Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 142 (Monday, September 24, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 142 (Monday, September 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11974-S11996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--CONFERENCE REPORT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1495, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate 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, having met, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend that the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment, signed by all conferees on the part of both
Houses.

(The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in
the Record of July 31, 2007)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to bring to the floor
today the conference report on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007. I think I can pick up on something Senator
Alexander said about how divided we are in this country over this Iraq
war. That is very clear. No one understands more than our Senator who
is sitting in the chair and presiding today how we are divided. This is
a different story, so we will take a little break out of our
discussions about Iraq, and we will continue to work for bipartisanship
in bringing this war to an honorable close.
At this time, we take a little break from that and turn toward
something that is very important, which is building and rebuilding the
water infrastructure of our Nation. Today is a day that is 7 years in
the making.
I wish to start off by thanking my committee, all of the Members on
my side of the aisle, and Senator Inhofe, our ranking member, and all
his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. This is an unusual
day. This is a day where we come forward united on a bill that will
authorize the projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the
Army Corps of Engineers. I am so pleased we will vote today on final
passage of that bill, and we will send it to the President.
I hope President Bush will reconsider his veto threat of this bill. I
think colleagues will speak to how urgent this bill is. Imagine not
having a water resources bill for 7 long years. That is too long to
wait. If colleagues are concerned about the size of the bill--truly, if
we had gone back the way we did it, every 2 years, it would be about
the size that this bill is. As Senator Inhofe will say when he gets
here--and, as you know, he and I don't agree on many environmental
matters, but on public works matters we do agree--this is the first
step in a long process--the authorizing step--and then comes the
appropriations.
So every one of these projects that has gone through local
governments all over this country--remember, for every one of these
projects, there is a local match. These are projects that came from the
bottom up, from our people who were saying to us we need help with
flood control, with economic development, with dredging and we need
help with wetlands restoration and in a number of areas involving the
movement of water; and this country learned it when we watched after
Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
If we didn't know it then, we certainly know it now. So I say to this
President, this bill is in line, in terms of the pricetag, with what we
would have had if we had done this bill every 2 years. There is huge
support for this bill. The votes in the House and the Senate are
enormous, very one-sided.
So I hope, Mr. President, if you are listening or people in your
office are listening, this is a respectful request to please join with
us. We don't have to fight over every single thing. When it comes to
the economy, the quality of life of our people, we should be united.
The House vote on this conference report was 381 to 40. We are hoping
we will vote in that same fashion in the Senate.
Mr. President, how much time do I have, since I am Senator Reid's
designee?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Each of the managers has 67\1/2\
minutes. The Senator has used 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will Senator Landrieu be amenable to
taking 10 minutes at this time, and I will reserve time later for her
in the debate?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Landrieu. I wish
to say before she begins, she has been a mover behind this bill. She
has worked her heart out to get this bill to the floor and, as a result
of her working, of course, along with her colleague, Senator Vitter,
who is on the committee, our committee came to Louisiana and held a
very unique hearing. We had many colleagues--I see Senator Cardin is on
the floor. He was there. We had a very good turnout, and Senator
Landrieu was eloquent. She has been eloquent on the floor of the Senate
in the past I look forward to hearing her remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is
recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and
all of my colleagues on this particular committee who have worked so
hard. The ranking member, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, has also worked
hard. But I have to say to this chairwoman who took the chairmanship of
this committee and said 7 years is enough time to wait, it is too long
for the people of Louisiana, for California, or Florida, or Maryland--
my good colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, who serves on this
committee has been so forceful--she said: I am coming to Louisiana. I
want to see it for myself, particularly after Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita devastated our coast.
As the chairwoman knows, we lost 267 square miles of land in south
Louisiana because of the storm and the devastation of the tides, the
surges, and the flooding. That is more than the whole District of
Columbia, more than two and a half times the size of the 100 square
miles that represent the District of Columbia. This is a huge expanse
of land that was lost.
This Senator said enough. We have been waiting too long. It has been
7 long years. Today with this conference report vote that is going to
take place in about 2 hours, that wait will come to an end. The last
step Congress can take to send this bill off will have been taken. The
conference report, hopefully, will be approved by a vast majority of
Senators on both sides of the aisle. It would not have happened without
Senator Boxer's leadership. I am, indeed, so grateful on behalf of the
people I represent in Louisiana.
This is a small map, but it shows my colleagues the vastness of the
land we are trying to protect and preserve, this great wetlands, which
is the green area shown on this chart. The Mississippi River comes
down, of course, through the mouth of the Mississippi River. This is
the Sabine River that divides Louisiana from Texas and the Pearl River
that serves as a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana.
From east Texas, all of Louisiana, and for west Mississippi, this is
an extremely important bill for our coastal regions. It is going to
provide historic

