. Title II contains the administrative 
provisions that are commonly referred to as Corps reform. These 
important provisions include updating the Corps' planning process, the 
water resources planning coordinating committee, independent peer 
review, and improvements to the Corps' mitigation program.
  Now, a lot of this language was new to the last bill. I thank my 
colleague, Senator Inhofe. When he was in charge of the committee, he 
took the lead on this section, and we kept that section intact. We made 
progress with Corps reform. These provisions will help ensure the Corps 
does its job more effectively and soundly, require in many cases an 
extra pair of eyes on its projects.
  Senator Inhofe worked with Senator Feingold and me and others. The 
language stands. We should be proud. Yes, there is Corps reform in this 
bill.
  Now, I wanted to make it clear that Senator Feingold wants to do 
more. One of his ideas is prioritization. Frankly, I think it is off 
the mark, and we are going to have a debate about it to see where the 
chips fall on that particular amendment. But I thank him for his 
cooperation. He is going to come down in a little while. He is going to 
take his time. He is going to debate this bill. Senator Inhofe and I, I 
am sure, will have a response, and then we will be able to have a very 
short continuation of the debate just a couple of minutes per side, 
hopefully, on Monday or Tuesday, and we will finish this bill.
  Title II also contains the authorization for the National Levee 
Safety Program, a new program that helps identify failing levees and 
provides Corps resources and expertise to help improve and repair those 
levees.
  Title III includes provisions that would affect existing, ongoing, or 
completed projects. These sections include making modifications to 
project cost ceilings, modifying project purposes, changing project 
boundaries, extending authorizations for annual programs, and 
correcting original deficiencies. Why is this important? Because so 
much time has passed that these projects need another look. Sometimes 
there is new technologies that can come in and meet the needs. 
Sometimes there is new cost estimates that need to be reflected. So 
Title III affects existing, ongoing, or completed projects.
  I have just about 3 more minutes or 4 more minutes, then I will have 
to yield to whoever would like to speak at that time.
  Title IV includes authorizations for new project studies. It also 
makes modifications to ongoing studies. Title V includes modifications 
to the Estuary Restoration Act, an existing restoration program of the 
Corps. It includes programmatic authorities for regional approaches to 
water resources problems.
  Title VI would deauthorize all or portions of 52 previously 
authorized Corps

[[Page S5901]]

projects. The deauthorization represents projects or portions of 
projects that are no longer supported by local interests. This does 
happen. Sometimes you have a plan, and after years and years people 
say: There is a better way to do it, or we don't need it. That is 
reflected here.
  So that is a brief overview of the bill. But it only begins to 
express the bill's importance to our communities, our families, our 
Nation, our farmers, our workers, our businesses. The bill is about 
authorizing projects our communities need to help protect thousands of 
homes and millions of lives from catastrophic floods. The bill is about 
authorizing projects our communities need to help restore the great 
wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation. These are places in 
which wildlife thrives and our families can enjoy for generations to 
come.
  Indeed, as hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and our outdoor 
industries boom, this bill is an important part of keeping America's 
recreation economy thriving.
  The bill makes other very important contributions to our Nation's 
economy. It authorizes projects our communities need to help increase 
our port and waterway capacity and makes shipping easier, safer, more 
efficient.
  It literally keeps America's economy moving. We are in a global 
economy. Ships come into port, and they go out of port. They move goods 
in, they move goods out. Workers are at the ports, businesses are at 
the ports.
  I will tell you, when we get to our next highway bill, we have to do 
a lot more for our ports in terms of cleaner air and goods movement. I 
look forward to working with Senator Inhofe perhaps as early as next 
year, and the other colleagues who chair and rank on that subcommittee, 
to begin looking at that next bill that is so important to our goods 
movement.
  But this is part of it. We need to pass this bill to keep America's 
economy moving because so much of our economy is dependent on our water 
resources. In just the next 2 minutes, I am going to give you a couple 
of examples of what I am talking about.
  America's ports and harbors are our gateway to the world. Our 
manufacturers' goods, automobiles, computer chips, agriculture goods 
such as grains, wines, and fruit pass through our ports and harbors 
around the world. Goods worth $5.5 billion pass through our ports every 
day and more than 2.5 billion tons of trade move through our ports and 
waterways. That volume is expected to double over the next 15 years. In 
the next 15 years, goods movement is going to double in our country. So 
we have to get down passing this bill, because thousands of jobs are on 
the line. Many businesses are expecting us to take action, and our 
farmers want action. Five million jobs are at America's ports. WRDA is 
essential.
  Outdoor recreation, I talked about that. The Corps of Engineers 
operates more than 2,500 recreation areas at 463 projects, and leases 
an additional 1,800 sites to States or locals. The Corps hosts 360 
million visits a year at its lakes, beaches, and other areas. It is 
estimated that 1 in 10 Americans visits Corps projects once a year, 25 
million people. We need to pass this bill. That generates 600,000 jobs 
to support visitors.
  Public health and safety, economic growth, environmental protection 
are the goals of this bill.
  This is the first bill--I think Senator Inhofe and I are very proud 
of this--that takes into effect ethics reform, even though the bill has 
not been signed into law. We have asked colleagues to submit letters 
answering the question: Do you have a conflict of interest in any of 
your projects? Those letters are open for the public to see. They are 
at the committee offices. We have printed in large print the results of 
those letters and each of the projects Members have asked for.
  We are proud of that.
  One of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is we ignore water 
infrastructure at our own peril. We are going to be moving new WRDA 
bills right after this one. We are going to be looking at our levees. 
We are not resting after this bill passes.
  I look forward to moving along on this bill. I know at this point we 
have a bit of a slowdown on the bill by my Republican colleagues. I 
understand their issues have nothing to do with the legislation. I 
respect that. It is a tool being used. But I urge both sides, let's put 
aside our differences on whatever they are. Whether it is judges, 
whether it is Iraq, God knows we have differences; they are tough. I 
respect those differences. Senator Inhofe does as well. But we need to 
move this legislation. This bill can't wait much longer.
  Again, we are going to work in a cooperative way. We urge Members 
from both sides to get their amendments to the floor. Even though we 
can't at this point put those amendments in the Record, we can debate 
them today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks made by the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer. I do agree. It is very 
unusual that we agree so much on one bill, and we do on this one. It is 
important that everyone understands, this bill is actually less than 
the House bill is. This bill is less than the bill when I was chairman 
of the committee a year ago. But the most important part is, it offers 
discipline. When you say you need a chief's report, you are saying a 
project has to be economically justified, environmentally sound, and 
technically feasible. Without this bill, there is no discipline. That 
is what I keep saying to my conservative friends.
  One of the Members who has been very helpful was the chairman of the 
subcommittee--and I was ranking member--out of which this bill emerged, 
the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. So we can lock in the next two 
speakers, if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Isakson be recognized for up to 8 minutes, followed by Senator 
Grassley from Iowa for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I also ask unanimous consent for Senator Feingold to be 
recognized at noon today for up to 1 hour. Then at 1 o'clock, we will 
have an opportunity to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I reiterate my commitment to the chairman 
and ranking member, and to Senator Baucus, that we will remain united 
to support this bill to the end. We will be united on amendments 
whether we are for them or against them. This is in the best interest 
of the United States.
  I thank Ruth Van Mark, Angie Ciancarlo, Letmon Lee, Jeff Rosato, Ken 
Kopocis, Tyler Rushforth and Jo-Ellen Darcy for their work on this 
bill. I particularly thank my staff member Mike Quiello.
  The bill before us is an investment in infrastructure. It is not a 
spending bill. It ensures safe drinking water, clean drinking water, 
storm water management, and navigable waterways will be a reality. They 
will be workable and they will be improved. To use my State as an 
example, I cite three things included in this bill that are important 
to the infrastructure of the Southeast.
  First, I wish to take a minute to talk about the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986. This committee has considered that legislation 
to authorize four projects on a biennial basis. Unfortunately, we have 
gone 7 years without a reauthorization. Now is without question the 
time to make that reauthorization. I am proud of the work the committee 
has done.
  Specifically, for the State of Georgia, there are a number of 
important provisions included in this legislation: a fund for the 
construction of conveyance systems to connect both existing and planned 
wastewater infrastructure and facilities for the Metro North Georgia 
Water Planning District. What is so important about this is, it 
represents what Congress and the Corps have said is the future of 
quality, good management water. That is a regional approach. Water does 
not recognize political jurisdictions. It does not recognize 
politicians. It flows downstream and downhill and intersects regions as 
it goes. It is important to fund projects such as this to deal with 
water on a regional and comprehensive basis.
  Also included in this legislation is the Big Creek watershed in North 
Fulton County. The Mayor of Roswell, the city of Roswell, the County of 
Fulton, have worked critically on this watershed management and have 
increased

[[Page S5902]]

the flow of water into the Chattahoochee and improved its quality and 
used new high technology for flood and water control management. It is 
essential we invest in that type of infrastructure in the future for 
good quality water, good quality runoff, and good quality storm 
management.
  I also wish to take a moment to talk about an historic event that 
took place in my State at 2 p.m. on 12 March 2007. Governor Sonny 
Purdue of Georgia and Governor Mark Sandord of South Carolina met on 
the banks of Jasper County in South Carolina and announced a bistate 
proposal to build a joint port operation in Jasper County. It is 
historic because for the better part of two decades, Georgia and South 
Carolina have fought over the use of that land. It has been used as an 
environmental dump, if you will. The two States operate the Port of 
Charleston, the Port of Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick. All are 
reaching capacity. The two States wanted to go together, build a port, 
and operate that port jointly to ensure the future of commerce to the 
Southeast and, in fact, the rest of the Nation, so much so that the two 
States are putting up the money to pay for the feasibility study. The 
WRDA bill only authorizes the study to be made. It does not cost the 
taxpayers of America a dime. The taxpayers of Georgia and South 
Carolina are paying for it.
  During the debate, there is going to be an amendment offered to 
clarify language in section 4028 of the bill which will more accurately 
reflect that agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this 
historic transcript as well as a copy of the transcript of Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works John Paul Woodley talking about 
this agreement and acknowledging it in the EPW Committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Term Sheet

       Whereas, Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue, as the chief 
     executive officers of their respective states, recognize that 
     the capacity at the existing ports in Charleston and Savannah 
     is finite and that their states' businesses and industries 
     have a need for increased access to marine terminal 
     facilities to import and export goods associated with their 
     activities for the benefit of each of the states, the United 
     States and for international commerce generally; and
       Whereas, Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue believe that 
     the most practical means of increasing each state's capacity 
     for marine-related transportation facilities is to: (a) build 
     a new maritime terminal on the Savannah River in Jasper 
     County, South Carolina, and (b) improve access to both the 
     new terminal in Jasper County and the existing and potential 
     new or expanded terminals in Garden City and Savannah, 
     Georgia; and
       Whereas, in order to expedite and facilitate the building 
     of the new terminal in Jasper County and to improve access to 
     this new terminal and the existing and potential new or 
     expanded terminals in Garden City and Savannah, Governor 
     Sanford and Governor Perdue are desirous of setting forth 
     herein their mutual intent to cooperate and coordinate in all 
     appropriate respects and to promote and advocate in good 
     faith the taking and occurrence of any and all actions 
     necessary to those ends, including, without limitation, those 
     set forth herein;
       Whereas, Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue recognize the 
     importance of the environmental resources in the Savannah 
     River and the surrounding areas, and the need for wise use 
     and long-term sustainability of these resources through 
     planning and cooperation on resource management in a regional 
     and cooperative manner, and are proposing the actions herein 
     in a manner that balances the need for economic development 
     and protection of sustainable natural resources to the 
     maximum extent feasible;
       Now, therefore, to promote and advocate the taking of 
     actions necessary to build a new maritime terminal on the 
     Savannah River in Jasper County and to improve access to both 
     this new terminal and the existing and potential new or 
     expanded terminals in Garden City and Savannah, and to 
     establish a framework from which their respective state 
     legislatures can draft and adopt a formal compact to 
     accomplish those objectives, Governor Sanford and Governor 
     Perdue set forth this Term Sheet.


                  THE JASPER COUNTY MARITIME TERMINAL

       1. Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue will use their best 
     efforts as the Governors of their respective states to 
     promote the development of a maritime terminal, by the two 
     states on an equal basis through an appropriate entity (the 
     Bi-State Port Authority) and pursuant to a compact (the Bi-
     State Compact) approved by the two states' legislatures and 
     ratified by the United States Congress (the Congress), on an 
     appropriate portion of the land (the Jasper Terminal Site) 
     situate in Jasper County, owned by the Georgia Department of 
     Transportation (the Georgia DOT) and currently subject to 
     litigation between the states.
       2. Independent of the pursuit of the Bi-State Compact to 
     develop a maritime terminal on the Jasper Terminal Site (see 
     paragraph 3 below), Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue 
     recognize that, as a threshold matter, in order for a 
     maritime terminal to be developed on the Jasper Terminal Site 
     by any entity, the easements (the Easements) used by the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) for 
     placement of dredged fill materials for the Savannah Harbor 
     Federal Navigation Project (the Savannah Harbor Project) on 
     the Jasper Terminal Site must be removed, released, or 
     modified. In this regard, Governor Sanford and Governor 
     Perdue further recognize that the Georgia DOT as the current 
     owner of the Jasper Terminal Site is the appropriate party to 
     initiate and pursue the release, removal or modification of 
     the Easements, and they will use their best efforts as the 
     Governors of their respective states to cooperatively pursue 
     the timely release, removal or modification of the Easements 
     by requesting:
       (a) that the Georgia DOT, as soon as possible after 
     execution of this Term Sheet, make a formal application to 
     the Corps for the release, removal or modification of the 
     Easements and that the State of South Carolina submit a 
     letter of support to the Corps;
       (b) that the Congress authorize the necessary studies to 
     permit such release, removal or modification (the Federal 
     Feasibility Study) and that each state take whatever action 
     may be required, including if necessary an appropriation by 
     its legislature during the 2007 legislative session, to 
     ensure that each state has the requisite funds dedicated as 
     soon as possible after execution of this Term Sheet for the 
     payment of one-half of the estimated cost of the Federal 
     Feasibility Study; and
       (c) that each state's legislature appropriate during the 
     2008 legislative session, if necessary, funds dedicated for 
     the payment of one-half of the state or local share of costs 
     associated acquiring replacement spoil disposal sites.
       Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue further acknowledge 
     that these efforts to release, remove or modify the Easements 
     must immediately proceed on a track independent of the Bi-
     State Compact process and declare that these efforts shall 
     represent the necessary tangible commitment by the two states 
     to act in good faith toward ensuring that a new maritime 
     terminal on the Savannah River in Jasper County becomes a 
     reality. Additionally, Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue 
     acknowledge that, in the event the Bi-State Compact process 
     fails and title to the Jasper Terminal Site remains reposed 
     with the Georgia DOT (and thus continues to remain the 
     subject of the condemnation litigation pending between the 
     SCSPA and the Georgia DOT), then it would be equitable for 
     the State of Georgia to recompense the State of South 
     Carolina for funds expended by it in connection with the 
     Federal Feasibility Study and acquiring replacement disposal 
     sites to compensate for the areas no longer encumbered by the 
     Easements, and therefore Governor Perdue will use his best 
     efforts as Governor of Georgia to have the Georgia 
     legislature make the appropriate equitable reimbursement 
     arrangements.
       3. Independent of their immediate effort to pursue the 
     release, removal or modification of the Easements from the 
     Jasper Terminal Site (see paragraph 2 above), Governor 
     Sanford and Governor Perdue will also use their best efforts 
     as the Governors of their respective states to promote the 
     passage of the Bi-State Compact in their respective state's 
     legislatures, on or before March 31, 2008, to:
       (a) create the Bi-State Port Authority to be owned on a 50-
     50 basis by the two states and governed by a board comprised 
     of directors appointed in equal numbers by the two states, 
     provided, however, that there are adequate provisions for the 
     resolution of deadlocks and specific assurances that the Bi-
     State Port Authority would be completely committed to the 
     timely development of a new maritime terminal on the Jasper 
     Terminal Site, with specific milestones to be achieved, so 
     that the Bi-State Port Authority would not be in any way 
     biased toward the protection of existing or future maritime 
     terminal facilities owned and/or operated by the South 
     Carolina State Ports Authority (the SCSPA) at the Port of 
     Charleston or the Georgia Ports Authority (the GPA) at the 
     Port of Savannah;
       (b) authorize the Georgia DOT's sale of the Jasper Terminal 
     Site to the Bi-State Port Authority for its fair market 
     value, with matters of record that prohibit the development 
     of a maritime terminal being removed prior to the sale, with 
     costs of such removal to be shared by the two states 50-50, 
     such sale to close immediately after the United States 
     Congress ratifies the Bi-State Compact;
       (c) appropriate funds (with each state bearing one-half of 
     the funding) for the Bi-State Port Authority land acquisition 
     and costs related to its accomplishment of its 
     responsibilities;
       (d) direct the SCSPA to dismiss its condemnation action 
     against the Georgia DOT and release the Georgia DOT from such 
     claims simultaneous with the Bi-State Port Authority's 
     acquisition of the Jasper Terminal Site; and
       (e) direct the Bi-State Authority to issue Requests for 
     Proposal for private companies to submit proposals to 
     participate in the development the first phase of the Jasper 
     Terminal Site using private capital.