[[Page S11975]]

and first-time funding for a comprehensive wetlands restoration, a
combination of levees, wetlands restoration, and freshwater diversion
projects that are going to not only protect the 3.5 million people who
live south of the I-10--when people say to me, Senator, why do you live
there? I don't know exactly how to answer that question other than to
say we have been there for 300 years.
I don't know exactly why the first person--and that was before the
Native Americans. That was after the Native Americans settled the land.
I am speaking about when Bienville put up a stake along the Mississippi
River. I would say there are any number of reasons, one of which is it
was absolutely imperative to settle on the mouth of the river for
westward expansion for the Nation. We couldn't have had a nation
without the Mississippi River and the Louisiana Purchase, of which 19
States now are made up from the Louisiana Purchase.
We remember our history. I cannot go into all the reasons, but they
most certainly are there with 300 years of history. There are 3 million
people who live here. We cannot relocate them. It would be cost
prohibitive. We can only protect them. We have put in smart planning
and smart zoning. That is what we are doing and have been doing. The
parishes put up money, and the State, and the Federal Government, and
that is what we are doing.

I only have a few minutes remaining. I will speak later.
There is another way to look at the levee system that is crucial to
protect the people who live in south Louisiana. Unlike many States, we
do not have beaches. I have been to the beautiful beaches in
California, and I want them preserved. I have been to some of the most
beautiful beaches in Virginia and North Carolina and throughout the
country. We are the only State that does not have beaches. We only have
two: Holly Beach which is 7 miles long--it was virtually destroyed in
the storm--and Grand Isle, which is 7 miles long. This coastline is
thousands of miles long with only two little beaches. But we do have
wetlands. We do not have people living on these wetlands. Sometimes
there is a little camp here or a little community there. But they are
stuck on the high ridges. They have been living on ridges that can be
protected, and with the right kind of levees and the right kind of
comprehensive system such as is in the Netherlands and other places in
the world, this can be done. It takes commitment, it takes dedication,
and it needs a steady stream of funding.
Mr. President, how many minutes do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a fairly dramatic chart I want
to show people. It is a little scary for me and, I am sure, the people
I represent. It is also very scary for Florida, Virginia, North
Carolina, and Georgia. This is the track of all hurricanes from 1955 to
2005. This is what the southeastern part of this country has to brace
itself for every year--year after year after year.
According to all reports, these storms are getting stronger and
stronger and more numerous. We have been very blessed that we have not
had a critical storm this summer. But the season is still open until
November.
This yellow track is the track of Katrina. This blue track is the
track of Rita which actually hit 2 years ago today. I was down in
Cameron Parish on the corner of Louisiana, and east Texas is still
hurting very badly, as well as our areas, from this storm. It has not
recovered yet.
My point is, this bill not only has projects for inland waterways and
navigation, but it provides vital projects for all of the southeastern
United States and for the eastern seaboard to protect the people, the
great industries, and manufacturing that are represented through all
sorts of navigable waterways and ports that service this whole Nation.
Without this bill, this whole area will become significantly more
vulnerable and open to storms, erosion, and surges. This is a very
dramatic chart that shows what we are up against.
I am going to come back later and show some other charts, but in
conclusion, this is a historic bill for Louisiana. It is extremely
important for the Nation. For the first time we have authorized
Morganza to the gulf which protects Houma, LA, a city not a lot of
people hear about, but it is a very important city. It is smaller than
Baton Rouge, smaller than New Orleans, smaller than Lafayette, but it
is crucial to the energy infrastructure of this Nation.
We have many small towns in south Louisiana that my colleagues will
not hear a lot about, but we store oil and gas there. We run pipelines
through these towns. People are down there working their hearts out to
give us the energy security we need. The least we can do is protect
their schools, their communities, their way of life, and their culture.
I thank Senator Boxer for allowing me to speak. I thank my colleague
Senator Vitter, who is a member of this committee. He will be speaking
in a moment. He has been extremely helpful, energetic, and forceful in
his advocacy for many of these projects. We have worked together. I am
very pleased that he has put so much time and effort into this bill.
I see my colleague from Florida, who also has made a historic
breakthrough on some projects, particularly the Everglades.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also rise and join so many colleagues on
both sides of the aisle in strong support of this Water Resources
Development Act conference report. Perhaps it is appropriate that we
will pass this historic legislation through the Senate today, September
24, the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Rita which devastated large
parts of southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana.
Of course, less than a month ago, August 29, was the 2-year
anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, also appropriate that we are finally
moving on this crucial legislation so near to that anniversary.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that as we still battle to
recover from those two devastating storms, as we still climb out of
that enormous setback in Louisiana, as we still face important work to
do related to that recovery in Congress, this conference report, this
WRDA bill, is the single most important thing we can pass to help the
gulf coast with that recovery, particularly medium and long term. That
is how vital it is to improve hurricane flood protection. That is how
essential it is to our very lifeblood survival recovery from the
devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Of course, as virtually everyone, I am very frustrated about how long
it took us to get to this moment--7 years--when a WRDA bill is expected
to be passed every 2 years. But at least, I will also say, we have done
something with that delay in improving the bill, particularly to take
account of the needs and the lessons learned coming out of those
devastating storms.
I first came to the Senate after the election of 2004, January 2005.
The first committee I was assigned to was the Environment and Public
Works Committee, through which this WRDA bill, of course, passes. That
committee works on this bill. Even when I first came to the Senate 3
years ago, this bill was about 2 years overdue. So it has been a long
time coming. But we have worked on it, we have improved it, it has gone
through the committee process, and it has gone through the conference
process.
I also served on the conference committee. We finally have a very
good, robust product and, again, we have at least taken advantage of
that time lapse to learn the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and
to include key positions that Louisiana and the gulf coast need for
their recovery and, indeed, survival.
What crucial provisions are included in this bill? A 100-year level
of hurricane protection. President Bush, in his famous Jackson Square
speech in mid-September 2005, made a clear, firm, and historic
commitment to that very high level of hurricane protection.
This bill embodies that commitment and passes it into law. It takes
several steps forward toward that 100-year level of protection.
Recently the Corps determined that level of protection doesn't exist
in the