[[Page S5903]]

                      THE SAVANNAH HARBOR PROJECT

       4. After the release, modification or removal of the 
     Easements from the Terminal Site, the Georgia DOT's sale of 
     its right, title and interest in and to the Jasper Terminal 
     Site to the Bi-State Port Authority, and the required 
     approval and ratification of the Bi-State Compact by the 
     state legislatures and the Congress, then Governor Perdue and 
     Governor Sanford agree to cooperate and to use their best 
     efforts to cause the respective Georgia and South Carolina 
     agencies and public interest parties to cooperate each with 
     the other and with other interested parties, including but 
     not three limited to the Corps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency, in the deepening of the 
     Savannah River navigation channel as conditionally authorized 
     in the federal 1999 Water Resources Development Act and set 
     forth as the Savannah Harbor Project further described at 
     www.sav-harbor.com. and in the permitting of the development 
     of the Jasper Terminal Site, with the understanding that any 
     local sponsor or other nonfederal costs associated with the 
     Federal Feasibility Study and the deepening of the Savannah 
     River navigation channel to at least 48 feet from the 
     Atlantic Ocean to and including the Jasper Terminal Site will 
     be divided equally between the states of Georgia and South 
     Carolina, or their respective agencies or departments, and 
     provided that neither the State of South Carolina nor any of 
     its agencies and departments shall bear any local sponsor or 
     other nonfederal costs of deepening the Savannah River 
     navigation channel beyond the westernmost terminus of the 
     Jasper Terminal Site.


                     THE SAVANNAH RIVER COMMITTEES

       5. By executive orders issued in June 2005, Governor 
     Sanford and Governor Perdue created committees to identify 
     and discuss issues of mutual interest related to the water 
     resources of the Savannah River Basin, and pursuant to those 
     orders the Governor's Water Law Review Committee, appointed 
     by Governor Sanford, and the Governor's Savannah River 
     Committee, appointed by Governor Perdue (collectively, the 
     Savannah River Committees), have corresponded and met to 
     discuss those issues, including, without limitation, the 
     following:
       (a) The potential that fresh groundwater supplies in the 
     Upper Floridan Aquifer are being contaminated by salt water 
     intrusion from the Port Royal Sound and other areas;
       (b) the impact of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 
     regulation for the Lower Savannah River recently issued by 
     the EPA;
       (c) the use of the Savannah River below the Thurmond Dam as 
     a receptacle for treated wastewater from municipalities and 
     industries; and
       (d) the need for a long-term strategy between the two 
     states to manage the use of the Savannah River.
       Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue declare that nothing 
     in this Term Sheet shall undermine the importance of the 
     issues being considered by the Savannah River Committees and 
     reaffirm that these committees have been and continue to be 
     charged with the responsibility of investigating those 
     issues, with due consideration as to how such may impact the 
     other objectives discussed in this Term Sheet, and with the 
     task of reporting their findings and recommendations to the 
     two governors in a timely manner.


                             MISCELLANEOUS

       6. Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue shall appoint a 
     six-member task force (the Task Force) chaired jointly by a 
     member from each state with each Governor having an equal 
     number of appointments and direct it to present to them, 
     within 180 days (the 180-Day Task Force Due Diligence Period) 
     of the date hereof, a proposed Bi-State Compact that 
     incorporates the material provisions of paragraph 3 above and 
     that, once it has been passed by the two state legislatures 
     and then ratified by the Congress, would create binding legal 
     obligations in furtherance of the objectives referenced 
     herein. Governor Perdue and Governor Sanford further agree to 
     direct the Task Force to establish a deliberative compact 
     development process in which the draft compact is made 
     available to state officers, stakeholders and the public for 
     comment and revision prior to introduction in the respective 
     legislatures during the 2008 sessions.
       7. Nothing in this Term Sheet shall delay or in any way 
     influence the legal options available to either state 
     relative to the prosecution or defense of litigation related 
     to any condemnation of the Jasper Terminal Site nor shall 
     this Term Sheet be admissible in such litigation; provided, 
     however, that Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue will ask 
     the SCSPA and the Georgia DOT to: a) take such actions as may 
     be reasonably necessary to have a final adjudication in the 
     pending condemnation action deferred by the South Carolina 
     state circuit court judge until after the expiration of 180-
     Day Task Force Due Diligence Period, with the understanding, 
     however, that the two litigants during such time would still 
     be able to engage in activities preparatory to such final 
     adjudication; and b) enter into a six-month tolling agreement 
     confirming that the right of either party to petition the 
     United States Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction of the 
     condemnation action shall not be negatively affected by this 
     request for a delay of final adjudication. In this latter 
     regard, it is recognized that, notwithstanding this Term 
     Sheet, the SCSPA expressly reserves any and all arguments and 
     positions that it would be improper for the litigation it has 
     with the Georgia DOT to be removed to the original 
     jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and the 
     Georgia DOT expressly reserves any and all arguments and 
     positions that such removal would be proper.
       8. Market studies conducted both by the SCSPA and the GPA 
     indicate that a window of opportunity now exists for maritime 
     terminals in the Southeast to increase their volume of 
     imports and exports, and Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue 
     will use their best efforts as the Governors of their 
     respective states to promote regional cooperation between the 
     State of South Carolina and the State of Georgia to take 
     advantage of this opportunity--not only in regard to the new 
     maritime terminal planned for the Jasper Terminal Site, but 
     also between the existing operations at the Port of 
     Charleston and the Port of Savannah--so that the two states 
     are able to take advantage of this opportunity, said 
     cooperation to include, without limitation, the development 
     of a coordinated and improved network of rail access to and 
     rail delivery and distribution from terminal operations in 
     Jasper County, the Port of Savannah and the Port of 
     Charleston.
       9. This Term Sheet is a statement of the mutual 
     understanding of the parties. Neither this Term Sheet nor any 
     provision hereof constitutes, or shall constitute, a legal 
     and binding obligation, contract or agreement between either 
     of the parties. Even though this Term Sheet is not binding in 
     any way, the parties agree that: a) if, within 180 days of 
     the creation of the Task Force referred to in paragraph 6 
     above, a proposed Bi-State Compact is not presented to 
     Governor Sanford and Governor Perdue by such Task Force, then 
     this Term Sheet shall terminate automatically; and b) if by 
     March 31, 2008, the legislatures of the two states have not 
     formally approved the Bi-State Compact, then this Term Sheet 
     and the Bi-State Compact, if any, shall terminate 
     automatically.
                                  ____


Statement of the Honorable Johnny Isakson, a United States Senator From 
                          the State of Georgia

       Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed 
     working with you on many projects in the past, and look 
     forward to working with you on this Committee. I pledge to 
     Chairman Boxer that I absolutely will do everything I can to 
     help expedite and facilitate the WRDA bill and I associate 
     myself with her remarks.
       I would like to welcome Senator Mack Mattingly from 
     Georgia, who is in the audience today, and Doug Marchand, who 
     will testify later, who since 1994 has overseen the expansion 
     of the Port of Savannah and the Port of Brunswick. I express 
     my appreciation to the Corps of Engineers for the investment 
     and the work they have done at both those facilities.
       I particularly welcome General Strock, and tell you how 
     much I appreciate all you have done and how much you will be 
     missed. You have done an outstanding job.
       Mr. Chairman, on Monday of this week at 2:00 p.m., the 
     Governors of South Carolina and Georgia met on the banks of 
     the Savannah River and held an historic press conference 
     which announced a bi-State compact to propose the building of 
     a new port in Jasper County, South Carolina to be jointly 
     operated by the State of Georgia and the State of South 
     Carolina.
       Historically, the two States have been at odds over Jasper 
     County on many issues, and they joined hands today and even 
     offered to pay the financial cost of the feasibility studies 
     necessary to move forward on that event. I would like to 
     submit that entire agreement between Georgia and South 
     Carolina for the record.
       Senator Baucus. Without objection.
       Senator Isakson. Speaking of cooperation, Mr. Chairman, I 
     am pleased to tell you that the Governors of Alabama and 
     Georgia, you would think we were having a new civil war with 
     all my testimony here, but the Governors of Alabama and 
     Georgia have also worked together in the last eight months to 
     bring about a tri-State water compact in the Chattahoochee 
     Basin. We have been in court for the better part of 17 years 
     without a tri-State water agreement. It has hurt the States 
     of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The Corps was to begin early 
     this year, has not yet, but I am going to encourage them to 
     hurry up and facilitate the completion of the water control 
     plan, which is the essential framework to formalize the tri-
     State water compact and make that in fact happen.
       I also am looking forward to the testimony of the members 
     of the Corps with regard to the fiscal year 2008 budget 
     request, as to its sufficiency. In my personal judgment, it 
     is probably insufficient to meet the challenges that we need. 
     I hope they will make suggestions as to what we can do in the 
     Senate and the Congress to improve that.
       I again want to end where I began, with my sincere 
     appreciation to the Corps of Engineers for the investment of 
     capital and time in the State of Georgia and our resources. 
     Our ports of Brunswick and Savannah are two of the great 
     facilities on the East Coast of the United States. The 
     proposal to build a third port jointly by Georgia and South 
     Carolina is because those two ports have finite capabilities: 
     Brunswick, Savannah and the Port of Charleston. The States 
     have realized the importance of meeting the needs of the 
     people of the United States of America and our commerce in 
     the 21st century, and

[[Page S5904]]

     believe that facility to be an essential part of it.
       I thank the Ports Authority representatives for attending 
     today. I thank the Corps for their investment in Georgia. I 
     look forward to hearing from the Corps with regard to the 
     water control plan on the Chattahoochee River.
       Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  Mr. ISAKSON. In conclusion, this water resources bill represents a 
long overdue step forward in the investment to protect our water 
resources, enhance our environmental restoration, and spur economic 
development. It is an investment in the future of our drinking water, 
an investment in the future of our navigable waterways, and an 
investment in the future of our commerce. For Congress to fail today or 
the Senate to fail today to act on this bill responsibly and move 
forward will be doing a disservice to commerce, to our citizens, and we 
will, in fact, be abandoning our responsibility to meet the needs of 
the people of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is a pleasure to see this bill out here again as it 
was last year, passing the Senate, I think unanimously. I had thoughts 
that maybe we would never see this bill again in this new Congress, 
such a needed bill as it is. We have not passed a water resource 
development bill since 2000. Usually Congress, before that period of 
time, had been reauthorizing every 2 years or authorizing for the first 
time on a regular basis.
  This bill is important to the entire country, but we each represent 
our respective States. So I see the necessity of this bill from how it 
enhances the economy of the upper Midwest, Iowa being in the upper 
Midwest, benefiting very much from it, not only because of where we are 
geographically located, but we are such a breadbasket for the world as 
well. For Iowa, the Enhanced Navigation Capacity Improvement and 
Ecosystem Restoration plan for the upper Mississippi and the Illinois 
water systems being included in this Water Resources Development Act is 
vital to the economy and to the ecology of the upper Midwest and 
particularly to the Mississippi River, with its triple purpose of 
environment, recreation, and commerce.
  Of course, Iowa has the Mississippi River as our eastern boundary. 
Iowa and the Nation rely on the river to move many of our goods, both 
domestically and internationally, moving goods into our State that are 
needed for production as well as moving finished product and raw 
product out of Iowa, not only agricultural products, which maybe you 
think about most often, but other products beyond agriculture.
  For the United States as a whole, our inland waterway system plays a 
major role in our Nation's economy. More than a billion tons of 
commerce is moved domestically through our inland waterways with a 
value of $300 billion. Of the $300 billion, the upper Mississippi and 
the Illinois River system contribute significantly. The value of that 
part of our inland waterway system is $12 billion per year. 
Approximately 60 percent of that $12 billion a year is involved with 
bulk agricultural exports moving from the farms to the river, down the 
river, both upper Mississippi and Illinois River, out into 
international commerce. Navigation on these rivers supports over 
400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs.
  The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production 
worldwide. My State of Iowa is the leading corn-producing State of the 
Nation. But the United States as a whole has a comparative advantage to 
the rest of the world. The per-ton cost for transporting corn in the 
United States is lower than in lots of other countries. That gives us a 
tremendous advantage beyond our productive capability. Our Nation must 
not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to deteriorate. 
I believe one of the most important reasons for this legislation, at 
least as it relates to the Mississippi and Illinois, is there has been 
deterioration of the system on the one hand and, on the other hand, it 
has not been expanded in the most efficient way handle the enhanced 
commerce, the enhanced tonnage that goes up and down the river today 
compared to decades ago when this system was first set up. Because of 
that, we have to be concerned not only with this deterioration and 
maintenance but with the expansion of it because our international 
competitors are making major investments in their transportation 
systems.

  I had the good fortune, a year ago about now, to travel to Brazil 
with a codel I headed, to look at the transportation of agricultural 
products from the inland of Brazil to the ocean into world commerce. As 
far as some of their infrastructure is concerned, it is very inferior 
to ours because when traveling in rural Brazil, last year, we ran over 
more potholes--and I suppose in that area, like in rural Iowa, you 
would call them mud holes--than you can count.
  But Brazil has made significant investments in river infrastructure 
as compared to their surface transportation. They are realizing they 
have to get the stuff to the river if they are going to get it into 
world commerce, so they are spending a lot in resources now on surface 
transportation to move it from the farm to the ocean. When that 
happens, I am telling you, we are really going to be at an economic 
disadvantage with Brazil because of what they are doing on the Amazon, 
because Brazil already has made significant investments in its river 
infrastructure.
  In the Chamber, I have a map of Brazil, and it happens that where the 
two arrows are depicted on the map is where we stopped--at those 
locations on the Amazon River. At the eastern location, you can see 
there is a city called Santarem. It is 400 miles in from the Atlantic 
Ocean, which is about the same distance from New Orleans to Memphis. 
They have a brandnew facility there for loading oceangoing ships--not 
using barges, the way we do, and then taking them out to the ocean and 
loading from the barges onto oceangoing ships. They have oceangoing 
ships going all the way up the Amazon River to that point--400 miles. 
They get the efficiency of loading right onto the oceangoing ships, to 
give them an advantage. It is a very modern loading facility.
  Now, there are also new facilities for barges farther up the river--
another 200 miles up the river--where they can load onto barges and 
move their production into the world commerce. Barges traveling that 
far into the mainland are going to help Brazil become very competitive 
with our own farmers.
  Then again, let me repeat, once they figure out how to get their 
railroad--they do not have much of a railroad system for commerce to 
move bulk--when they get railroads in place, when they get their 
highways in place, they are going to be a real challenge to us.
  Let me say, I ought to give them more credit than I have. From the 
standpoint of what they can produce, at least with soybeans, they are 
outproducing the United States, as of a couple years ago, when, for the 
first time, we were no longer the world's leading producer of soybeans. 
So they have that capacity to produce. Where we are more competitive at 
this point is getting our stuff to market. But you can see they are 
concentrating on that. That is why we need to concentrate on this 
legislation to get our dam-and-lock situation on the upper Mississippi 
and the Illinois River in a position so we can do that.
  Now, South America has more virgin land that has not been under 
production, and they are converting 17 million acres of virgin land 
into agricultural production. The long-term results of these efforts on 
producers in the United States, if we do not keep our transportation 
system on the Mississippi River and Illinois River up to date and 
expanded, would be to reduce farm income by $562 million a year, 
increase the foreign trade imbalance by $245 million, and to have a 
loss of sensitive global environmental habitat.
  Therefore, we must invest in major improvements to all of our 
transportation infrastructure. Currently, every mode of transportation 
is near or at maximum capacity. If we do not make these investments in 
our roads, in our rail, in our water, U.S. agriculture, U.S. industry, 
and the working men and women are going to pay the price.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2005, U.S. 
exports of goods and services totaled $1.2 trillion, compared to $1.1 
trillion in 2004 and

[[Page S5905]]

just a little over $1 trillion in 2003. Also, our Nation relies on many 
imported goods that come to the United States. Many of these goods 
travel by our inland waterways. It is also forecast that both our 
exports and imports will continue to grow in the coming years. We must 
be able, then, to efficiently and economically move these goods.
  Nearly two-thirds of all grain and soybean exports are moved through 
the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. According to one study, unless the 
Army Corps of Engineers modernizes the lock-and-dam system on the upper 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting corn would 
rise 17 cents per bushel. As a result, corn and soybean exports would 
decline by 68 million and 10 million bushels per year respectively. The 
decline in corn and soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 
million. Loss from lower prices and decreased interstate corn demand 
would equal $316 million. So these figures highlight how important 
barge transportation is to farmers and to the overall U.S. economy.
  In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river 
transportation. According to the EPA, towboats emit 35 to 60 percent 
fewer pollutants than locomotives or trucks. Barges operate at 10 
percent of the cost of trucks and 40 percent the cost of trains, while 
releasing 20 times less nitrous oxide, 9 times less carbon monoxide, 7 
times less hydrocarbons, and burning 10 times less fuel. And you can 
see this comparison right here, shown on this chart--with barges on the 
left, hopper cars or trains in the middle, and then trucks and semis on 
the right--you can see the massive number of semis it takes to do what 
one 15-barge tow would do. This chart shows 15 railcars or 58 
semitrucks being needed to replace each barge loaded, diverted off the 
upper Mississippi river system. A 15-barge tow equates to 870 
semitrucks. EPA also estimates that the Nation currently saves $100 
million to $300 million in air pollution abatements by moving bulk 
commodities by barge on the upper Mississippi river system.
  In these times of high fuel prices, and with the need to conserve 
energy, 1 gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry 1 ton of freight 2\1/2\ 
times farther than rail and 9 times farther than trucks.
  The Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates shifting from 
barge to rail results in fuel usage, emissions, and probable accident 
increases of 331 percent, 470 percent, and 290 percent respectively--
for fuel usage, emissions, and probable accidents. Shifting traffic 
from barges to trucks increases fuel use by 826 percent, emissions by 
709 percent, and probable accidents by almost 6,000 percent. 
Furthermore, shifting the 245 million tons from our rivers would add an 
additional 9.4 million trucks each year. That would add more than 169 
million tires in our landfills.

  For these reasons, I have been working with several of my Senate 
colleagues for so many years now on getting the initial authorization 
for lock-and-dam modernization and enhanced environmental restoration 
on these rivers signed into law. So I am very pleased this committee 
included these important initiatives in the Water Resources Development 
Act and that a bipartisan group of Senators is advocating for this very 
important modernization.
  The lock system on the upper Mississippi River was built in the late 
1930s. Many of the lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot 
accommodate 1,100-foot barge tows. These structures require modern tow 
configuration to ``double lock'' in order to make the pass-through. 
This adds up to mounting delay times, increased costs to shippers, 
increased harm to our environment by higher emissions and higher 
sediment suspension in the river channels, loss of jobs, and lower 
wages.
  By the year 2020, if we do not make the much needed improvements in 
these locks, $562 million will be lost in farm income per year. This 
amount does not even take into account the huge cost of increased 
delays and congestion on our rail system and our road system. Also, 
keep in mind that $1 invested in this navigation project yields $6 in 
national benefit. That is a pretty good return on the investment of 
taxpayers' money.
  We realize the authorization for the lock-and-dam improvements is 
just a first step in a lengthy process of improving the lock-and-dam 
system on the upper Mississippi, but it is an important and necessary 
project for our Nation. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
balanced legislation for the good of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley so much for his 
endorsement of this important bill.
  It was interesting, I say to the Senator, that just as you came to 
the floor, I was handed the letter from the Corn Growers saying how 
much they support our legislation. And we add to that the letters from 
the American Public Works Association, the Associated General 
Contractors of America, the National Waterways Conference, the American 
Farm Bureau Federation. We have the Carpenters Union. We have many 
unions.
  This is one of those bills that have broad support. But I am just 
very glad the Senator came down to express his support.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me verify, not only from the 
National Corn Growers Association, as you read from their letter, but I 
can tell you, from the town meetings I had during the Easter break and 
also during the February break, from the grassroots of my State, 
farmers, including members of the Corn Growers Association, came to my 
meetings and on an individual basis backed up what their national 
organization stands for. So I think it is very much a national 
consensus of an organization, but it is also an understanding with the 
family farmers as to the importance of this legislation.
  I thank the Senator for inserting those letters in the Record.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     National Corn


                                          Growers Association,

                                                      May 8, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: The National Corn Growers 
     Association (NCGA) appreciates your time, effort and 
     steadfast commitment to bring the Water Resources Development 
     Act (WRDA) to the Senate floor for consideration. 
     Additionally, we applaud the Senate Environment and Public 
     Works Committee and associated staff for their determination 
     to see this long over-due legislation completed.
       Corn growers have been long-time advocates for improvements 
     to our inland waterway system. We have sought partners with 
     industry, labor organizations, and environmental advocates 
     building a broad coalition of support for WRDA. Our country's 
     inland navigation system plays a critical role in our 
     nation's economy, moving more than a billion tons of domestic 
     commerce valued at more than $300 billion. More than 1 
     billion bushels of grain (about 60 percent of all grain 
     exports) move to export markets via the inland waterways each 
     year, accounting for $8.5 billion in exports.
       Furthermore, inland waterways relieve congestion on our 
     already over-crowded highways and railways that run through 
     cities. One jumbo barge has the same capacity as 58 trucks or 
     15 rail cars. For a typical 15-barge tow on our nation's 
     rivers, that is equal to 870 trucks in just one barge 
     movement. One gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry one ton 
     of freight 2.5 times farther than rail and nine times farther 
     than truck.
       The Mississippi River and its tributaries serve as one of 
     our nation's major transportation corridors. Yet, the 
     infrastructure on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers was 
     built in the 1930's when the total corn crop for the country 
     was two billion bushels. In 2006, corn production eclipsed 10 
     billion bushels for the fourth consecutive year.
       For continued success, U.S. farmers need efficient 
     transportation networks. Investment in the Upper Mississippi 
     and Illinois Rivers has not kept pace with demands. The 
     antiquated system is slowly being starved resulting in 
     operational failures that hinder barge movement and 
     dramatically impact corn prices. Problems along the 
     Mississippi and Illinois Rivers will continue to persist year 
     after year if long-term investments are not made to improve 
     our transportation infrastructure.

[[Page S5906]]

       Specifically, WRDA would authorize a fifteen year project 
     that includes the construction of seven new locks on the 
     Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers as well as immediate 
     implementation of small-scale measures. This legislation 
     would authorize a fifteen year project that includes the 
     construction of seven new locks on the Upper Mississippi and 
     Illinois Rivers as well as immediate implementation of small-
     scale measures and the creation of a major ecosystem 
     restoration program. As with our highways and interchanges, 
     the purpose of modernization on the Upper Mississippi and 
     Illinois Rivers is to make the entire system more efficient.
       The continued development of our water resources in an 
     environmentally sound manner will contribute mightily to our 
     nation's well-being. The Congress needs to act now to address 
     issues such as environmental restoration, navigation, flood 
     control, hurricane protection, water supply, irrigation, 
     beach nourishment and recreation.
       Corn growers appreciate your support and stand ready to 
     work with you in passing this important piece of legislation 
     to the nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ken McCauley,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   American Public


                                            Works Association,

                                                     May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: The American Public Works 
     Association applauds your leadership in moving the Senate 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2007 through committee and 
     readying it for floor action! This bill will authorize vital 
     inland and coastal public works projects needed for 
     transportation, flood control, shore protection and 
     environmental restoration. Passage of WRDA is long overdue 
     and the time for action is now.
       Our water resource systems are integral to our nation's 
     well-being. With adequate dredging, our ports and waterways 
     are the backbone of our transportation system--ensuring 
     domestic and international trade opportunities and low-cost, 
     environmentally sensitive goods movements. Our flood damage 
     reduction program saves lives and prevents almost $8 in 
     damages for each dollar spent. Corps hydropower facilities 
     provide electricity to 24% of citizens. Shore protection 
     projects provide safety from hurricanes and other storm 
     events for transportation, petroleum and agriculture 
     infrastructure around our coastal waterways and deltas. They 
     also provide recreational benefits, returning $4 in benefits 
     for each dollar invested. Projects for water supply, 
     irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat provide 
     innumerable benefits.
       APWA's members are uniquely positioned to collaborate with 
     municipal and county agencies, engineers and local community 
     leaders on these issues. APWA's 29,000 members design, build, 
     operate and maintain transportation, water supply, sewage and 
     refuse disposal systems, public buildings and other 
     structures and facilities essential to our nation's economy 
     and way of life. Public works professionals serve a diverse 
     range of local communities, municipalities, counties, 
     townships, villages and districts, whether large or small, 
     urban or rural. As stewards of public infrastructure, APWA 
     members are dedicated to managing and operating public works 
     departments that provide safe and reliable service to their 
     communities.
       We thank you for your efforts to ensure that our water 
     resources infrastructure, from our coastlines to our inland 
     rivers and Great Lakes, will continue to be viable. We look 
     forward to celebrating with you the enactment of a sound 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2007 that furthers the 
     goals of providing the nation with an economically and 
     environmentally sustainable future.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter B. King,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                            The Associated General


                                       Contractors of America,

                                       Arlington, VA, May 9, 2007.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Associated General 
     Contractors of America (AGC), I urge you to vote in favor of 
     S. 1248, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA).
       The enactment of a strong WRDA is of critical importance to 
     the nation's environmental and economic well being. For every 
     $1 billion expended on water resources development 
     activities, approximately 40,000 direct and indirect jobs are 
     created. In addition, an estimated $706 billion in damages 
     have been prevented through flood damage reduction projects--
     most within the past 25 years--representing a six-to-one 
     return on investment.
       Over the past five years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
     has voluntarily implemented new policies designed to improve 
     analysis, accountability, regulatory compliance and 
     environmental protection for the nation's Civil Works 
     program.
       The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 will finally 
     set the Nation back on the track of reaping substantial 
     returns on investment. Congress must commit to infrastructure 
     investment now to leave behind a legacy of economic security 
     and opportunity for future generations. WRDA is a key vote 
     for AGC members and we urge you to vote YES for final passage 
     of S. 1248.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                        Senior Executive Director,
     Government and Public Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                National Waterways


                                             Conference, Inc.,

                                      Arlington, VA, May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: It is vitally important that 
     America's water resources infrastructure be reliable and 
     productive. Therefore we applaud your efforts to end the 
     stalemate over water resources project authorization by 
     bringing H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2007 (WRDA) to the Senate floor. We firmly believe that it is 
     time to end the impasse over passage of WRDA.
       A Water Resources Development Act is vitally needed to 
     accommodate the many important projects awaiting 
     authorization, including the modernization of the locks on 
     the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Projects with a 
     Chief of Engineers' report have undergone years of study and 
     analysis to determine if they are in the best interest of the 
     Federal government. In addition, stakeholders have already 
     indicated their willingness to cost-share the price-tags. 
     Water resources projects are the very foundation upon which 
     citizens can be productive in their daily lives. As outlined 
     in the letter sent by the National Waterways Alliance on May 
     3, it is equally important that policy provisions enhance the 
     process by which the Corps of Engineers formulates project 
     solutions. Finally addressing the ``Corps reform'' issue in a 
     balanced way can lead to stability for the Corps of Engineers 
     and reassure the nation that the Corps is a world-class 
     engineering organization for the future.
       Our water resources system contributes mightily to 
     America's well-being. With adequate dredging, our ports and 
     waterways are the backbone of our transportation system--
     ensuring domestic and international trade opportunities and a 
     safe, cheap and eco-friendly transportation alternative for 
     products such as steel, coal, fertilizer, energy products and 
     byproducts, salt, sand and gravel, cement, petroleum, 
     chemicals, etc. In addition, the U.S. maritime transportation 
     system moves more than 60 percent of the Nation's grain 
     exports. Our flood damage reduction program saves lives and 
     prevents, on average, almost $8 in damages for each dollar 
     spent. Corps hydropower facilities supply 24% of the 
     hydropower generated in the United States. Projects for water 
     supply, irrigation, recreation, beach nourishment and 
     wildlife habitat provide innumerable benefits. These water-
     related assets have the potential to help grow our economy, 
     help ease our Nation's growing congestion problem and provide 
     a finer quality of life.
       As you know, the National Waterways Conference is the 
     Nation's ``umbrella'' water resources policy organization. 
     Its members include those who ship goods domestically and 
     around the world, the carriers of those goods, waterway 
     service firms such as engineering companies, fleeting 
     services and dredging concerns, public entities such as 
     coastal and inland ports, levee districts, water supply 
     districts and state governmental units, and associations, 
     both regional and national in scope--representing a wide 
     variety of interests. The members of the National Waterways 
     Conference, Inc., look forward to working with you to ensure 
     that our water resources infrastructure remains a monument to 
     the greatness of the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Worth Hager,
     President.
                                  ____

                                              American Farm Bureau


                                                   Federation,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The American Farm Bureau Federation 
     urges you to support S. 1248, the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2007 (WRDA), when it is considered on the floor. The 
     bill authorizes important, long overdue flood control, dam 
     safety, storm damage reduction and environmental restoration 
     projects across the country. It includes critical provisions 
     to update and modernize the locks and dams on the Upper 
     Mississippi and Illinois rivers.
       Modernizing the locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi and 
     Illinois Rivers is essential for U.S. commerce and the 
     agricultural sector. One medium-size tow on the river can 
     carry the same weight as 870 trucks. However, the structures 
     now in use were built many decades ago and were not designed 
     to accommodate today's longer barge tows that are absolutely 
     necessary in order to compete in a global market. While these 
     outdated locks and dams make our transportation system less 
     efficient, our competitors in countries such as Argentina and 
     Brazil are aggressively modernizing their own infrastructure.
       Farm Bureau urges you to support S. 1248 and oppose any 
     amendment that would hinder progress on infrastructure 
     improvements.
       Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.


[[Page S5907]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allocate time, 
and that would be for Senator Martinez to immediately follow my remarks 
and to have the floor for up to 10 minutes; then Senator Salazar for 10 
minutes; Senator Alexander for 10 minutes; and at the end of their 
time, the time be reserved for Senator Feingold for 1 hour, followed by 
myself at the end of that hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I express my thanks to Chairman Boxer 
and Ranking Member Inhofe for bringing this important bill to the 
floor, which sets a high priority for my State, and for giving it such 
strong support. I also note how important it is that we have a strong 
bipartisan effort. At a time when our country could rightly wonder if 
the Congress can get anything done or if, in fact, it is possible for 
bipartisan cooperation to exist, here is a good example of where 
Republicans and Democrats are working together for something that is 
very important for our country and significantly important for the 
State of Florida. This bill is something Senator Nelson and I have 
worked on side by side trying to bring to fruition. It is long overdue. 
It is time.
  My State of Florida is home to beautiful beaches, coastal estuaries, 
and 14 deepwater ports. No piece of legislation moving through Congress 
will have as much lasting improvement on Florida's fragile ecosystem as 
this bill. After a long delay, it is my hope my colleagues will support 
this bill and begin the Federal partnership for restoring the 
Everglades.
  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 Army Corps of Engineers and even the elected 
congressional and State leadership of Florida were 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 what was then thought to be ``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 people, it could 
employ people, it was good for development, it was good for Florida.
  There is also a popular story of a man who moved to south Florida to 
make his fortune farming the rich soils around Lake Okeechobee. He was 
quoted as saying:

       I have bought land by the acre, I have bought land by the 
     foot, but I have never before bought land by the bucket.

  There was still a large amount of what we called ``Old Florida'' back 
then with numerous hardwood hummocks and cypress domes that were prone 
to flooding.
  The idea that places should be protected for their environmental 
value, their intrinsic beauty, as a water resource, and for public 
enjoyment was an alien concept. Fortunately for our Nation and more 
importantly for Florida, the idea of conservation and restoration has 
an entirely different and more sophisticated meaning today than in the 
past.
  In the year 2000, Congress authorized the landmark Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan, otherwise known as CERP, to repair and 
restore the natural sheet flow of water across the park and 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 is currently 
released into the Atlantic Ocean and into the Gulf of Mexico. This 
water will be stored in aboveground and underground reservoirs. When 
needed, it will be directed to wetlands, lakes, rivers, and estuaries 
in south Florida, providing abundant, clean, fresh water while also 
ensuring future urban and agricultural water supplies.
  Even though we get more rain than nearly anywhere else in the 
country, Florida is currently experiencing a severe drought. Evidence 
of that drought is the wildfires we are experiencing today as we speak, 
out-of-control wildfires because of drought, but also because what 
normally would be wetlands and marshes have been drained over years of 
development--careless development. So it is vital that we capture this 
fresh water so it can be used to meet our growing conservation and 
water use needs.
  Restoring the Everglades, this incredible undertaking, is the largest 
environmental restoration project in the world. I am proud to say the 
State of Florida has made historic and prolific financial commitments 
of over $3 billion to honor their commitment to the Everglades. The 
State of Florida has done its part. When I meet with our former 
Governor, when he was Governor, or our current Governor, or members of 
our legislature, I am reminded by them: Where is the Federal 
partnership? We have done our part. The Federal Government, on the 
other hand, has contributed around $3 million of their commitment. WRDA 
will help to address this inequity by authorizing major CERP projects 
such as the Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand, which is such 
an important restoration effort, so they can begin to take shape.
  The Indian River Lagoon South Restoration Project in WRDA is critical 
to the success of the CERP and returning the St. 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. According to the South Florida Water Management District, 
it has the greatest species diversity of any estuary in North America.