[[Page S11976]]

greater New Orleans area. We are between 2 and 16 feet vertically
deficient in terms of our levees throughout the greater New Orleans
area. This bill fully authorizes addressing that shortfall.
The second key component of the bill, moving on into the future, is a
greater level of hurricane protection even beyond the 100-year level,
what we in south Louisiana call category 5 protection. In prior
legislation, some of the supplemental appropriation bills we passed on
an emergency basis after the hurricanes, we told the Corps to get to
work studying and designing that higher level of protection. This bill
further refines that mandate and directs the Corps in no uncertain
terms to offer specific project recommendations toward that
fundamentally higher, sounder level of protection.
A third crucial component is coastal restoration. As my colleague
from Louisiana has referred to, Louisiana has lost enormous amounts of
land, having it vanish into the gulf due to coastal land loss. We have
lost more land than exists in the entire State of Delaware. Right now,
as we speak, we lose a football field of land every 38 minutes, and
that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. It goes on and
on and on. This bill begins to address in a very serious way that
national emergency. This bill authorizes an ambitious coastal
restoration plan.
Again, the bill is long overdue, but we have made use of that delay.
When I first came to the Senate, the WRDA bill then under consideration
only devoted about $400 million to this national crisis of coastal land
loss. It only authorized one specific project. We knew we had to do
more. We saw we had to do more because of the experiences of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, and so now we authorize around $4 billion of this
crucial work, with 17 specific coastal restoration projects fully
authorized.
Corps reform, another crucial provision, is embodied in the bill,
although I think we do Corps reform right, particularly with regard to
Louisiana projects. One of the most bitter lessons of Hurricane Katrina
in particular was that the Corps had made serious engineering and other
mistakes in the past which led to the levee breaches and devastating
flooding throughout the New Orleans area. We had to reform the process
to make sure that never happened again. We had to bring in outside
engineering and other expertise to integrate with the expertise within
the Corps to make sure those sorts of mistakes were never made again.
I drafted, with the help of others, Corps reform provisions that are
in this bill, some of them specific to Louisiana projects. For the
first time ever, we fully integrate hurricane, coastal, flood
protection, and navigation programs within Louisiana and we mandate a
specific integration team that will help that become reality so that
one type of project isn't done in isolation.
We establish the Louisiana Water Resources Council to improve the
efficiency and performance of projects. That is a very important part
of Corps reform. We expedite the process so that, hopefully, no longer
will it take an average of 13 years--13 years--for an average Corps
project to even get to the stage where the first shovel hits the
ground.
This bill contains so many other crucial provisions--closing of the
MRGO, major improvements to the Bonnet Carre diversion alternative,
major hurricane protection improvements to the lower Jefferson Parish
and Lafourche Parish, and crucial work in the southwest part of the
State, where Hurricane Rita caused devastating damage, including deeper
access to the Port of Iberia, coupled with greater flood and hurricane
protection for Vermilion Parish, and improved dredging and navigation
on the Calcasieu River, and on and on and on. This bill is a lifeline
for our continued survival in Louisiana.
As we move forward, I thank all of the folks who worked so hard to
produce this bill, certainly including the leadership of my EPW
Committee, the chair, Chairman Boxer, the ranking member, Senator
Inhofe, and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee of
jurisdiction, Senators Isakson and Baucus, and all of their very
devoted staff. As we move on, I urge all of us to join together to pass
the bill, and then to either avoid Presidential veto or, if necessary,
hopefully work immediately in a bipartisan fashion to override that
veto and ensure that this crucial legislation, crucial for the very
survival of Louisiana, becomes law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a little UC to take care of the
people on the floor right now.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be allowed to speak for
up to 5 minutes; Senator Nelson for up to 10 minutes, and Senator
Baucus for up to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator wish for the
Members to speak in that order?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. And, for now, this will be it, but I will do a
second UC to include Senator Landrieu for another 10 at a later time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chair of the committee for
yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the conference
report for the Water Resources Development Act. This legislation
authorizes important studies and projects to protect and maintain water
resources throughout our country.
I am especially pleased that the conference report includes $26.9
million for Camp Ellis, ME. More than 100 years ago, the Army Corps
built a jetty extending out from the Saco River, adjacent to Camp Ellis
Beach. This jetty altered the pattern of currents and sand and it is
the primary cause of the devastating erosion at Camp Ellis. The extent
of the erosion is truly shocking. Some 36 houses have been washed into
the sea in the last 100 years. The 1998 shoreline is 400 feet from
where the shoreline stood in 1908. The houses that are now in danger
were once six or more houses back from the sea.
In April of this year, a devastating Patriot's Day storm hit Maine
with heavy winds and a great deal of rain. This terrible storm, the
worst natural disaster to strike Maine since the ice storm of 1998,
caused massive storm surges, astronomically high tides, and inland and
coastal flooding.
Let me show my colleagues some of the evidence of the devastation
that was caused by this April storm. As you can see, this is the road
that follows along the waterfront. It was utterly devastated. In
another picture I will show my colleagues, this is what happened to
some of the houses that were along the waterfront. As you can see, they
were completely destroyed as the water took out the foundations and
caused terrible destruction. That is a power pole that has been thrown
down by the storm. In yet another example, a house has been absolutely
ruined as a result of this storm.
Now, when the jetty was first constructed 100 years ago, we didn't
have the knowledge we do now, and no one predicted the terrible impact.
The incredible force of the ocean during the storm earlier this year
literally washed out the foundations of the homes. The street that once
ran along the ocean front was largely destroyed, leaving nothing
between the remaining homes and the open ocean. Many homeowners in the
area were still dealing with flooded basements for weeks following the
storm. This was a vivid reminder of the terrible impact a powerful
storm can have on those who live in this vulnerable community.
The sea has advanced such that another large storm could wash out the
peninsula altogether and turn Camp Ellis into an island. That,
obviously, would be devastating to the people who live there.
We know what must be done to prevent such a calamity. Studies
undertaken at the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers indicate
that an offshore breakwater and a spur coming off the jetty are likely
to be needed to protect Camp Ellis from further erosion and the
destruction of even more property. The Camp Ellis jetty was built by
the Federal Government at a time when the erosional impacts of
shoreline structures were largely unknown. The jetty has served its
important navigational purpose well over the 100-plus years of its
existence, but now it is time for the Federal Government to make good
on its obligation to help those people who have been harmed by the
structure the Federal Government built in the first place.

[[Page S11977]]

With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we will
finally have authorized the funds necessary to act upon the best
available science and to fully and finally protect the residents of
Camp Ellis. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, and
again I thank the committee for being responsive to the concerns of the
people of Maine.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, a commitment takes a lot more
than lip service and nice words to restore ecosystems, and particularly
ecosystems that have been manipulated by mankind and distorted as has
happened with the Florida Everglades. When I talk about commitment, I
want to talk about Senator Boxer. This lady, in only a few months,
after waiting for 7 years, with all other leadership flailing about and
not making it happen--this lady, our chair of the Environment
Committee, has made it happen and it is going to be passed. We are
going to do it today, and we all hope the President will not veto it.
But with the separation of powers under our constitution, we have a way
of enacting law over a President's veto, and that is better than a two-
thirds vote in both Houses of Congress to enact it into law despite the
veto of the President. We hope we don't have to do that, but if we do,
we will. Then we can set things right and we can get about the
restoration.
I want to tell the Senate about this incredible area known as the
Everglades. This is a compendium of satellite imagery over a 4-year
period. This is at the southern tip of Florida. This is Lake
Okeechobee, Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Homestead, and the
beginning of the Florida Keys. This is a road which was constructed in
the 1920s, to get from Miami to Naples, called the Tamiami Trail. This
is a road which was constructed to get from Fort Lauderdale to Naples--
Interstate 75--called Alligator Alley. This, of course, was constructed
much more recently--sometime about 25 years ago--and was constructed
with box culverts so that there would be proper water flows.