  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 
acres, including 53,000 acres of restored wetlands. All of these areas 
provide additional water storage and management capabilities for 
approximately 44 billion gallons of runoff water storage. Also included 
is the removal of more than 7 million cubic yards of muck sediments 
from the St. Lucie River, with a corresponding restoration of 2,650 
acres of habitat, 922 acres of sea grass, and 889 acres of oyster 
habitat. All of these project features will cooperatively achieve a 
targeted reduction of 41 percent of the phosphorus and 26 percent of 
the overall nitrogen loadings in the estuary from these basins in the 
long term, restoring the system to a more balanced and natural state.
  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. It 
was called Golden Gate Estates. In the early 1960s, the Gulf American 
Corporation dredged 48 miles of canals, built 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 or regulating the 
development of wetlands. WRDA will help the State of Florida in 
restoring this degraded area back to the cypress wetland it was before 
by removing the harmful drainage canals that have made this area prone 
to wildfires and invasive species such as Old World climbing fern, 
maleluca, and Brazilian pepper. In addition, the project will restore 
and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife resources, including 
threatened or endangered species such as the Florida panther, the 
Florida black bear, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork, as well as 
rare habitat such as tropical hummocks and plant species, including 
orchids and bromeliads.
  The habitat and water recharge benefits will provide a boon for the 
Big Cypress National Preserve. Also, it will provide a boon to the 
10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Florida Panther 
Wildlife Refuge.
  This bill also contains an important study approved by the EPW 
Committee to direct the Army Corps of Engineers to examine the 
structural integrity of the Hoover Dike. This is a critically important 
step in trying to ensure the structural integrity of this dike. The 
dike around Lake Okeechobee was constructed in response to the 1928 
hurricane which struck and caused Lake Okeechobee to overflow, killing 
over 2,500 people in the Belle Glade area. A study was performed in 
2006 by the

[[Page S5908]]

Florida Water Management District, and this study found the dike's 
protective capability had been severely eroded in several areas. This 
study will direct the Corps to examine the findings and make 
recommendations for the State of Florida.
  The WRDA bill also means greater jobs and improved transportation for 
coastal communities and ports in Florida. It authorizes additional 
passing lanes, increased safety at Florida's largest port, the Port of 
Tampa, which is where half of the State's seaborne tonnage moves 
through. In addition, WRDA provides navigation improvements for the 
Miami Harbor, which is widely regarded as one of the world's major 
cruise and shipping destinations. It will also help with beach 
renourishment, which will also help restore some of the critically 
eroded beach areas from the devastating storms of 2004 and 2005.
  In conclusion, I thank Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, 
and Senator Isakson for including these vital restoration and economic 
development projects in WRDA. This legislation is long overdue. I urge 
my colleagues to support it. I hope for the swift conclusion of this 
legislation so the people of Florida can begin to see the benefits that 
are going to come to our State as a result of this farsighted 
legislation that will have impacts on our State long after most of us 
have parted from these halls of Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


      Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007

  Mr. SALAZAR. I come to the floor today with my distinguished 
colleague and friend, the Senator from Tennessee, to talk about a new 
way forward in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that legislation which we 
have put together working with the Iraq Study Group entitled, The Iraq 
Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. __

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Iraq Study Group 
     Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On March 15, 2006, the Iraq Study Group was created at 
     the request of a bipartisan group of members of Congress.
       (2) The United States Institute of Peace was designated as 
     the facilitating organization for the Iraq Study Group with 
     the support of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, 
     the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the 
     James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice 
     University.
       (3) The Iraq Study Group was composed of a bipartisan group 
     of senior individuals who have had distinguished careers in 
     public service. The Group was co-chaired by former Secretary 
     of State James A. Baker, III and former chairman of the House 
     Foreign Affairs Committee Lee H. Hamilton, and the other 
     members were former Secretary of State Lawrence S. 
     Eagleburger; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr, the Senior Managing 
     Director of Lazard, Freres and Company; former Attorney 
     General Edwin Meese III; former Supreme Court Associate 
     Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; former White House Chief of 
     Staff Leon E. Panetta; former Secretary of Defense William J. 
     Perry; United States Senator Charles S. Robb; and United 
     States Senator Alan K. Simpson.
       (4) On June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into 
     law the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 
     2006 (Public Law 109-234), which provided $1,000,000 to the 
     United States Institute of Peace for activities in support of 
     the Iraq Study Group.
       (5) The Iraq Study Group consulted nearly 200 leading 
     officials and experts, including the senior members of the 
     Government of Iraq, the United States Government, and key 
     coalition partners and received advice from more than 50 
     distinguished scholars and experts from a variety of fields 
     who conducted working groups in the areas of economy and 
     reconstruction, military and security, political development, 
     and the strategic environment in Iraq and the Middle East.
       (6) While the Iraq Study Group recommended shifting the 
     primary mission of United States military forces in Iraq from 
     combat to training, and while the Iraq Study Group described 
     actions and conditions that could allow for a redeployment of 
     troops not necessary for force protection out of Iraq by the 
     first quarter of 2008, the Iraq Study Group did not set a 
     fixed timetable for withdrawal and said it could support a 
     short-term redeployment of United States combat forces, 
     complemented by comprehensive political, economic, and 
     diplomatic efforts, to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the 
     mission of training and equipping Iraqis if the United States 
     commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be 
     effective.
       (7) The report of the Iraq Study Group includes a letter 
     from the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group, James A. Baker, 
     III and Lee H. Hamilton, which states, ``Our political 
     leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a 
     responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly 
     war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over 
     rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and 
     sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. 
     Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American 
     people in order to win their support.''
       (8) The Republicans and Democrats who comprised the Iraq 
     Study Group reached compromise and consensus and unanimously 
     concluded that their recommendations offer a new way forward 
     for the United States in Iraq and the region, and are 
     comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated 
     fashion.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF IRAQ STUDY 
                   GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President and Congress 
     should agree that the way forward in Iraq is to implement the 
     comprehensive set of recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, 
     particularly those specifically described in this Act, and 
     the President should formulate a comprehensive plan to do so.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS IN IRAQ.

       It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the 
     recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, the United States 
     Government should--
       (1) establish a ``New Diplomatic Offensive'' to deal with 
     the problems of Iraq and of the region;
       (2) support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq;
       (3) encourage other countries in the region to stop the 
     destabilizing interventions and actions of Iraq's neighbors;
       (4) secure the borders of Iraq, including through the use 
     of joint patrols with neighboring countries;
       (5) prevent the expansion of the instability and conflict 
     beyond the borders of Iraq;
       (6) promote economic assistance, commerce, trade, political 
     support, and, if possible, military assistance for the 
     Government of Iraq from non-neighboring Muslim nations;
       (7) energize the governments of other countries to support 
     national political reconciliation in Iraq;
       (8) encourage the governments of other countries to 
     validate the legitimate sovereignty of Iraq by resuming 
     diplomatic relations, where appropriate, and reestablishing 
     embassies in Baghdad;
       (9) assist the Government of Iraq in establishing active 
     working embassies in key capitals in the region;
       (10) help the Government of Iraq reach a mutually 
     acceptable agreement on the future of Kirkuk;
       (11) assist the Government of Iraq in achieving certain 
     security, political, and economic milestones, including 
     better performance on issues such as national reconciliation, 
     equitable distribution of oil revenues, and the dismantling 
     of militias;
       (12) encourage the holding of a meeting or conference in 
     Baghdad, supported by the United States and the Government of 
     Iraq, of the Organization of the Islamic Conference or the 
     Arab League, both to assist the Government of Iraq in 
     promoting national reconciliation in Iraq and to reestablish 
     their diplomatic presence in Iraq;
       (13) seek the creation of the Iraq International Support 
     Group to assist Iraq in ways the Government of Iraq would 
     desire, attempting to strengthen Iraq's sovereignty;
       (14) engage directly with the Governments of Iran and Syria 
     in order to obtain their commitment to constructive policies 
     toward Iraq and other regional issues;
       (15) provide additional political, economic, and military 
     support for Afghanistan including resources that might become 
     available as United States combat forces are redeployed from 
     Iraq;
       (16) remain in contact with the Iraqi leadership, conveying 
     the clear message that there must be action by the Government 
     of Iraq to make substantial progress toward the achievement 
     of the milestones described in section 11, and conveying in 
     as much detail as possible the substance of these exchanges 
     in order to keep the American people, the Iraqi people, and 
     the people of countries in the region well informed of 
     progress in these areas;
       (17) make clear the willingness of the United States 
     Government to continue training, assistance, and support for 
     Iraq's security forces, and to continue political, military, 
     and economic support for the Government of Iraq until Iraq 
     becomes more capable of governing, defending, and sustaining 
     itself;
       (18) make clear that, should the Government of Iraq not 
     make substantial progress toward the achievement of the 
     milestones described in section 11, the United States shall 
     reduce its political, military, or economic support for the 
     Government of Iraq;

[[Page S5909]]

       (19) make clear that the United States Government does not 
     seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq;
       (20) restate that the United States Government does not 
     seek to control the oil resources of Iraq;
       (21) make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, 
     with the exception of al Qaeda;
       (22) encourage dialogue between sectarian communities and 
     press religious leaders inside and outside of Iraq to speak 
     out on behalf of peace and reconciliation;
       (23) support the presence of neutral international experts 
     as advisors to the Government of Iraq on the processes of 
     disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of militias 
     and other armed groups not under the control of the 
     Government of Iraq; and
       (24) ensure that reconstruction efforts in Iraq consist of 
     great involvement by and with international partners that 
     actively participate in the design and construction of 
     projects.

     SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON SECURITY AND MILITARY FORCES.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement with the Government of Iraq a plan, consistent 
     with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) gives the highest priority to the training, equipping, 
     advising, and support for security and military forces in 
     Iraq and to supporting counterterrorism operations in Iraq; 
     and
       (2) supports the providing of more and better equipment for 
     the Iraqi Army by encouraging the Government of Iraq to 
     accelerate its requests under the Foreign Military Sales 
     program and, as United States combat brigades redeploy from 
     Iraq, provides for the transfer of certain United States 
     military equipment to Iraqi forces.

     SEC. 6. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON STRENGTHENING THE UNITED 
                   STATES MILITARY.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement a plan, consistent with the recommendations of 
     the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) directs the Secretary of Defense to build healthy 
     relations between the civilian and military sectors, by 
     creating an environment where senior military leaders feel 
     free to offer independent advice to the civilian leadership 
     of the United States Government;
       (2) emphasizes training and education programs for the 
     forces that have returned to the United States in order to 
     restore the United States Armed Forces to a high level of 
     readiness for global contingencies;
       (3) provides sufficient funds to restore military equipment 
     to full functionality over the next 5 years; and
       (4) assesses the full future budgetary impact of the war in 
     Iraq and its potential impact on--
       (A) the future readiness of United States military forces;
       (B) the ability of the United States Armed Forces to 
     recruit and retain high-quality personnel;
       (C) needed investments in military procurement and in 
     research and development; and
       (D) the budgets of other Federal agencies involved in the 
     stability and reconstruction effort in Iraq.

     SEC. 7. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON POLICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN 
                   IRAQ.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement with the Government of Iraq a plan, consistent 
     with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) transfers the Iraqi National Police to the Ministry of 
     Defense, where the police commando units will become part of 
     the new Iraqi Army;
       (2) transfers the Iraqi Border Police to the Ministry of 
     Defense, which would have total responsibility for border 
     control and external security;
       (3) establishes greater responsibility for the Iraqi Police 
     Service to conduct criminal investigations and expands its 
     cooperation with other elements in the judicial system in 
     Iraq in order to better control crime and protect Iraqi 
     civilians;
       (4) establishes a process of organizational transformation, 
     including efforts to expand the capability and reach of the 
     current major crime unit, to exert more authority over local 
     police forces, and to give sole authority to the Ministry of 
     the Interior to pay police salaries and disburse financial 
     support to local police;
       (5) proceeds with efforts to identify, register, and 
     control the Facilities Protection Service;
       (6) directs the Department of Defense to continue its 
     mission to train Iraqi National Police and the Iraqi Border 
     Police, which shall be placed within the Iraqi Ministry of 
     Defense;
       (7) directs the Department of Justice to proceed with the 
     mission of training the police forces remaining under the 
     Ministry of the Interior;
       (8) provides for funds from the Government of Iraq to 
     expand and upgrade communications equipment and motor 
     vehicles for the Iraqi Police Service;
       (9) directs the Attorney General to lead the work of 
     organizational transformation in the Ministry of the Interior 
     and creates a strategic plan and standard administrative 
     procedures, codes of conduct, and operational measures for 
     Iraqis; and
       (10) directs the Attorney General to establish courts, 
     train judges, prosecutors, and investigators, and create 
     strongly supported and funded institutions and practices in 
     Iraq to fight corruption.

     SEC. 8. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON OIL SECTOR IN IRAQ.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement with the Government of Iraq a plan, consistent 
     with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) provides technical assistance in drafting legislation 
     to implement the February 27, 2007, agreement by Iraq's 
     Council of Ministers on principles for the equitable sharing 
     of oil resources and revenues;
       (2) encourages the Government of Iraq to accelerate 
     contracting for the comprehensive oil well work-overs in the 
     southern fields needed to increase oil production, while 
     ensuring that the United States no longer funds such 
     infrastructure projects;
       (3) supports the Iraqi military and private security forces 
     in their efforts to protect oil infrastructure and 
     contractors;
       (4) implements metering at both ends of the oil supply line 
     to immediately improve accountability in the oil sector;
       (5) in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, 
     encourages the Government of Iraq to reduce subsidies in the 
     energy sector;
       (6) encourages investment in Iraq's oil sector by the 
     international community and by international energy 
     companies;
       (7) assists Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil 
     industry as a commercial enterprise, in order to enhance 
     efficiency, transparency, and accountability;
       (8) encourages the Government of Iraq to post all oil 
     contracts, volumes, and prices on the Internet so that Iraqis 
     and outside observers can track exports and export revenues;
       (9) supports the efforts of the World Bank to ensure that 
     best practices are used in contracting; and
       (10) provides technical assistance to the Ministry of Oil 
     for enhancing maintenance, improving the payments process, 
     managing cash flows, improving contracting and auditing, and 
     updating professional training programs for management and 
     technical personnel.

     SEC. 9. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON IMPROVING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 
                   IN IRAQ.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement a plan, consistent with the recommendations of 
     the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) provides for the United States to take the lead in 
     funding assistance requests from the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies;
       (2) creates a new Senior Advisor for Economic 
     Reconstruction in Iraq reporting to the President, with the 
     authority to bring interagency unity of effort to the policy, 
     budget, and implementation of economic reconstruction 
     programs in Iraq and the authority to serve as the principal 
     point of contact with United States partners in the overall 
     reconstruction effort;
       (3) gives the chief of mission in Iraq the authority to 
     spend significant funds through a program structured along 
     the lines of the Commander's Emergency Response Program, with 
     the authority to rescind funding from programs and projects--
       (A) in which the Government of Iraq is not demonstrating 
     effective partnership; or
       (B) that do not demonstrate substantial progress toward 
     achievement of the milestones described in section 11;
       (4) authorizes and implements a more flexible security 
     assistance program for Iraq, breaking down the barriers to 
     effective interagency cooperation; and
       (5) grants authority to merge United States assistance with 
     assistance from international donors and Iraqi participants 
     for the purpose of carrying out joint assistance projects.

     SEC. 10. STATEMENT OF POLICY ON BUDGET PREPARATION, 
                   PRESENTATION, AND REVIEW.

       It shall be the policy of the United States to formulate 
     and implement a plan, consistent with the recommendations of 
     the Iraq Study Group, that--
       (1) directs the President to include the costs for the war 
     in Iraq in the annual budget request;
       (2) directs the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence to provide 
     United States military and civilian personnel in Iraq the 
     highest possible priority in obtaining professional language 
     proficiency and cultural training;
       (3) directs the United States Government to provide for 
     long-term training for Federal agencies that participate in 
     complex stability operations like those in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan;
       (4) creates training for United States Government personnel 
     to carry out civilian tasks associated with complex stability 
     operations; and
       (5) directs the Director of National Intelligence and the 
     Secretary of Defense to devote greater analytic resources to 
     understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq and 
     institute immediate changes in the collection of data and 
     violence and the sources of violence to provide a more 
     accurate picture of events on the ground in Iraq.

     SEC. 11. CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED UNITED STATES SUPPORT IN 
                   IRAQ.

       (a) In General.--It shall be the policy of the United 
     States to condition continued

[[Page S5910]]

     United States political, military and economic support for 
     Iraq upon the demonstration by the Government of Iraq of 
     sufficient political will and the making of substantial 
     progress toward achieving the milestones described in 
     subsection (b), and to base the decision to transfer command 
     and control over Iraqi security forces units from the United 
     States to Iraq in part upon such factors.
       (b) Milestones.--The milestones referred to in subsection 
     (a) are the following:
       (1) Promptly establishing a fair process for considering 
     amendments to the constitution of Iraq that promote lasting 
     national reconciliation in Iraq.
       (2) Enacting legislation or establishing other mechanisms 
     to revise the de-Baathification laws in Iraq to encourage the 
     employment in the Government of Iraq of qualified 
     professionals, irrespective of ethnic or political 
     affiliation, including ex-Baathists who were not leading 
     figures of the Saddam Hussein regime.
       (3) Enacting legislation or establishing other binding 
     mechanisms to ensure the sharing of all Iraqi oil revenues 
     among all segments of Iraqi society in an equitable manner.
       (4) Holding free and fair provincial elections in Iraq at 
     the earliest date practicable.
       (5) Enacting legislation or establishing other mechanisms 
     to ensure the rights of women and the rights of all minority 
     communities in Iraq are protected.

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES 
                   FORCES FROM IRAQ.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) with the implementation of the policies specified in 
     sections 5 through 11 and the engagement in the increased 
     diplomatic efforts specified in section 4, and as additional 
     Iraqi brigades are being deployed, and subject to unexpected 
     developments in the security situation on the ground, all 
     United States combat brigades not necessary for force 
     protection could be redeployed from Iraq by the first quarter 
     of 2008, except for those that are essential for--
       (A) protecting United States and coalition personnel and 
     infrastructure;
       (B) training, equipping, and advising Iraqi forces;
       (C) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations;
       (D) search and rescue; and
       (E) rapid reaction and special operations; and
       (2) the redeployment should be implemented as part of a 
     comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy 
     that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and 
     the international community for the purpose of working 
     collectively to bring stability to Iraq.