But you can imagine, back in the 1920s they didn't think about that.
When they built the Tamiami Trail, it in effect created a dike that, as
the water flowed south out of Okeechobee, in the historical Mother
Nature patterns, and would flow in this sheet flow to the south into
Florida Bay and into the gulf of Mexico, it was suddenly stopped by
this dike, which was the roadbed.
So part of this bill called Modified Waters is to correct that,
having additional flows come underneath and then eventually to
construct a long bridge or bridges here, which will enhance the flow of
the water. Why enhance the flow of the water? That is what Mother
Nature intended. The water actually starts way north, just south of
Orlando. It flows in a meandering stream called the Kissimmee River
into Lake Okeechobee and historically spilled over out of Lake
Okeechobee and flowed in a massive sheet flow in this direction,
southernly and southwesterly, until the hurricanes of the 1920s, in
which over 2,000 people were killed, drowned, and the whole idea was to
come in and start diking and draining for flood control. But in so
doing, they messed up what Mother Nature intended.
About the year 2000, when the comprehensive Everglades restoration
project was passed, it was to now accommodate for several different
things. First of all, the water had been diverted, so that had to be
changed. But the fact is that now 6 million people are living here.
That wasn't the case in early Florida. And a vast agricultural industry
had developed on the south end of the lake. To give the water needs to
the Everglades and the Everglades National Park and to the 6 million
people and to the agricultural interests--that, put together, is the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Ever since that was enacted,
we have not had an authorization bill to authorize the projects to
implement this plan. So I again give kudos to Senator Boxer for
bringing this up and making it happen fast.
What we have, then, is a major project in this bill called the Indian
River Lagoon. This is the Indian River up here. I happened to grow up,
as a child, on this river. At times, that and the St. Lucie River
flowing into the Indian River Lagoon is like a dead river because of
the excessive nutrients from lower Lake Okeechobee flowing to
Tidewater. The same to the west, down the Caloosahatchee River, down to
Fort Myers--excessive nutrients create a dead river.
I couldn't believe it. A couple of years ago, I went out on that
river right there, the St. Lucie River. First of all, there was a
bright-green algae bloom. You know what that means. That means algae is
sucking up the oxygen from the river, and therefore all the living
things that depend on that river are not going to be there. I didn't
see the mullet jumping. I didn't see the porpoises rolling. I didn't
see Mr. Osprey diving into the water to get his dinner. I didn't see
Mr. Eagle sitting over in the dead pine tree waiting for Mr. Osprey to
catch his dinner for him. It was a dead river. That is one of the
reasons for one of these major projects called the Indian River Lagoon,
and that is authorized. Then we have to appropriate the money and get
it done.
There is another area here called the Picayune Spring. It is a highly
endangered area because of the encroachment of development and the
necessary waterflows. It, also, is addressed as well as what I talked
about, this dike, which is the roadbed, called the Tamiami Trail.
What we have is a comprehensive plan for what Marjorie Stoneman
Douglas, when she wrote of her great love of these Florida Everglades,
termed the ``River of Grass.''
I will conclude with this. Senator Boxer and her husband were kind
enough to go down to the Everglades with me a few weeks ago. It was
this incredible sight. As we glided over this river of grass in an
airboat and as the Sun began to set and as the shadows lengthened, as
we came out of the river of grass into the Big Cypress Preserve with
these stands of cypress trees, with that little light available right
at dusk, it looked as if we were in this beautiful meadow of grass with
the tree stands. Suddenly, reality struck when we saw a mother doe and
her two fawns--instead of bounding over the hills of the grass, they
were jumping over the grass out of the water and back into the water,
in this incredible place, the location of fauna and flora.
The Everglades does not just affect Florida. It doesn't just affect
the Western Hemisphere. Major environmental sites that are ecologically
threatened affect the climate of planet Earth, our home.
I am so grateful that we have this bill up and that we are going to
pass it with huge numbers today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
First, I deeply congratulate the chair of the committee, Senator
Boxer. She worked very hard and on a strong bipartisan basis to get
this legislation where it is, working with Senator Inhofe. I thank him
equally.
I also wish to thank Senator Isakson, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, concerning this legislation.
And hats off to Senator Jim Jeffords. Senator Jeffords and his
staffer, Catharine Ransom, deserve special thanks because for years
they have been working on this legislation. I wanted first to thank him
for his efforts as well. I know if he were here with us today, he would
be very happy getting this legislation passed.
We westerners have been plagued recently with several years of
drought. Ranchers and farmers across my State of Montana have watched
their livelihood dry up before their eyes. The West's battle with
drought highlights the pressing needs to ensure our water resources are
used efficiently because it does not rain in the West. It may rain in
Washington, DC, and other parts of the country, but it doesn't rain in
the West.
This conference report provides authority for the Army Corps of
Engineers to move forward with long overdue water resources projects.
Levees are crumbling, people are living in harm's way waiting for this
legislation. The tragedy in Minnesota highlights that need. This
conference report authorizes projects that will provide needed flood
and storm damage protection, navigation improvements, and environmental
restoration. Clearly, there

[[Page S11978]]

is authority here well needed, long overdue, for rebuilding and
restoring the coast of Louisiana, devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.
Several projects are very important to my State of 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; and a
riverfront revitalization project in Missoula.
There is also a very important authorization for the rehabilitation
and improvement of a very important aging water project we called the
Hi-Line Region of Montana, called the St. Mary diversion. This system
is rusting, it is cracking, and it is crumbling. If you go out and see
it, you are stunned how much this is deteriorating. But 17,000
Montanans on the Hi-Line depend on this 90-year-old system for their
drinking water. Without St. Mary, lower Milk River would go dry 6 out
of every 10 years, imperiling the water source to thousands of Montana
families.
These projects and their importance to the communities and the
projects they serve underlie the need for this conference report. We
passed it last year. Let's get it enacted again this year.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my friend begins, I wanted to get
the parliamentary situation, if he will yield for a minute?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that Senator Feingold has up to 30
minutes to speak on the bill. He and I discussed it. If he has any
added time, he has graciously agreed to yield it to me with the
understanding that if he wants additional time, I will get it back to
him later. But I think, if it is necessary for me to make such a
request, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time the Senator yields
back be yielded back to me with the understanding he will be able to
speak again if he so chooses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin has 30
minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. If I do not use all the time, I will certainly be happy
to yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. President, I will oppose the conference report on the Water
Resources Development Act. For 7 years, I have worked with Senator
McCain and many of our colleagues on essential reforms of the Corps of
Engineers and have long anticipated the day the Congress enacts
meaningful reform.
Unfortunately, today is not that day, and this is not the reform bill
the country needs.
After a decade of Government and independent reports calling for
reforming the Corps and pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects
and project studies, and after the tragic failures of New Orleans'
levees during Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful
reforms to ensure the projects the Corps builds are safe, appropriate,
environmentally responsible, and fiscally sound. The urgency and
necessity could not be clearer.
Unfortunately, the conference report includes weak reforms. The
Senate twice voted in support of strong reform language, when it passed
WRDA bills earlier this year and last Congress. But the conference
report we are about to vote on has been stripped of many important
safeguards that would ensure accountability and prevent the Corps from
manipulating the process. We have compromised enough over the years. We
can no longer afford a system that favors wasteful projects over the
needs of the American people.
The bill brought back from conference is particularly disappointing
because a few months ago, on May 15, Senators Reid, Boxer, and I
entered into a colloquy in which we agreed the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee would ensure the strong Senate reforms would be
the minimum reforms coming out of conference and enacted into law. That
agreement, apparently, has counted for little.
I am particularly troubled by the changes made to the bill's
independent review provision during negotiations between the House and
the Senate. The Senate version of the bill included a strong
independent review provision, which I successfully offered as an
amendment to last year's bill and which was again included in this
year's WRDA.
Subjecting Corps of Engineers project studies to a review by an
independent panel of experts will help ensure future Corps projects do
not waste taxpayer money or endanger public safety and that
environmental impacts are avoided or minimized.
Unfortunately, the independent review provision included in the
conference report was significantly weakened in several respects.
First, it does not ensure independence of the review process. Under the
conference report, the supposedly ``independent'' review is not
independent. The review process is run by the Corps rather than outside
the Agency, as required by the Senate bill.
The Corps Chief of Engineers is given significant authority to decide
the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to
implement a review panel's recommendations, and, apparently, even has
the ability to control the flow of information received by the review
panel.
The Corps was not given the authority to determine the scope of the
review, but in these other respects, it was given far too much
authority, all of which will compromise the independence of the review
that is performed.
Second, it terminates the independent review provision 7 years after
enactment. It is reasonable for Congress to continually evaluate how
the program is working, but to presume there is not a need for a long-
term review and set a sunset date is irresponsible.
Independent reviews should be permanently integrated into the Corp's
planning process. The burden should be on the Corps to demonstrate why
it does not need a congressionally mandated review process, rather than
on Congress to wage another battle to extend the requirement in 7
years.
Third, it allows the Corps to exempt projects. The Senate provisions
established mandatory review when clear triggers are met. However, the
conference report gives the Corps fairly broad discretion to decide
what projects get reviewed. It expands the House's loophole allowing
the Corps to exempt projects that exceed the mandatory $45 million cost
trigger. The Corps can exempt Continuing Authority Program projects,
certain rehabilitation projects, and, most egregiously, projects it
determines are not controversial or only require an Environmental
Assessment rather than a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement.
It is this very decision, whether to do an EA or an EIS, that is
often in need of review. Furthermore, a project's economic
justification, engineering analysis, and formulation of project
alternatives are critical elements that should be looked at for all
major projects, not just those with significant environmental impact.
The conference report also prevents review of most ongoing studies.
Although the conference report allows the Corps to exempt projects from
review, it does not give the Corps equal authority to include projects.
The bill includes restrictive language that prevents the Corps from
reviewing studies that were initiated more than 2 years ago, or that
were initiated in the last 2 years but already have an ``array of
alternatives'' identified, which occurs early in the process.
The Senate language would have allowed the Corps to initiate a review
for any project that does not have a draft feasibility report.
The conference report also eliminates the requirement that a review
is mandatory if requested by a Federal agency. The Senate bill would
have made a project review mandatory if requested by a Federal agency
with the authority to review Corps projects. Instead, the conference
report gives the Corps the authority to reject the request and requires
the Federal agency to appeal the decision to the Council on
Environmental Quality.

[[Page S11979]]

The Corps should be required to conduct a review made by the head of
another agency that is charged with reviewing Corps projects or, at a
minimum, to justify to the Council on Environmental Quality why it
wants to deny such a request.
The final problem I wish to highlight is the conference report does
not make sure the Corps is accountable. The conference report
eliminated a key provision in the Senate bill that ensured
accountability. Specifically, the provision would have required that if
a project ends up in court, the same weight is given to the panel and
the Corps' opinion if the Corps cannot provide a good example for why
it ignored the panel's recommendations. By dropping this accountability
requirement, the conference report allows the Corps to ignore the
panel's recommendations, as the Corps is currently doing with its own
internal review process.