     SEC. 13. REPORT ON POLICY IMPLEMENTATION.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the actions that have been 
     taken to implement the policies specified in sections 4 
     through 11.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, back in December when the Iraq Study 
Group first came out with its recommendations, the recommendations were 
heralded by many people around the country as a new way forward--a new 
way forward for us to deal with this very difficult and impractical 
problem in which we find ourselves in Iraq. Those recommendations--some 
of which have been implemented and some of which have not--I believe 
still create the centerpiece for how we can find a bipartisan way 
forward for how we deal with the Iraq issue.
  I have walked around with the report of the Iraq Study Group for the 
last 4 months. I am very much appreciative of the fact that the people 
who put together the report were some of the best statesmen and women 
we have in the United States of America: James A. Baker, Lee Hamilton, 
Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, 
Leon Panetta, William Perry, Charles Robb, and Alan Simpson. Those are 
some of the best and brightest people we have in America and who are 
working on one of the most difficult issues that confronts our country 
today. So it is in the vein of their work that I come to the floor 
today with my colleague from Tennessee to suggest that their 
recommendations create the opportunity for us to provide the basis for 
some agreement among Democrats and Republicans on how we might move 
forward in dealing with the very difficult national security issue we 
face in Iraq.
  As we debate this issue here in Washington, with veto pens and 
dueling press conferences, I come back to the reality of our brave 
American men and women and the dangers they face every day in the 
streets of Baghdad and al Anbar Province and in countless other places 
in that Nation which today we find in turmoil. It is for them, for our 
men and women in uniform, we must find common ground. It is for them we 
must bridge our differences here on the Senate floor to create a path 
to success in Iraq. It is for them we must develop a policy that is 
worthy of their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their families.
  I come to the floor today with my colleague from Tennessee to offer 
my view on how we can reach our common goal and how we can work to heal 
the deep divisions this war has caused here at home.
  Not since the Vietnam war has the American public been so divided. I 
am concerned that the bitterness and the harshness of this debate is a 
debate that clouds good judgment on one of the most fundamental issues 
we deal with in the Congress: the issue of war and peace. It is 
important for us to remember that no matter how contentious this debate 
may become, every Senator shares the same goal, and that goal is peace 
and stability in the Middle East and a safe return home of our troops. 
While we may disagree on the best path to that end, we must continue to 
work together for a constructive change in our policy.
  It is important to remember what binds us together as a nation is 
something we must honor so we will not be torn so far apart that we 
cannot bring our Nation back together. The Iraq Study Group report, I 
believe, embodies the best wisdom we have seen as to how we ought to 
move forward with the issue of Iraq. I believe the work of the Iraq 
Study Group is a model for how we can come together in good faith. The 
group, as I have said before, is comprised of some of the finest and 
best public servants we have in America. They worked together for 
months and they did it in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way. They are 
from both parties. That group and their work consulted over 250 
officials and experts, including senior leaders of the Government of 
Iraq, the United States Government, and key coalition partners. They 
received advice from more than 50 distinguished scholars and experts in 
a variety of fields.
  I am honored, therefore, to join Senator Lamar Alexander in appealing 
to our colleagues in the Senate to take a fresh look at the group's 
report and to consider how we can use it as our guide to create a 
successful policy for the war in Iraq.
  The group proposed a new diplomatic offensive--a new diplomatic 
offensive--to deal with the problems of Iraq and the region.
  I am pleased that recently the administration has moved forward in 
embracing some of the recommendations set forth in that ``new 
diplomatic offensive.''
  The report provided a roadmap for transitioning our troops from a 
combat role to the training, equipping, advising and support of the 
Iraqi military.
  The Iraq Study Group recommended how we can strengthen and restore 
our own military, which has been put under such strain by the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  In addition, the report details new policies for the Iraqi police and 
criminal justice system, the Iraqi oil sector, and for improving 
economic and security assistance programs in Iraq.
  Finally, the Iraq Study Group recommended specific milestones for the 
Government of Iraq to meet. They include establishing a fair process 
for amending the constitution, revising de-Baathification laws, 
ensuring the equitable sharing of Iraqi oil revenues, holding free and 
fair provincial elections at the earliest possible date, and enacting 
legislation to ensure the rights of women and the rights of all 
minority communities in Iraq.
  The Iraq Study Group concluded that with the implementation of these 
policies, all United States combat forces could be out of Iraq by the 
first quarter of 2008, except those necessary for protecting personnel 
and infrastructure, for training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi 
forces, for conducting targeted counterterrorism activities, and for 
engaging in rapid reaction and special operations.
  Senator Alexander and I intend to propose legislation that will 
effectively embody this comprehensive set of recommendations.
  Our bill would state the sense of the Congress that the Iraq Study 
Group's recommendations should be implemented and that the President 
should formulate a comprehensive plan to do so. It would require the 
establishment of policies and plans that implement

[[Page S5911]]

the core recommendations of the group. And it states that the United 
States should condition political, military, and economic support on 
the Iraqi Government making substantial progress in meeting those 
milestones detailed in the report.
  The Iraq Study Group did not set a deadline for the redeployment of 
our troops, and neither would our bill. But the group did, and our bill 
would, state the policies and actions that can and should lead to the 
successful and rapid conclusion to this war.
  I believe we all share that goal. I believe the distinguished members 
of the Iraq Study Group have given us the means to achieve it.
  I don't believe the report of the Iraq Study Group should simply 
become another study on the shelf that gathers dust.
  I will conclude with two remarks. First, here in Washington, DC, it 
seems there is a lot of poison in the air, and most issues are decided 
on a partisan basis. It is my view, as a Senator from Colorado, that 
the issues of war and peace, when we have our men and women in uniform 
in harm's way, should not be decided on the basis of Republicans versus 
Democrats. No matter what has happened in Iraq up to this time, and no 
matter what kind of finger-pointing will take place in terms of the 
wisdom or lack of wisdom on how the war has been prosecuted, the fact 
is, we are there now. Also, we have 140,000 men and women in harm's 
way.
  For us in the Senate, I believe it is our responsibility to come 
together, as Democrats and Republicans, to fashion a new way forward to 
success. I believe this new way forward to success has been laid out by 
the Iraq Study Group, which didn't just look at this for an hour or a 
day or two but spent a year, under the authorization of the Congress, 
and they came up with what they thought was the best way for the United 
States to move forward in Iraq.
  I am hopeful both Democrats and Republicans will join Senator Lamar 
Alexander and myself as we move forward with the introduction of this 
legislation, which we hope to do after the Memorial Day recess.
  Finally, I think the working relationship Senator Alexander and I 
have on so many issues, including land and water conservation and other 
areas, is the kind of bipartisan spirit we can bring to so many issues 
that face us today. But of all the issues, the one that cries out the 
most for unity today is the 800-pound gorilla issue of the war in Iraq.
  I am very pleased and honored that Senator Alexander has joined us in 
this effort today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Colorado for 
his leadership, initiative, and patriotism, and the way he is 
approaching the foremost issue facing our country: Where do we go from 
here in Iraq?
  There is too much partisan game playing on the issue of Iraq. We owe 
it to our country and our troops to find a bipartisan consensus to 
support where we go from here. We need a political solution in 
Washington, DC, as much as we need one in Baghdad. We need to get out 
of the combat business in Iraq and into the support, training, and 
equipment business as soon as we honorably can.
  That is why Senator Salazar and I have drafted legislation to 
implement the recommendations of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq 
Study Group.
  As the Senator said, we will introduce our legislation after Congress 
and the President have worked out the Iraq supplemental appropriations 
bill. We invite our colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--to join 
us. We believe the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group offer the 
best opportunity for a bipartisan consensus on a new course in Iraq.
  In fact, these recommendations seem to already be guiding the 
President's efforts and the efforts of those on the other side who were 
calling for change.
  For example, the administration has begun to act on these 
recommendations by increasing the number of troops embedded with Iraqi 
forces, using milestones to help chart progress, and by meeting with 
Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. The President's national 
security adviser has pointed to the Baker-Hamilton report as authority 
for the surge of troops in Baghdad.
  Just last week, the President himself told the Associated General 
Contractors of America at their convention that he liked what Baker and 
Hamilton had to say. ``It is something we should seriously consider. 
Their idea was that, at some point in time, it makes sense to have a 
U.S. presence configured this way,'' the President said. ``It is an 
interesting idea.''
  At the same time, Democratic proposals in Congress have also been 
guided by the ISG report, for example, working on milestones for 
improvement in Iraq, limiting the role of the United States to one of 
training, equipping, and counterterrorism operations, and stating as a 
goal a drawdown of combat forces by March of next year.
  In short, the seeds of bipartisan consensus about how the United 
States should go forward in Iraq are best found in the Iraq Study Group 
report.
  Former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee 
Hamilton prefaced their report by saying this:

       Success depends on the unity of the American people in a 
     time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy 
     the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet, U.S. 
     foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of 
     action in Iraq--if not supported by a broad, sustained 
     consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country 
     toward such a consensus.

  Yesterday and today, I talked with Secretary Baker and Congressman 
Hamilton. Each said the Salazar-Alexander legislation accurately 
reflects the recommendations of their report.
  I have learned that sometimes a Senator has to say something two or 
three or more times on the Senate floor before anybody pays much 
attention.
  For example, on March 14, I said that it was time for the President 
to take the Iraq Study Group report down off the shelf and use it for 
something other than a bookend.
  I ask unanimous consent to have my statement of that date printed in 
the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Today, I am making that same suggestion again, and I 
am going one step further. The Senator from Colorado and I are offering 
to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and to our country--a way 
to go forward on a bipartisan basis.
  I was surprised and disappointed that the President didn't take 
advantage of this opportunity during his State of the Union Address in 
January. He knew then that a majority of Americans didn't support his 
strategy. Fewer do today. He knew then his strategy cannot be long 
sustained without that support. That is still true today.

  The President could have invited the distinguished members of the 
Iraq Study Group to sit in the gallery during his speech and, as 
Presidents often do, introduced them, 10 of America's most 
distinguished citizens from the Reagan, Carter, and George H.W. Bush 
administrations, and the U.S. Supreme Court. One of these is now the 
Secretary of Defense. They are ideologically and politically diverse. 
They spent nine months, met nine times, went to Baghdad, interviewed 
171 individuals, and made 79 recommendations. They are all in this 
book. They didn't shy away from the unpleasant facts.
  They told us 79 percent of Iraqis have a mostly negative view of U.S. 
involvement in their country. Then they said 2,900 American lives were 
lost, and another 21,000 wounded; $400 billion was spent, with 
estimates as high as $2 trillion for the final cost. They said this is 
not a perfect option, but it is the best option.
  The President could have said in January: This isn't my 
recommendation, it is theirs, and I accept it for the good of our 
country, and I ask the American people to accept it.
  That is not Presidential weakness, that is Presidential leadership. 
The President's job is not only to see urgent issues and lay out a 
strategy. It is the rest of his job--at least for a sustained military 
strategy--to persuade half of the people he is right. It is not too 
late.
  The President has the option before him today, and we are trying to 
make it easier for him. What we are respectfully saying in our 
legislation is, if the President should choose to develop a

[[Page S5912]]

way forward based upon the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, we will 
support that plan and we will encourage our colleagues and our country 
to do so on a bipartisan basis, so that Iraq, the Middle East, our 
troops, and the world will know that in the United States we are 
unified in our purpose.
  Such a plan will not satisfy everybody. It will not pull out our 
troops tomorrow. It will not get us out of the combat business 
immediately. It won't add 100,000 or 200,000, or 300,000 troops for 
``victory'' in Iraq. It will get us out of the combat business in Iraq 
and into the support, training, and equipping business, in a prompt and 
honorable way. It will reduce the number of forces in Iraq. Because 
there will still be a significant but limited military presence in 
Iraq, it will signal to the rest of the Middle East to stay out of 
Iraq. It will give support to General Petraeus and his troops, who are 
in the midst of a surge. It will expand diplomatic efforts to build 
support for Iraq national reconciliation and sovereignty. It will 
recognize, as Prime Minister Blair said, it is time for the next 
chapter of Iraq's history to be written largely by the Iraqis 
themselves.
  As a Republican Senator, my message with respect to the President is 
that I hope he and the White House seriously consider this.
  We are not introducing this bill today. It will be introduced in 2 or 
3 weeks. Then, we hope other Senators will support it. I hope the 
President will embrace it. There is plenty within this report that 
gives him the opportunity to continue our mission in Iraq. The 
difference is that this is not the President's report, and that is its 
advantage. It has a better chance of success, in terms of developing 
bipartisan support here and in our country.
  Finally, there are some issues that are simply too big for one party 
to solve. Iraq is, as the Senator from Colorado has said, the foremost 
among these.
  Here we are, the oldest democracy, lecturing Baghdad, an infant 
democracy, for not coming up with a political solution, when we 
ourselves cannot come up with one.
  Until we do come up with one, we should spend less time lecturing 
Baghdad and more time working together to fashion a way forward on the 
foremost issue facing our country. Coming together in support of the 
plan based upon the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group offers that 
best opportunity. We invite our colleagues to join us.

                               Exhibit 1

  President Bush Should Take the Iraq Study Group Report Down Off the 
                                 Shelf

       My purpose today is to say that it is time for President 
     Bush to take the Iraq Study Group report down off the shelf 
     and use it for something other than a bookend.
       There is a reason why we don't have 535 commanders-in-chief 
     or 100 commanding generals each saying charge down this 
     street or over that hill.
       The founders of our country made the President Commander-
     in-Chief and gave to Congress the power to declare war and to 
     pay for it.
       That is why I will vote against any of the resolutions that 
     seek to micromanage this war. Once a war is authorized, as 
     this one was by a bi-partisan vote of 77-23 in 2002, it is 
     the president's job to manage the war.
       As an example of why we don't need 535 Members of Congress 
     micromanaging this war, consider this: since last January, 
     the new Democratic majority has offered 17 different bills 
     and resolutions outlining what to do in Iraq. Undoubtedly 
     there will be more in the coming weeks.
       And I am not about to cut off funds for General Petraeus' 
     troops in the middle of the current military exercise, which 
     congress clearly does have the power to do but should not do.
       I do have the responsibility as a United States Senator, to 
     say what I believe is the right way forward for our country 
     in Iraq, and my belief is this: the President would be wise 
     to take down off the shelf the recommendations of the 
     bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, to develop a 
     strategy based upon those recommendations, and to ask 
     Americans to accept that strategy as the way forward in Iraq.
       The President would have been wise to do this in January 
     during his State of the Union address. The country was then 
     looking for a new way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, 
     after nine months of careful, bipartisan work, offered such a 
     plan.
       Instead, the day after the report was announced in 
     December, some who wanted another 100,000 or 200,000 troops 
     to ``win the war'' said the report was a ``recipe for 
     defeat.''
       On the other side, those who wanted the U.S. out of Iraq 
     immediately dismissed the report as more of the same.
       So the report was put on the shelf. Not much was heard 
     about it.
       That is, until lately.
       Lately, the President's national security adviser has cited 
     the Baker-Hamilton report as authority for the surge of 
     troops in Baghdad which, in fact, on page 73, the report did 
     say might be necessary.
       Over the weekend, the United States participated in 
     meetings with Syria and Iran, perhaps the most controversial 
     recommendation in the report.
       Now, the timetable and strategy for reducing U.S. combat 
     strength in Iraq contained in the newest Democratic senate 
     resolution sounds very much like the Iraq Study Group report, 
     calling for combat troops to be largely withdrawn from Iraq 
     by March of next year. But the Iraq Study Group specifically 
     opposed setting timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, 
     noting that its recommendation should be ``subject to 
     unexpected developments on the ground.''
       At the same time, like one of the Republican-sponsored 
     resolutions, the Iraq Study Group recommended that the U.S. 
     work closely with Iraq's leaders to support the achievement 
     of specific ``milestones'' on national reconciliation, 
     security, and governance.
       In short, if there is any bipartisan consensus emerging 
     about how the United States should go forward in Iraq, the 
     best blueprint of that consensus can be found in the Iraq 
     Study Group report.
       The membership and process of the Iraq Study Group is as 
     important as the substance of what it said. It included 10 of 
     America's most distinguished citizens from the Reagan and 
     Carter and George H.W. Bush administrations, from the 
     Congress and from the Supreme Court. One of its former 
     members is now the Secretary of Defense. On its face, it was 
     ideologically as well as politically diverse. The group spent 
     nine months, met nine times, including a trip to Baghdad, and 
     interviewed 171 individuals in the U.S. and in Iraq. Its 
     report is comprehensive, with 79 specific recommendations.
       Its assessment of the ``dire'' current conditions in Iraq 
     is honest and sobering. It did not shy away from reporting 
     unpleasant facts--that 79 percent of Iraqis have a mostly 
     negative view of the influence that the United States has in 
     their country, that 2,900 (at that time) Americans had lost 
     their lives and another 21,000 wounded, that we have spent 
     roughly $400 billion on the Iraq war and that estimates run 
     as high as $2 trillion for the final cost. The group 
     acknowledged that its recommendations were not perfect 
     options but seemed to be the best options.
       As much as America needs a new strategy in Iraq, we also 
     need a consensus in support of that strategy. To put it 
     bluntly, a majority of the American people do not now have 
     confidence in the President's course in Iraq. The Iraq Study 
     Group offered the President an opportunity to say, ``Okay, 
     here is a different approach suggested by a bipartisan group 
     of distinguished Americans. It is not my strategy. It is 
     theirs. I accept it and, for the good of our country and the 
     armed forces fighting for us, I ask you to accept it.''
       Such a statement would not exhibit presidential weakness. 
     This would be presidential leadership--recognizing that the 
     president's job is not only to choose the right strategy but 
     to successfully persuade at least half the people he is 
     right.
       The president still has this option before him.
       He would be wise to exercise it today--this week. Come back 
     to Congress. Report on the last few weeks' progress in Iraq. 
     Invite the Iraq Study Group members to sit in the gallery. 
     Compliment their work. Accept their recommendations. Ask the 
     Congress and the country also to accept their 
     recommendations.
       This course will not satisfy those who want 100,000 more 
     troops for victory in Iraq.
       Neither will it satisfy those who want all troops out on a 
     specific timetable.
       But it will get U.S. troops quickly out of the combat 
     business in Iraq, and into the support business.
       It will reduce the number of American forces in Iraq over 
     the next year.
       It will leave American special forces in Iraq to go after 
     al Qaeda and troops to help guard the borders.
       Because there will still be a limited U.S. military 
     presence, it will send a signal to the rest of the Middle 
     East to stay out of Iraq.
       It will give support to General Petraeus and his troops who 
     are in the midst of a surge to make Baghdad safer.
       It will expand diplomatic efforts to build support for 
     Iraqi national reconciliation and sovereignty, including with 
     Iraq's neighbors.
       And it will begin to recognize that America has done most 
     of what it can do to help Iraq. As Prime Minister Blair has 
     said, it is time for the next chapters in Iraq's history to 
     be written by the Iraqis themselves.
       Finally, this course will recognize that while the United 
     States can and should be a shining example of democracy and 
     does have the mightiest military force in the world, that a 
     conservative view of human nature and our own national 
     interest places limits on what we can do to make it possible 
     for others to adopt our democracy and our way of life.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we all know, time has been reserved for 
Senator Feingold for up to an hour. He

[[Page S5913]]

says he is going to take less time, but he has that time, at which time 
I will respond to him. What I wish to do is lock in some time for 
Senator Pryor immediately following my remarks so he may speak on the 
issue of Iraq.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for less 
than 1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection to that request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
his eloquence in his statement and his plea for Americans to come 
together as we move forward on the biggest issue that faces our country 
today, Iraq.
  I appreciate the hard work he has put in, together with my staff and 
working with the Iraq Study Group, to come up with language that is 
included in the legislation.
  I also thank the chairperson of the Environment and Public Committee, 
Senator Boxer, for arranging for us to spend some time this morning 
discussing our bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act 
being considered today includes important language to reform the Corps 
of Engineers which I have long championed. I especially thank my 
colleague Senator Boxer in particular, but also Senator Inhofe, Senator 
Baucus, and Senator Isakson for reporting a Water Resources Development 
Act that includes many important Corps of Engineers reforms that were 
so hard fought in last year's Congress, both in negotiations and on the 
floor.
  While we still have far to go in improving Corps planning, such as, 
for example, passing the Feingold-McCain prioritization amendment, 
reform provisions in the underlying bill are absolutely essential for 
improving the Nation's water resources planning, and they should be the 
baseline for reforms that come out of Congress.
  These reform provisions include independent peer review of costly or 
controversial Corps projects, dramatic improvement to the Corps' 
mitigation process, modernizing the Corps' woefully out-of-date 
planning guidelines, establishing a new national policy that directs 
the Corps to avoid impacts to floodplains, requiring an interagency 
assessment of the Nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm 
damage, and recommendations to improve the Nation's various flood 
prevention programs.
  These reforms are essential for improving the Corps' ability to 
properly plan and construct projects. Over the past decade, dozens of 
studies have highlighted stunning flaws in Corps project planning. 
Problems with the Corps project planning are so great that the GAO 
recently told Congress that Corps projects ``did not provide a 
reasonable basis for decisionmaking because they were fraught with 
errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and 
outdated data.''
  We can no longer afford to build projects based on flawed 
engineering, flawed science, or flawed economics. These reforms are 
essential for preventing costly and potentially deadly mistakes, such 
as the levee failures that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina.
  The Corps, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the National 
Academy of Sciences have all said faulty design and construction by the 
Corps resulted in the levee failures. So these reforms are essential 
for protecting the Nation's natural resources.
  The Nation's rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands provide vital 
services for all Americans. They help attenuate floods, they improve 
water quality, they provide vital fish and wildlife habitat, and they 
provide exceptional recreational opportunities. They are vital to the 
health, safety, welfare, and economic well-being of all of us.
  I am very pleased Senators Boxer and Reid agreed to join me in a 
colloquy with respect to the provisions in sections 2006, 2007 and 
2008(c) and (e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. We have 
reached an understanding that these are fundamental elements of 
meaningful reform. Chairman Boxer has stated it is the committee's 
intent to retain these elements, and that she will strenuously support 
them in conference.
  I understand the Senate is now debating the motion to proceed to H.R. 
1495, the Water Resources Development Act. So at this point, while I 
cannot formally offer my prioritization amendment to that bill, I wish 
to take the time to speak in favor of it.
  I will be offering this amendment to the Water Resources Development 
Act on behalf of myself and Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, Gregg, and 
Sununu. Senator McCain and I have worked together for years to 
modernize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I am pleased to be 
working with him again on this issue.
  I also appreciate the strong support of Senators Coburn, Carper, 
Gregg, and Sununu. This important amendment recognizes we must address 
our current flawed planning process and also respond to the tragedy of 
Hurricane Katrina by working to make sure that limited taxpayers' 
dollars go to the most worthy water resource projects.
  That doesn't seem like a lot to ask. As we all know, our Nation is 
staring down deficits that only a few years ago were unimaginable. We 
also have a backlog of $58 billion in Corps projects that are 
authorized but not built, and that number will be closer to $70 billion 
when this bill passes.
  Clearly, we have to get some kind of a 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 
authorized projects, and we don't have any way of evaluating the 
relative priority of new projects. What we do have is individual 
Members arguing for projects in their States or district, but no 
information about which projects are most important to the country's 
economic development or transportation systems or to our ability to 
protect our citizens and property from natural disasters. Clearly, the 
status quo is not serving the public well.

  This amendment would simply help Congress develop the tools to more 
wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public 
transparency in decisionmaking. This amendment would do that by 
creating a temporary bipartisan water resources commission to do two 
things: one, make recommendations on a process for prioritizing Corps 
projects and, two, analyze projects authorized in the last 10 years or 
that are under construction and put similar types of projects into 
tiers that reflect their importance. This would be done with a clear 
direction to seek balance, meeting the needs of all States.
  My amendment would place Corps projects into three categories that 
correspond to the three main mission areas of the Corps: flood damage 
reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. The commission 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 on whether they reduce the risk of loss of life. But 
the commission is free to consider other factors as long as it is clear 
which factors it is, in fact, considering. Projects in each of the 
three project types will be placed in tiers based on how great a 
priority they represent.
  This information will then simply be provided to Congress and the 
public in a nonbinding report--a nonbinding report. That is it. The 
Congress and the public will get information to help them make 
decisions involving millions and even billions of dollars. Surely, that 
isn't too much to ask. Don't we want the benefit of objective, 
impartial advice when we decide how to allocate scarce taxpayers' 
dollars?
  As my colleagues may recall, Senator McCain and I offered a 
prioritization amendment last Congress. This year's amendment has been 
revised to address some of the concerns raised on the floor last year, 
in particular those raised by my friend and now-Chairman Boxer.
  In response to criticism that the amendment gave too much authority 
to the administration, this year's new

[[Page S5914]]

amendment creates a temporary commission comprised of eight non-Federal 
individuals appointed by Senate and House leaders of both parties and 
the President.
  Also, instead of requiring regular updating of a prioritization 
report, the bipartisan commission created by this year's new amendment 
would only issue one nonbinding report that would include 
recommendations for reevaluating priorities in the future and when new 
projects are authorized.
  I am pleased to have the support of a number of outside groups, 
including Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the National Taxpayers 
Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National 
Wildlife Federation, Earth Justice, Clean Water Action, Defenders of 
Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, the League of 
Conservation Voters, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the 
Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
  A number of editorial writers weighed in last year on behalf of 
prioritization. Here is what the New York Times had to say:

       The Army Corps of Engineers must learn, or be compelled, to 
     place a higher priority on safety projects than on 
     Congressional pork . . . it would shine more light on an 
     often opaque process, a reform we support.

  The New Orleans Times-Picayune said:

       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.

  The Philadelphia Inquirer opined that ``with 50 States demanding 
services, the Corps needs better direction than the whims of competing 
politicians.''
  And the Washington Post said:

       Hurricane Katrina was a crisis that has created a real 
     opportunity: to bring some rationality to the way we spend 
     tens of billion of dollars on water projects in this country 
     so we can protect millions of Americans--

  Millions of Americans--

       whose lives are at risk.

  Clearly, based on that mere series of endorsements and statements, 
this amendment has broad interest and impact. The public clearly 
believes the Congress should do a better job spending billions of 
dollars on water projects. The Feingold-McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg-
Sununu prioritization amendment would help Congress in evaluating 
options for how to prioritize Corps projects.
  I also wish to remind my colleagues that modernizing all aspects of 
water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal 
agency that is plagued by public skepticism in the wake of Hurricane 
Katrina. The Corps has admitted serious design flaws in the levees it 
built in New Orleans, and it is clear the Corps' mistakes contributed 
significantly to the devastation in that city.
  I can tell my colleagues when I was down in New Orleans last summer, 
I heard even more complaints about the Corps than I did about FEMA. As 
we worked as a body to improve FEMA, we must also work to improve the 
Corps. Our constituents and the people of this country deserve no less.
  Of course, the Corps does important work. The real problem this 
amendment seeks to address is us in Congress. Congress has too long 
used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored porkbarrel 
projects while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. If 
we want to change our ways, we can start by passing the Feingold-
McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg-Sununu prioritization amendment to help us 
make sure the Corps continues to contribute to our safety, environment, 
and economy without wasting taxpayers' dollars.
  I will conclude my initial remarks and again thank Senator Boxer and 
also Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, and Senator Isakson for retaining 
the reform provisions we worked so hard to get included in last year's 
Senate bill. However, this bill authorizes an additional $15 billion 
worth of projects which, coupled with an additional backlog of $58 
billion, would take 40 years to complete. I hope by adopting this 
amendment we can also move this bill in a direction that will truly 
benefit the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support our 
amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his kind 
remarks. He and I are close colleagues. We have worked very closely 
together on so many issues. On Corps reform, we worked closely 
together, and working together we did get very important peer review 
into the bill. I am very proud of his work on this bill and praise him 
for it.
  It is very rare we find ourselves on differing sides, but I am in 
strong opposition to his amendment, and I want to lay out the reasons.
  I describe the Senator's amendment as ``we have met the enemy and it 
is us.'' I reject the fact that Members of the Senate have to give us 
their judgment and their views on what is important in our own States 
to some politically appointed panel, probably politicians, because they 
will be appointed by politicians. I have other objections to this 
amendment because I think it creates a bias toward large projects. It 
reduces the ability of the Corps to pursue small ecosystem restoration 
programs. It reduces their ability to pursue small but vital flood 
control projects. It could preclude navigation projects that serve 
small communities, recreational interests, and subsistence 
fishermen. Because, as it is drafted, it sets up a tier system of 
priority recommendations, but each tier is limited to 5 billion 
dollars' worth of projects, or 100 total projects. That means a worthy 
flood control project in my State, or any State, could end up stuck in 
a lower tier simply because it is more expensive, if equally more 
important projects in other States were ranked in a higher tier. I 
think it is an arbitrary system that can label a project second tier 
despite critical local public safety needs.

  How does a project become second tier if it is the only way to 
protect a community? Such an arbitrary label will inappropriately 
undermine an important project's chances of receiving appropriations, 
and I believe people's lives could be in jeopardy because of it. I 
don't think that is the kind of prioritization we need when we have to 
fight tooth and nail every year to get critical funding for very 
important and needy flood control projects.
  The Senator named a lot of groups I support and that support me, and 
I respect that fact. But to be candid, a lot of these groups don't like 
water projects in general, and I think sometimes they will just say: 
Fine. Anything to slow down these projects.
  I believe Congress, not political appointees or a commissioner, 
should retain this responsibility. I understand the legislation has 
been changed to an advisory situation, but it only slows us down. It 
slows us down with political appointees, and I have a basic problem 
with that. It is adding layers of delay. We have already delayed this 
bill 7 long years. We need it, Mr. President. We need it.
  We need it because the farmers say we need it and the corn growers 
say we need it and the labor unions say we need it and the chambers of 
commerce say we need it and we have colleagues supporting it--from 
Senator Inhofe to Senator Boxer. If my colleagues don't think that is 
something to point to, it is. It means things are working around here.
  My colleague and friend, Senator Feingold, is a strong supporter of 
fiscal responsibility. We took this bill down from $33 billion to a 
score of $13.9 billion. How did we do it? We were careful. We did 
scrutinize these projects. And, by the way, we have standards built 
into this bill. I want my colleague to understand--and it is very 
important because this is kind of a trash-the-Senate amendment, taking 
away, casting doubt on our judgment--that we worked hard by setting up 
these objective criteria by which I have had to, frankly, turn against 
my own Members and say: You know I can't take care of that for you 
because it doesn't fit the criteria.
  So I think there is a sense of fiscal responsibility that is 
permeating this place. We took a bill from $33 billion down to $13 
billion--$13.9 billion to be exact--and we did it without some 
appointed people telling us what to do.

[[Page S5915]]

We did it because we care about fiscal responsibility and we care about 
keeping this economy moving, and I just don't think we need this 
commission. We went through an exhaustive process to determine which 
projects and studies would be authorized. They have to have chief of 
engineers or other completed Corps reports for construction. They have 
to meet a benefit-cost test, or have environmental benefits. So I think 
we have a lot of built-in safety features as we go through this 
process.
  We have a very broad committee that has different ideologies. We 
represent broad areas of the country. Frankly, I think we all want to 
protect Americans. We have seen what happens when we look at Katrina, 
so we want to do our best.
  I laud my colleague for his absolute commitment and dedication to 
finding ways to make this process work better, but I say this bill 
proves, in my opinion, that we are listening.
  We did incorporate the fine Corps language that my friend worked on 
so hard, and he knows how strongly I feel about this particular 
amendment. But he insists on it because, in his heart, he thinks it is 
important. I know he has some things he will say now about my comments, 
so I will yield to him with the understanding that I will be able to 
respond in due course.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chair of the committee. Of 
course, I have enjoyed working with her on so many issues, and I again 
compliment her for retaining key reforms in the underlying bill. She 
has provided a great deal of leadership on Corps reform, and for that I 
am truly appreciative.
  In the past, the chairman has offered to work together on the issue 
of prioritization in the future, and I hope that is still something in 
which she is interested. I don't think we should wait to enact 
commonsense reform. This is not a new idea I just thought of; rather, 
it is a critical reform that many of my colleagues and I have been 
calling for since 2002. In fact, it was the former Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Smith, who first called for prioritizing Corps projects. 
I cosponsored Senator Smith's Corps bill in the 107th Congress, along 
with Senators McCain, Ensign, and Daschle.
  I certainly commend Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, and Isakson for 
limiting the number of additional projects added to this bill. I 
recognize some of the efforts they have made with regard to fiscal 
responsibility in the committee process, and I commend them for that. I 
also commend them for their effort to move this bill quickly. However, 
the desire to move a bill quickly should not override the need to 
ensure that Congress enacts the full suite of reforms necessary to 
respond to over a decade of evidence calling for reforms.
  I strongly believe prioritization is one of these key pieces, which 
is why I am offering an amendment during consideration of WRDA on 
behalf of this group of Senators. We need to get these ideas on the 
table, and I think my colleagues agree a report, with recommendations 
to Congress, is a good, commonsense approach.

  I was interested in the Senator's remark that we have met the enemy 
and it is us. I think that is not the case unless we are foolish enough 
not to back up our decisions and our judgment with the benefit of 
people who know what they are taking about. The Senator from California 
says these are political appointees, but, in fact, these folks have to 
be water resource experts. That is who we will put together on this 
group to take a look at these 70 billion dollars' worth of projects.
  Of course, despite the way in which the Senator described the impact 
of this report, all this does is set priorities. This is not mandatory 
in any way. It is nonbinding. It is simply a report that gives us 
information. Yes, it ranks things in different tiers, but we still have 
the power--and, of course, we fully retain the power--to change those 
priorities if, in our judgment, we believe it is the right thing to do.
  We do that all the time. There are all kinds of government reports 
that tell us to do X or Y and, in our judgment and our responsibility 
as Members of Congress, we exercise our own independent judgment. Not 
to have the benefit of these experts saying these projects are more 
important than others--I can't understand the downside of that. In 
fact, when the Senator says this somehow casts doubt on the Senate, or 
trashes the Senate, I think it is just the opposite. It will make us 
look good if, for once, it looks as if we are basing our priorities on 
something other than pure political pull.
  When we were out here together, the Senator from California and I 
were arm in arm, literally, on ethics reform and lobbying reform, and 
some said that was trashing the Senate. Some said that was somehow 
saying we weren't capable of regulating ourselves; that somehow we 
didn't need these laws and we should be trusted. Well, this is an area 
just like the ethnics and lobbying reform, where people have concerns. 
Anything we can do to enhance our credibility, anything we can do to 
say, hey, look, we didn't agree with every part of this report, but in 
large part we agree with these priorities, I think strengthens our 
hand. I think it enhances the reputation of the Senate, particularly in 
the eyes of the taxpayer who now see that, after this bill, we are 
talking about $70 billion in projects.
  I think this is a win-win proposition. Of course, I respect the 
chair's disagreement on this particular point. I know she agrees with 
reform in almost every single context. She just doesn't see this 
particular reform. But I urge her, once again, to consider the fact 
this is nonbinding, informational. I don't think it is binding in any 
way that would cause a problem for the Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want the Senator to know he can have as 
much time as he wants. As he knows, I am not rushing the bill in terms 
of hearing from people. As a matter of fact, I thank him for coming 
today because we don't see anybody else talking about their amendments, 
and we do want to get this bill done.
  I will use this as another opportunity to call on my colleagues, who 
may well support the Senator's amendment or oppose it or have other 
amendments, to please join us on the Senate floor. It is very pleasant 
here. It gets you away from other debates that are a little harder in 
many ways. So I urge my colleagues to come down, show us your 
amendments, please. We want to get this moving. We are going to be here 
today, we could be here tomorrow, we could be here Monday debating 
amendments and, hopefully, disposing of this bill on Tuesday.
  Did my colleague want to respond?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just wanted to ask that the time be 
reserved on my side so that, should other Senators want to talk on 
this, they could. But I am prepared, if the Senator is, to move on at 
this point.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. I would like to say to anybody wishing to 
speak on the Feingold amendment, please, I will make sure you get 
adequate time.
  I also want to say to my friend, as he leaves, because he has asked 
me to think about it, that I am going to ask him to think about it 
also. I want him to think about this: there are so many checks and 
balances on this WRDA bill. I want to go through a couple for him, just 
so that maybe he doesn't believe we are without checks and balances.
  First of all, we have the local people who decide what it is they 
need and want to protect their communities. We have the State people, 
who come in and have to issue a water quality certificate. So they are 
involved in it. We have the Corps that has to do the study based on a 
cost-benefit analysis and other issues. There are matching funds in 
every case--almost every case. So we have a big check there, if a local 
community is willing to put up the money. So that is matching funds.
  There is the executive branch that comes in. The executive branch 
comes in and they decide what they want to fund. We have the 
Appropriations Committee, after the authorizers get done with it, 
deciding what they want to fund. And we have every one of us Senators 
standing for reelection at some point who have to face up and say, we 
fought for this particular project.
  Also, I thank my colleague for something right now on ethics reform, 
and I want him to know something which he may not know. As a result of 
all his work on ethics reform, and so many other colleagues here and 
our leader and the rest, even though the ethics reform isn't law yet--
we hope it will soon be--the committee decided to act as if

[[Page S5916]]

it were law. We asked every Senator to put in writing the fact that 
they did or did not have any real or perceived conflict of interest 
that went along with their requests for these particular projects. 
Those letters are available for everyone to see in the office. We have 
also printed in the Record, in large type--because at first it came out 
in small type--what each of us has asked for. So I want to thank my 
colleague for that. I want my colleague to understand that this bill is 
not only half the size that it was last year, not only is it a couple 
of billion less than the House, not only did we follow the ethics 
proposal, which isn't law yet because we want people to feel good about 
this, but we have done all these things. And, of course, I have 
included my friend's ethics Corps reform from last year.