I would love to be able to join my colleagues in claiming this is a
``historic moment.'' I am pleased that some of the other reforms I
fought for are included in this bill. We have come a long way in the
last 7 years, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan majority of
my colleagues who supported the Senate's reforms last year and again
earlier this year.
But we have not come far enough, and that is truly regrettable. Why
should the taxpayers of this country have to continue wondering if
their dollars are being spent on projects that lack merit, hurt the
environment or are not entirely reliable? Is not Congress finally
willing to put an end to the longtime practice of doling out projects
to Members regardless of those projects' merits? How many more flawed
projects or wasted dollars will it take before we say enough?
I am pleased the conference report contains some modest reforms, but
we can do much better than that. In fact, we did much better than that
when we passed the Senate bill not long ago. Congress needs to get this
right; I think the stakes are too high.
Unfortunately, for the reasons I have explained, the conference
report fails to do enough. It contains severely compromised language
that does not fix the status quo under which Congress uses the Corps to
fund pet projects that are not justified or adequately reviewed.
I wish to also express my concern with the cost of the bill which has
ballooned to $23 billion, $23 billion from the $14, $15 billion cost of
the House and Senate versions.
Nearly $1 billion of the additional cost is for 19 projects that were
added during conference, neither the Senate nor the House has
previously reviewed these projects.
My colleagues have previously stood on the Senate floor and said the
cost of the bill does not matter because WRDA is merely an authorizing
bill and not an appropriations bill. We will sort out our priorities
later, they say.
I think the American taxpayers join me in saying this is absolutely
irresponsible and shirks our responsibilities as elected officials.
There is already a $58 billion backlog of construction projects
previously authorized, and with only $2 billion annually appropriated
for project construction, this means the Nation's most pressing needs
face significant competition for funding and likely delays.
Furthermore, this bill authorizes a significant number of projects
and studies that are beyond the Corps' primary mission areas. The Corps
cannot be everything to everyone, and Congress does need to discipline
itself and set priorities.
I will continue to work with my colleagues to institute a system for
prioritizing Corps projects and other critical reforms. We may have an
opportunity to pass those reforms sooner than some had hoped. The
administration has indicated the President will veto this bill, this
bloated bill.
Rather than overriding a veto, I hope the Congress will use that veto
as an opportunity to rethink the flawed mindset that resulted in this
bill and in previous WRDA bills. We do not do our constituents favors
by spending their tax dollars on projects that are not justified or
fully reviewed. We need reforms to make sure these tax dollars are
spent in the most important priorities, not just on members' pork.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the WRDA conference report.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DURBIN.) The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate EPW Chair Boxer
and Ranking Member Inhofe for bringing a balanced and much needed bill
to the floor.
Normally this bill is a 2-year authorization, but there has not been
a bill, a WRDA bill, during this administration. So I will call it the
Water Resources Development Act of 2001.
Now, my State has nearly 1,000 miles of Missouri and Mississippi
River frontage in addition to our lakes. Our communities rely on Corps
projects for affordable water, transportation, flood protection, energy
production, environmental protection, and recreational opportunities.
Nobody knows better than the farmers of Missouri and the Midwest how
important river transportation is to serve the world market. This bill
for my constituents means jobs, trade competitiveness, reliable and
affordable energy, drinking water, and protection from floods, which
can ruin property and kill people.
This is not of minor importance to those out in the world, in the
Midwest, who work for a living. I am delighted we are completing our
long journey to permit modernization of the Mississippi River locks.
These locks were built during the Great Depression for paddle wheel
boats 75 years ago. They were designed to last 50 years.
Well, they are 25 years past their design lifetime. This is a long,
much needed, overdue investment in infrastructure, jobs, trade
competitiveness, and environmental protection.
Sixty percent of all grain exports move through the bottleneck of
obsolete locks. Some 30 percent of oil is shipped by barge, by
waterway, a significant amount of coal, of cement, of fertilizer. A
single medium-sized barge tow carries the same amount of freight as 870
trucks. There is a comparison for railroad, but the railroads are so
full they cannot carry any more; they are at capacity. But it carries
something akin to 2\1/2\ trainloads.
These facts speak volumes for the cost, pollution, and fuel
efficiencies of river transportation. Throughout this long and arduous
process to complete a 2-year bill in 7 years, we have been blessed with
strong bipartisan support for modernizing the locks. I have already
referred to the relationship of our EPW Committee.
Senator Grassley has been supportive of this from the start. We would
not be here today without Senator Harkin, the occupant of the chair,
Senator Durbin, Senator Obama, Senator McCaskill, and others from the
Midwest playing a key role in this becoming law. I express my
gratitude.
Outside Congress, modernization of the old bottleneck looks has won
the untiring support of agriculture, the waterways community, industry,
labor, and community leaders. I am concerned the administration may
veto this bill because they say it is too big. Well, if it were a
normal 2-year bill, it would be big. But this is a 7-year bill; taking
into account three cycles which we should have and have not yet passed
a WRDA bill. So it is big by historic standards.
When we total the three WRDA bills passed during the 5-year periods
of 1996 to 2000, a 5-year period, the authorization levels totaled
almost the same as this 7-year bill, almost $21 billion.
Now, if there is a veto, I look forward to overriding it on a
bipartisan basis as soon as action can be scheduled. This is an
authorization bill. Without appropriations, it spends nothing. As
Senators know, this bill simply adds projects to the list of items
eligible for appropriations subject to the binding budget limitations
faced under the appropriations process.
Put another way, this is a license to hunt. You still to have hit the
bird and you can't go over the limit. So all it is is a license to ask
for appropriations. The backlog of unfunded items often referred to by
opponents of this bill is unfunded because many of the projects are not
sufficiently high priority within tight budgets. Some may be very good
projects but they do not make the cut given the limited budget. Does it
make sense to say that bills passed