  So even though we do have strong disagreement, and I don't want to 
sugarcoat it because it is pretty strong--we disagree on this--there is 
so much progress that has been made, and my friend is responsible for a 
lot of that, and I feel really good about that. I hope he doesn't take 
my opposition to this particular amendment, my strong opposition to it, 
in any way as diminishing the amazing work he has done so that this 
bill comes to us in a form that, really, I think we can all be proud 
of.
  I thank my colleague very much for coming. And, of course, the record 
is open and the floor is open to all colleagues who want to speak, pro 
or con, on this particular amendment or any other amendment that people 
would like to offer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senate substitute 
for H.R. 1495, which I hope we will be getting to, the Water Resources 
Development Act. This legislation has been delayed for many years. I 
thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for bringing together a bill 
that is critically important to our future in regard to water 
infrastructure improvement and the ecosystem's restoration. I think 
this legislation is carefully balanced, it is responsible as far as its 
budget, but it is very important for us to move forward and consider 
this legislation and move it to, I hope, enactment and signature by the 
President.
  The bill contains a number of provisions that are vital to Maryland, 
which relies heavily upon the Army Corps of Engineers for water 
resource programs. The bill contains an important project that protects 
Cumberland, MD, and Ridgeley, WV, against flooding. Like so many other 
projects contained in this bill, the Cumberland effort will have 
multiple benefits. In addition to the increased public safety that 
comes from flood control, this project will serve as an essential 
component of the restoration efforts underway in Cumberland, including 
the rewatering of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the reconstruction 
of the turning basin there.
  For the first time, the Army Corps will supplement the Environmental 
Protection Agency's efforts to repair and improve the wastewater 
treatment facility plants that benefit the Chesapeake Bay. The Corps 
will be able to support sewage treatment upgrades, such as the one at 
Blue Plains. That plant is the largest advanced treatment facility in 
America, serving customers in the District of Columbia, northern 
Virginia, and the Maryland jurisdictions of Prince George's County and 
Montgomery County.
  The new EPA permit for Blue Plains requires that the nitrogen load 
from the plant be reduced by more than 4 million pounds annually. This 
bill will be the largest single nutrient-reduction project in the bay 
watershed in a decade. Slashing the nitrogen load to the bay is a key 
step in the Chesapeake restoration efforts, and this bill will help get 
it done. It takes the participation of the Federal Government in the 
Chesapeake Bay restoration to a new level. By allowing the Corps of 
Engineers to help us with the tremendous backlog of sewage treatment 
plant repairs and improvements, this bill takes us to a much stronger 
partnership in the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.
  We have a geography and topography which make the Chesapeake Bay 
particularly susceptible to erosion. The bay shoreline and many of its 
historic islands are literally being washed away. The erosion 
contributes millions of cubic yards of sediment annually to the bay, 
adversely affecting water quality and clogging navigational channels.
  The bill extends the authorization of the 50-foot dredging of the 
Baltimore harbor and its channels. This project has been vital to the 
economic strength of the Port of Baltimore.
  The bill contains authorization for two important island 
environmental restoration efforts. Tiny Smith Island in Somerset County 
has lost over 3,300 acres of wetlands over the past 150 years, 
threatening the population that lives there and degrading the 
Chesapeake Bay in the process. The project authorized in this bill 
consists of constructing 2 miles of offshore sediment breakwaters to 
provide protection to over 2,100 acres of wetlands and underwater grass 
beds.
  I am particularly pleased the bill we are considering now contains 
funding for the Poplar Island project. This is a model project. We have 
been able to restore an island that had been almost washed away. There 
used to be a hunting lodge there. People would use the island. It had 
eroded almost to being nonexistent. What we have been able to do at 
Poplar Island is have a site where we could take the dredge materials 
from the dredging of the harbor, put it on the island, restore the 
island from an environmental point of view, and it has been a win-win 
process.
  The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the east coast 
and a vital engine of economic activity, contributing $2 billion to the 
State economy and employing 18,000 Marylanders directly and tens of 
thousands more indirectly. There are approximately 15 miles of channel 
leading to the Port of Baltimore. Each year, approximately 4 to 5 
million cubic yards of material must be removed from the channels to 
keep them at the existing depth and width. Poplar Island allows us to 
comply with that dredging need.
  We have been able to take the dredged materials and put them onto 
Poplar Island. It was once a home to residents and hunting lodges. 
Since the project's authorization in 1996, the Corps has restored over 
1,100 acres of remote island habitat. Popular Island has risen again, 
Phoenix-like, from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Eight miles of 
dikes protect the island from severe wave action. There are over 570 
acres of upland habitat at an elevation that sometimes exceeds 20 feet. 
An additional 570 acres of wetland habitat has been created.
  Today, even as the project continues, the island is once again home 
to migratory shorebirds, mammals, reptiles, and even serves as a 
nesting area for Maryland's famous terrapins. The expansion of the 
project authorized in this bill will build upon this success. It will 
add an additional 575 acres, half uplands and half wetlands, to the 
restored island.
  The Nation has become increasingly aware of the important role 
wetlands and barrier islands play. We all witnessed the increased 
devastation that struck the coast of Louisiana, due in part to loss of 
what I like to refer to as nature's speed bumps, the wetlands and 
coastal islands that help absorb the shock from these horrific storms.
  The Poplar Island expansion project authorized in this bill is 
important to the Port of Baltimore and to the ecology of the Chesapeake 
Bay. It is also a model for the Nation, showing us how the Army Corps 
projects can be engines of economic success, while at the same time 
serving beneficial ecological functions.
  This vital project points the way to the future of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. It is one of the main reasons I support this legislation. 
This is a well-balanced bill. It is a bill that, yes, will help 
Maryland, but also help Maryland with projects which I think are 
important to show the Nation what you can do in moving forward on the 
economic needs of our communities, such as the dredging of our ports, 
but also moving forward on the environmental issues such as restoring 
vital wetlands and islands that would have disappeared.

[[Page S5917]]

  It is important as far as dealing with storm damage. It is important 
to the restoration of our wildlife. It is important in so many 
different areas. I urge us to move forward with this legislation. Let's 
move it forward to consider the amendments, let's get it done, let's 
take it to the other body, and let's get it to the President as soon as 
possible. It has been delayed for years, we all know that. Thanks to 
the hard work of our leadership on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, we have been able now to come forward with a bill that I 
think has the best chance for enactment. I urge my colleagues to 
carefully consider this legislation, support this legislation, but, 
more importantly, let's get it moving.
  It is well past time that we enact the WRDA bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to speak on the bill, 
and I wanted to congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for their 
combined leadership, their working together to bring this legislation 
to the floor. It has been a long time coming. We passed it here last 
year thanks to the leadership of both of them. Senator Inhofe was 
chairman. Now Senator Boxer is the Chair.
  It is now time for us to pass it again. It has only been 7 years 
since we have had a Water Resources and Development Act. We desperately 
need it for all of these water projects across the country that need to 
be authorized.
  Of course, one of the ones I want to speak to not only affects our 
State of Florida, the Everglades restoration, but it clearly affects a 
lot of the ecosystems of planet Earth. We violated Mother Nature over 
the course of the last half century. As a result of massive hurricanes 
in the early part of the last century, particularly the hurricane of 
1928 that killed over 2,000 people in the Lake Okeechobee region--many 
of them drowned--the emphasis back then was, when the floods came: Get 
the water off.
  So over the course of the years, through then, up through the mid-
1900s, you had all of this diking and draining that went on, to the 
point at which the mindset was: Get the water away when the floods 
come.
  But, of course, what everybody was ignoring was Mother Nature and 
what she had created in this incredible system that starts south of 
Orlando in the center part of the State, and starts meandering water 
south into the Kissimmee River, meandering through its oxbows where all 
of the marsh grasses were cleansing the water, and then it reaches the 
big lake, Lake Okeechobee, which then Mother Nature had the water 
absolutely proceed south through very rich muck lands, in a slow sheet 
flow that flowed into what we now know as the Everglades.
  Ultimately that water then flowed on out, in through the southwest 
part of Florida, and in the south part of Florida, into what is known 
as Florida Bay, which is that area south of the tip of the peninsula of 
Florida and inside the bow created by the Florida Keys.
  What mankind did was disrupt that natural flow of the water. As a 
result, when the floods came: Get the water off. So we were now sending 
fresh water into tidewater in these very delicate brackish water 
situations that were so important to wildlife and marine life, and 
making it much too much fresh water, not brackish water, as a result, 
also dumping water that contained excessive nutrients, so that as this 
water flowed out, the tidewater in places like the Loxahatchee River 
and to the east the St. Lucie River, you suddenly have these rivers 
that had way too much fresh water and way too many nutrients.
  What you got was the growing of algae, the sucking out of the oxygen, 
and creating nearly dead rivers. Everybody got concerned about this 
along about the 1980s and into the 1990s. The legislature and the 
Federal Government started realizing we have to go back and redo 
things. The problem was, it was a lot different then in Florida than 
what Mother Nature first had created, because now there was a huge 
agricultural industry just to the south of Lake Okeechobee on all of 
that rich muck land, and now there were 6 million people living in 
South Florida who had to have a source of water.
  So that is what was developed, the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Project. It is a project that will span over 20 years, and 
it is a project that needs funding, half from the Federal Government 
and half from the State Government and its entities, including the 
water management district, the local governments, and so forth. That 
half and half is how we are ultimately going to be able to restore the 
Everglades and still provide water for the agriculture industry as well 
as the 6 million people who live there.
  Now, I must say, it is pretty tough right now because we have a 
drought. It simply has not rained. Back in 2005, with Florida smarting 
from the four hurricanes in 2004, hurricanes that filled up the lake to 
the point of being concerned about breaching the dike and killing a lot 
of people from flooding, in anticipation of a 2005 very active 
hurricane season, they lowered the lake. Well, 2005 ended up not being, 
for Florida, an active hurricane year. Therefore, the rains were not 
there, and that started reducing the lake more to the point at which 
Lake Okeechobee is 5 feet down from what is its normal average.
  When you combine that with the drought that is occurring now, then 
you have a real problem. That is why all of the local governments in 
south Florida have gone to a restriction on water use, which includes 
now once-a-week watering of lawns. You see the problem.
  There is a problem in some of the well fields in south Florida. If 
they do not replenish them with fresh water, you are going to have 
saltwater intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, the Corps of 
Army Engineers is working on that right now.
  That is all the background, which is why this WRDA bill is all the 
more important for us, because there are several projects that will 
address this issue of Everglades restoration we have been trying to get 
authorized since the last authorization bill 7 years ago.
  One of them is what is called the Indian River Lagoon, and it is that 
part on the east coast of Florida, the St. Lucie River estuary, where 
instead of dumping all of that fresh water, all of that nutrient-laden 
water, you are going to be able to cleanse that water through various 
Corps projects back closer over to Lake Okeechobee in the center of the 
State.
  Another project in here is called the Picayune Strand. It is a 
project over on the southwest coast, which is going to help restore the 
flow of water going into the Ten Thousand Islands. It is going to 
restore 72,000 acres of habitat and ecological connections that will 
directly affect the Florida Panthers National Wildlife Refuge, the 
Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands Project Area, and 
the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve.
  With all of this, it is so important that we pass this bill and we 
get a conference agreement with the House of Representatives so we can 
get this bill to the President for signature.
  Now, I have spoken of a couple affecting Florida. There are several 
more projects in here, but I have picked the two biggest ones that are 
critical for the environmental sensitivities, and a major ecological 
asset for planet Earth. And it is that. It does not just affect 
Florida, it affects the entire planet. It is like the Amazon River. 
That certainly just does not affect Brazil; that has global climate 
effects.
  I want to thank again the leadership for having brought out this 
bill. It cannot be soon enough for us to get it passed and to get a 
conference agreement with the House and to get it signed into law. Then 
we can start fleshing this out with the appropriations bills to fund 
these specific water projects.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the remainder of the hour allocated to me in debate postcloture and 
which I have not used be allocated to Senator Boxer, the manager of the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5918]]

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the days ahead, this Congress and 
the President of the United States face a choice on the critical 
question of funding our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a 
choice between brinksmanship and statesmanship, a choice between 
continuing to stalemate, largely along partisan lines, or uniting 
across partisan lines in support of our troops.
  We all know what our most important responsibility is. Our forces in 
Iraq and Afghanistan are looking to us. They need the funding that only 
we in Congress can provide them. The money is running out.
  I understand that many in this Chamber saw the supplemental 
appropriations bill as an opportunity to force a withdrawal of our 
troops from Iraq and that many of us argued vigorously against the 
amendments that attempted to do that. Each side has now had an 
opportunity to make its case. The result is clear: There are not enough 
votes in Congress to enact a mandatory date for withdrawal of American 
forces from Iraq. The time for having debates, therefore, and sending 
messages on this troop funding bill should be over. It is now time to 
get our troops the equipment, the training, the supplies they need--and 
without delay. We in this Chamber have a responsibility to make certain 
that no matter what disagreements and differences we have here in 
Washington, our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
not caught in the political crossfire.
  Only a couple months ago, this Senate confirmed the new commander to 
implement a new strategy in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. That new strategy 
is now being implemented, and it is achieving some encouraging, if 
early, signs of success. Indeed, progress has been won, even though the 
full complement of troops has not yet arrived in Iraq. Yet now many in 
Congress would pull the plug on this new strategy and thwart the work 
of our troops before they are given a fair chance to succeed.
  I am aware public opinion has turned against the war in Iraq. The 
American people are deeply frustrated by the multiplicity of mistakes 
and errors that have been made. Progress has been too slow. The 
savagery of our enemy, which the American people witness on television 
every night, has been demoralizing. Many simply want to leave and wash 
our hands of what they perceive as a mess--a deadly mess. But 
leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is 
what is necessary to do what is right for our country. In fact, at a 
time such as this, we are required to do what each of us believes is 
right, and that might not be what is popular.
  What is right, I firmly believe, is that we cannot allow our Nation 
to be defeated in Iraq by the same terrorist enemy with which we are 
now engaged in worldwide conflict. The global war on terrorism which we 
are waging is a worldwide struggle against a barbaric totalitarian foe 
that is al-Qaida. And today, it is al-Qaida that we are fighting in 
Iraq. Al-Qaida itself has declared Iraq to be the central front of 
their larger war against our way of life.
  So all of us who are privileged to serve this great country in 
positions of leadership have a very serious choice to make. Our 
judgment can be guided by the public opinion polls, and we can withdraw 
in defeat. We can rationalize our action with reassuring but, I 
believe, falsely hopeful words such as ``redeployment.'' No matter what 
we say, our enemy will know that America's will has been broken by the 
barbarity of their blood lust, the very barbarity we declare we are 
fighting but from which we would actually be running.

  My main point is this: Now is not the time for delay, for prolonged 
legislative posturing and bargaining over this supplemental 
appropriations bill. It is the time to do our duty, to fund our troops, 
stand by our allies, and do everything we can to help them win the war 
against al-Qaida in Iraq, rather than inventing new ways to vent our 
frustration with the war in Iraq or with the President of the United 
States, by handcuffing General Petraeus and undermining his strategy. 
Let us give him and his troops our support as they and their Iraqi 
allies fight to win for us.
  Thank you. I yield the floor, and 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. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I first congratulate the new 
chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, for taking her first bill to 
the floor. She is doing a great job. It is out of committee virtually 
unanimously. She brought out a bill that was worked out in advance and 
she is doing a terrific job. I highly commend her.
  Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

       When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.

  Westerners, including the current occupant of the chair, have learned 
this painful lesson many times. Recently, several years of drought have 
plagued farmers and ranchers across my State of Montana and many other 
parts of the country. Weatherworn switch grass and crops bring a 
terrible cost to producers in the West.
  The West's battle with drought highlights the pressing need to ensure 
our water resources are used efficiently. I remind my colleagues, it 
doesn't rain a lot in the West. The annual rainfall west of the 100th 
meridian, down from Minnesota and across the country, is much less than 
in the eastern part of the country. In Montana, the average 
precipitation--rain, snow, all of it--in our towns is roughly about 13 
inches a year. In Washington, DC, it is about 44 inches a year. That is 
a big difference, and that is in ordinary years. We have had a lot of 
drought in the West in the last several years.
  Therefore, this Water Resources Development Act is long overdue. 
Although the Senate passed this legislation last year, the conference 
with the House fell short of resolution, so we are here today to get 
this bill over the goal line. I think we will finally get there. The 
bill provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to move forward on 
many long overdue water resources projects.
  In 1986, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act, or 
WRDA. Every 2 years since then, Congress received proposals from the 
administration seeking authorization for water resources projects--
every 2 years, since 1986. Why? It is clearly because there are new 
needs every 2 years. This pattern of requests provided the Corps and 
local sponsors with a regular planning schedule, helped them know what 
was on the drawing boards, which projects would be developed first and 
second, with some regularity, the planning for the development of 
needed resource projects in our country.
  This administration, however, has yet to request one update of this 
legislation. Why is that? Well, I ask the question: Have all the water 
resources needs of the country been met? Clearly, the answer is no. 
Scores of water resources projects are awaiting authorization.
  Second, does this administration think this legislation costs too 
much? Perhaps, but remember, investing in our water resources 
infrastructure is a cost we cannot put off. This is not an annual 
recurring operating expense; it is an investment that pays huge 
dividends.
  Levees are crumbling. People are living in harm's way, waiting for 
this legislation to help provide them with protection. This bill 
authorizes projects that will provide needed flood and storm damage 
protection, navigation improvements and environmental restoration. All 
three are very important.

[[Page S5919]]

There is authority for rebuilding and restoring the coast of Louisiana 
generally, but this legislation provides specific authority for that 
rebuilding and restoration, devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  Authority for modernizing the lock and dam system on the Mississippi 
River is contained in here, and authority for ecosystem restoration 
projects, all the way from New Jersey, to Florida, to Colorado. There 
is a lot in this legislation.
  The Corps of Engineers is charged with the management of America's 
water resources. The Corps of Engineers built levees and floats barges. 
In my State of Montana, we see the Corps as restorers of the ecosystem. 
We see the Corps as guardians of America's recreational assets, such as 
the Missouri River, Yellowstone River, and the Fort Peck Reservoir.
  We in Montana have 11,000 miles of blue ribbon trout streams. Montana 
is home to the mighty Missouri River and the beautiful Yellowstone 
River. The Yellowstone is the longest remaining free-flowing river in 
our country. Montana's Fort Peck Reservoir provides outstanding 
recreation for the eastern part of my State. There is a huge fishing 
tournament in the Fort Peck Reservoir. The Corps helps make that 
happen.
  We value the Corps' expertise and their partnership in many of our 
water resources projects. I might name several projects that are 
important and will continue that tradition in Montana: the Yellowstone 
River and Tributaries Recovery project; the lower Yellowstone project 
at Intake, MT; the Missouri River and Tributaries Recovery project; the 
upper basin of the Missouri River project. These projects will all 
provide improvements and provide valuable protection for the valuable 
resources in our State and, with all the tourism coming to our States, 
for a lot of Americans as well.
  There is also an important authorization for the rehabilitation and 
improvement of a very important large aging water project on the 
Blackfeet Reservation in Glacier County called St. Mary Diversion. This 
system is rusting, cracking, and crumbling before our eyes. It is 
deteriorating, and 17,000 Montanans on the highline--the northern part 
of the State--depend on this system. It is a Federal system, but it is 
falling apart.
  Without St. Mary, the lower Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 
years, imperiling the water source for thousands of Montana families. 
This is irrigation and also drinking water. I cannot believe that in 
the United States we don't have good drinking water in large parts of 
my State. That is an outrage.
  These important water projects, and their importance to the 
communities the projects serve, underline the need to move this 
legislation forward. Our first priority, therefore, is to authorize the 
long overdue projects in the WRDA bill this year. I hope we can get the 
administration's support to do that this year. We passed a bill last 
year. Let's get it enacted this year. Let's do our part to ensure that 
our water resources needs are met and let's get back to the biennial 
practice of enacting a water development resources bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise following my good 
friend from Montana, with whom I served last year as the subcommittee 
leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked in a 
bipartisan way, and I appreciate that working relationship this year 
again. The EPW has worked on a bipartisan basis on this very important 
bill, and we have shown it by the number of people who signed letters 
asking that they move the bill. We have seen it in the vote on cloture. 
I thank the leadership in this body, particularly Chairman Boxer and 
Ranking Member Inhofe.
  This bill before us today and next week, the Water Resources 
Development Act, or WRDA, is long overdue and badly needed. As has 
already been said, it authorizes projects under the jurisdiction----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I am happy to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I confirm a point made by our good friend 
from Missouri that there has been close cooperation in putting the bill 
together. I commend the Senator from Missouri. He has done a super job 
and so has Chairman Boxer, who is our leader. She sets the tone and 
gets us working together, and Senator Inhofe is right there with her. I 
thank the Senator for being helpful.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind comments of my friend 
from Montana. I wish there were more issues on which we could work so 
closely, but this one I view as a vital investment in our Nation's 
future. This is something we ought to be able to come together on as 
Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and say we need 
to build for the future.
  As my colleague from Montana has said, the programs administered by 
the Corps are of tremendous value to the entire Nation. They provide 
drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, 
recreation, flood protection, environmental protection and restoration, 
and emergency response.
  Few agencies in the Federal Government touch as many citizens as the 
Corps does. The Corps provides one-quarter of our Nation's total 
hydropower output. If you are looking for pollution-free power, it is 
hydropower. The Corps operates 463 lake recreation areas; moves 630 
million tons of cargo, valued at over $73 billion annually through our 
inland system; manages over 12 million acres of land and water; 
provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and 
businesses; and has prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage 
within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh of that value. 
During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage 
was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time.
  Regrettably, I must tell my colleagues that as we debate this bill on 
the floor, a flood is currently striking Missouri. I talked with a top 
Corps official from Missouri yesterday, who said the flood and its 
impact now may be as great as the disaster of the 1993 floods. I will 
be going there tomorrow to survey the damage. Floods are a fact of 
nature, and a good levee system can reduce the damage.
  The WRDA bill is a bipartisan bill traditionally produced by Congress 
every 2 years. As a matter of fact, you could say this is the 2002 WRDA 
bill about 5 years late. Better late than never.
  The bill makes possible all of America's major flood control 
projects, coastal protection, environmental protection and restoration, 
transportation and recreation on our major waterways.
  Despite its importance, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 
2000. The longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more 
complicated the demands upon the bill become. I think the public voice 
is loud, clear, and spoken often regarding how they feel about our long 
overdue and much-needed WRDA legislation.
  We believe the bill before the Senate is a good one, balancing the 
needs of our States for environmental restoration of key waterways and 
for navigation projects that create economic growth and keep our 
economy going.
  The bill before us will create jobs, spur economic development and 
trade competitiveness, and improve the environment. It is financially 
responsible. To say it is widely supported is an understatement. It 
passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year by a 
voice vote and, in the 109th Congress, 80 colleagues signed a letter 
urging floor action.
  A few weeks ago, the House cleared a companion bill with a vote of 
394 to 25, and in the 109th Congress, they passed it with 406 votes. 
Last year, we merely ran out of time in conference. That is why I am 
glad the bill was passed out of committee and brought to the floor in a 
timely manner. We cannot afford to let the time run out on the bill in 
this Congress.
  In the last 20 years, environmental protection has become a primary 
Corps mission. Our water resources perform a variety of functions 
simultaneously. They can provide transportation and protection from 
floods and protect habitat for many species.
  Similarly, when it comes to Corps projects, navigational and flood 
control projects can and should be environmentally sound. Environmental 
restoration can help prevent or minimize flooding during the next major 
storm.

[[Page S5920]]

  The Corps is leading some of the world's largest ecosystem 
restoration projects. The commanding feature of this bill is its 
landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. More than 
half the bill consists of authorization for environmental restoration 
projects.
  Think of all the major waterways that are important to America, to 
our environmental heritage, to recreation, and to commerce. This bill 
affects all of them.
  Among the projects, this bill restores wetlands in the upper 
Connecticut River basin in Vermont and New Hampshire, restores oyster 
habitats in the Chesapeake Bay, restores fisheries in the Great Lakes, 
implements an environmental management program for the Rio Grande 
River, continues restoration of the Florida Everglades, restores areas 
of coastal Louisiana damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, restores 
habitat on the upper Mississippi and Illinois water systems, and 
restores oyster habitats on the Long Island Sound.
  Flood control obviously is important. If we learned anything about 
Mother Nature in the last 15 years, it is that we very often need 
protection from her storms. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita obviously are 
devastating examples.
  The good news is that Corps projects have prevented an estimated $706 
billion in flood damage within the last 25 years with an investment of 
one-seventh that amount.
  During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood 
damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at the time.
  This legislation authorizes flood control projects in California, 
Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, 
Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Idaho, Washington, Missouri, Iowa, 
New Mexico, and Arkansas, to name a few.
  Transportation efficiency is another benefit. While the majority of 
this legislation is for environmental protection and restoration, a key 
bipartisan economic commission we include provides transportation 
efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers.
  As the world becomes more competitive, America must also. From 1970 
to 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased twenty-fourfold and 70 
percent since 1994, an average annual growth rate of over 10 percent. 
We can expect demand for U.S. exports to dramatically increase over 34 
years. We must ask ourself, or that part of our exports that are 
commodities: Will there be growth in transportation in the next 20 to 
50 years to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial 
transportation?
  If we listen to the Department of Transportation, they are already 
predicting the congestion on our roads will double in the next quarter 
of a century.
  From where I sit, capacity on the rails is at a maximum. It is a lot 
tougher to build a new railroad than it is to maintain the locks on an 
existing waterway system. If we think our roads are congested now, 
think of what will happen if we cannot relieve the pressure on our 
highways. Water transportation is an inadequately tapped capacity, and 
it is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is safe, 
it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. One 
medium-size barge tow can carry the same amount of freight as 870 
trucks. That fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water 
transport. With oil prices at a record $72 per barrel, consider the 
advantage of a twin engine barge that can carry the equivalent of 870 
trucks.
  Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the upper Mississippi 
River has more than tripled. It currently carries 60 percent of our 
Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean exports. 
It does so at two-thirds the cost of rail when and if rail is 
available.
  In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities, with a 
combined value of more than $4 billion, and it isn't just agricultural 
products. It includes coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, 
iron, steel, minerals, fertilizers, and other commodities.
  The sad fact is our navigable waterways are in environmental and 
economic decline. Jobs, markets, and the availability of habitat for 
fish and wildlife are at stake. The American Society of Civil Engineers 
grades navigable waterways infrastructure with a D-minus, with over 50 
percent of the locks functionally obsolete despite increased demand. 
These locks were built 75 years ago with a life expectancy of 50 years. 
If you look at the locks when they are locking through a tow, they 
don't just leak, they shed tons of water. They are past the stage where 
continued application of chewing gum and duct tape are going to protect 
the water transportation infrastructure we need.
  This bill is a plan that gets the Corps back in the business of 
building for the future rather than haggling about predicting it. The 
legislation contains authorization for funding to improve navigation on 
a number of our waterways in several States--Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, 
Virginia, Delaware, Maine, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. My interest is 
a key piece of the bill that modernizes locks and dams on the upper 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

  We authorize capacity on locks 20 to 25 on the Missouri River in 
Peoria and LaGrange on the Illinois. New 1,200-foot locks on the 
Mississippi will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region 
downstream of the 1,200-foot lock 19 at Keokuk and upstream locks 26 
and 27 near St. Louis.
  What happens with the 600-foot lock as now exists today? All the 
modern tows are 1,200 feet long, so we have to double lock through 
them, push half the barges in, lock them down, bring the water down, 
push the other half of the barge in, lock it down. That is a tremendous 
bottleneck, and even though 600-foot locks are in very degraded 
condition, half the cost of the new locks will be paid by private users 
who pay into the inland waterways trust fund. Additional funds would be 
provided for mitigation and small-scale and nonstructural measures to 
improve efficiency.
  There is lots of talk around here about wanting to increase trade. 
All the productive farmers, commercial family farms in Missouri know 
that trade is essential, not only for their well-being, but for the 
strength of the economy to bring revenue to rural communities and the 
rest of the world. But we can't have those without the basic 
transportation infrastructure necessary to move goods from buyers to 
sellers. New efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make 
or break opportunities in the international marketplace.
  As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask ourselves a 
fundamental question: Should we have a system that promotes growth or 
should we be confined to a transportation straitjacket designed not for 
2050 but for 1950 or earlier with paddle wheel boats?
  Further, we can ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made 
to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these 
great waterways. In both cases, the answer to me, and I hope a majority 
of this body, must be, of course, we must modernize and improve.
  Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the 
Mississippi River was not justified. But Congress bravely stepped 
forward and decided it would not try to predict the future but to shape 
the future and decide to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 
84 million tons per year later, clearly the decision was wise.
  A couple years ago, a veteran chief economist at the USDA, talking 
about transportation efficiency and the ability of farmers to win 
markets and higher prices, said that transportation is fundamentally 
related. He predicted that corn exports should rise over the next 10 
years by 45 percent, and 70 percent of that will travel down the 
Mississippi River.
  This decision to improve the waterways has not been taken lightly. 
All decisions have been documented and coordinated with an interagency 
Federal principles group, independent technical reviews and 
stakeholders and have been made available for public review and 
comment.
  The Corps of Engineers spent $70 million completing an anticipated 6-
year study that actually took 14 years to complete. That was only three 
times over budget. During that period, there have been no less than 35 
meetings of Governors' committees, 28 meetings of economic coordinating 
committees among the States, and a minimum of 44 meetings of the 
Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee;

[[Page S5921]]

additionally, 130 briefings for special interest groups, 25 
newsletters, at least 6 sets of public meetings in 46 locations with 
over 4,000 people in attendance. There are some who say we ought to 
study it some more. Give me a break. To say the least, this has been a 
very long transparent and representative process, and while we have 
been studying, our competitors have been building.
  One of the saddest sights I have seen recently is a picture of 
exports from New Orleans. Rather than exporting American commodities, 
do you know what they are exporting? Barges. They are exporting barges 
and tow boats that couldn't operate efficiently on the existing lock 
system to Brazil and other areas so they can have modern transportation 
means that will eat our lunch both literally and figuratively.
  Given the extraordinary delay so far and given the reality that 
large-scale construction takes not weeks, not months but decades, 
further delay is no longer an option. That is why I am very pleased to 
join a bipartisan group of Senators who agree we must improve the 
efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great resources.
  The transportation efficiency provisions are supported by a broad-
based group of States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay 
taxes into the trust fund.
  Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the 
carpenters, corn growers, farm bureau, soybean growers, energy and 
construction materials industry.
  Additionally, I thank Senators McCaskill, Durbin, Obama, Grassley, 
and Harkin for their strong bipartisan support as well.
  As for the budget, for some, this bill is too small; for others, it 
is too big. It is important to understand the budget implications of 
this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult 
budget realities. It is critical that we be mindful of those realities 
as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports those who 
manufacture, grow, buy, and sell products so we can expand our economy, 
create jobs, secure our future, and pay the taxes our Government needs 
to continue providing support for the infrastructure.
  This is an authorization bill. It does not spend $1--not $1. It makes 
projects eligible within budget constraints. With the allocation 
provided the Appropriations Committee, the Congress and the President 
will fund projects deemed to be of the highest priority. The remaining 
will not be funded because of budget issues. This WRDA process simply 
allows for projects to be considered during the process of 
appropriations. Some will measure up, some will not, although the ones 
in this bill have gone through rigorous examination to get this far.
  I believe we strike a balance that disciplines the new projects to 
criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water 
resource priorities.
  This legislation is supported by the National Waterways Alliance, the 
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the California 
Coastal Coalition, AASHTO, and 250 other organizations.
  My thanks to the Environment and Public Works Committee, its 
leadership, its staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for their hard work and the commitment to bring WRDA 
to the floor in a timely manner.
  Again, I particularly thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe 
for their forbearance. I look forward to debate and final passage.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have made some good progress on the 
bill today. A number of our colleagues have come forward. I 
particularly wanted to thank Senator Feingold for coming and debating 
his amendment on prioritization with me. We are going to have a vote on 
that, if all goes well, on Tuesday. That has not been finalized, but it 
looks as if that is what is going to happen.
  I would say to colleagues that we did have a good, fair debate so far 
today, and we are going to continue this tomorrow and on Monday. I hope 
that those who have not come forward with their amendments would be so 
kind as to do that. We don't have very many because we did take care of 
many issues between both sides of the committee, but if there are 
amendments, we urge our colleagues to please come forward and talk 
about those amendments. This way, they can have as much time as they 
want and we can hopefully get this bill done.
  We keep adding to the letters of support. I was just handed a letter 
from the National Association of Manufacturers in favor of this bill, 
so it is one of these rare moments in history where we have the 
manufacturers association, the labor unions, we have the farmers, we 
have the corn growers, and we have the water people. We just have a 
huge amount of support for this bill. It is one of those times that 
everybody is coming together, setting aside other matters, other issues 
that are so terribly contentious, such as Iraq, which tears at our 
heartstrings whenever we are on it, and other tough matters we deal 
with every day. This is one which does bring us together, I am happy to 
say.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I just 
referred to printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                                     May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: On behalf of more than 14 million 
     manufacturing employees in the U.S., we would like to thank 
     you for your leadership in moving forward with the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007, WRDA. It is vitally 
     important that America's water resources infrastructure be 
     reliable and productive. Therefore we applaud your efforts to 
     end the stalemate over water resources project authorization 
     by bringing H.R. 1495, WRDA, to the Senate floor. We firmly 
     believe that it is time to end the impasse over passage of 
     WRDA.
       A Water Resources Development Act is vitally needed to 
     accommodate the many important projects awaiting 
     authorization, including the modernization of the locks, 
     harbors, canals and other key infrastructure that are vital 
     to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. A sound national 
     transportation system for the 21st century needs modem water 
     projects, and WRDA will authorize many of those needs.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff and 
     issues of importance to the nation's economy and environment. 
     Again, thank you for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                       The National Association of
                                                    Manufacturers.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, without the physical infrastructure in 
this country in good shape, we can't move goods, we can't move people, 
and we can't move services. So we need all this. And this bill is 7 
years old. So we are very pleased.
  We are also very pleased that this bill complies with the spirit of 
the ethics reform we passed here in the very early days of the session. 
Although that ethics bill hasn't yet become law--we expect it will--
this committee, on both sides, decided we wanted to comply with it. So 
we got letters from colleagues stating whether they had any type of 
perceived conflict of interest or a conflict of interest in relation to 
the projects that are in the bill.
  At this point, I do not see any colleagues coming here to speak, but 
we will keep the floor open for a period of time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________