[[Page S11980]]

many years ago have to be funded before we can take a fresh look at
priorities facing our waterway infrastructure and other waterway needs?
I don't think so. Priorities change. Right now these items in this bill
are the priorities that have been thoroughly vetted by the Corps, by
all those who have input, and by the Environment and Public Works
Committee in our body and in the Transportation Infrastructure
Committee on the other side. I urge my colleagues to support it.
To oppose new authorizations is simply a way to pretend to save money
without saving money, while unwisely assuming that all currently
authorized projects are of a higher priority than the newly authorized
projects contained in this bill. In many ways, this will cost money,
and I will talk about that in a minute. But if there were to be a veto,
the unfortunate message for water States and agricultural States in the
Midwest is that water resources are not a high priority to this
administration, despite the expectation of many supporters in 2000,
when supporters of waterways in Missouri came out in record numbers to
carry the State for the current President. The previous administration
was not supportive and this administration is no better. Our concerns
started with proposed construction budget cuts. Then they fired Mike
Parker, a strong proponent of water resources. Then they underfunded
flood control and navigation on the Missouri River. Now it would be
capped off by vetoing WRDA. I truly hope that doesn't happen. They
would get a grade for consistency, except that they say they support
aggressive trade policies. But they say nothing about the
transportation capacity vital to move the goods they want to trade, so
they say. Bulk commodities can't be faxed or e-mailed or Fed-Ex'd or
UPS'd in the real world to the rest of the world. Again, on our
waterways in Missouri, one medium-size barge tow carries the same
freight as 870 trucks with cost, pollution, fuel efficiencies, economic
and environmental benefits that are obvious to all.
I was interested to read a November 2005 article in the Washington
Times which reported that the President noted during a press conference
with Panamanian President Torrijos: `` . . . it's in our nation's
interest that this canal be modernized.'' I know the administration
does not oppose modernizing the Social Security-age locks on the
Mississippi River, built during the Depression for paddle-wheel boats,
but they also have not yet even endorsed it. Yet there was a rousing
endorsement for upgrading the waterways in Panama. My colleagues and my
constituents back home believe our midwestern exporters deserve as much
consideration as Chinese exporters who transit the Panama Canal. I
remain hopeful the administration will agree.
While no two of us would write the bill the same way, I am pleased so
much work was done for so long by so many to find a compromise that
could serve the diverse needs of a nation that needs water resources to
function. Among a very long list, this bill is supported by the
National Corn Growers Association, the Carpenters, operating engineers,
laborers, American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean
Association, and scores of members of the Waterway Counsel from coast
to coast, communities large and small.
Our staffs have been working tirelessly on this not for days or for
weeks but years. It has been a long process. We have gotten to know
them like family. There is almost some regret in knowing that our
family will be broken up when this bill is signed into law. But maybe
we can get back on schedule and have another WRDA bill in 2 years. The
staff has been tremendous. They took on tough issues, set up difficult
criteria, helped to sort through competing objectives, and they never
quit. While there were many who worked very hard on this over the
years, including Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, Ken
Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushford, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Quiello, and
others, I especially thank the bipartisan staff support of Let Mon Lee
with the committee. Let Mon has been working with us for all these
years. He is truly part of our family. We would hate to lose him, but
if that is the price for passing WRDA, so be it.
The success of our economy and its people owes a great debt to
investments that were made by those before us. I urge my colleagues to
make the investments now that will be providing the benefits for future
generations and vote in favor of an opportunity and value for our
future. We were reminded tragically a few weeks ago in Minnesota of the
need to be vigilant in upgrading our infrastructure. When you see what
happened in Minnesota, we saw a bridge collapse. There was a tragic
loss of life. There was some disruption of commerce. But if one of
these locks midway on the river between Missouri and Illinois at the
bottom of the chain fails completely and bailing wire and chewing gum
can only hold back the river so long and they leak not like sieves but
by continuous sheets of water, if one of those locks were to blow out
and fail, the impact on our economy, on commerce, would be huge, the
impact we almost felt when Katrina shut off the mouth of the
Mississippi River in Louisiana. Fortunately, they got that undone in a
couple of days. But even papers that don't normally think about water
commerce and agriculture were saying what a danger this was. A failure
of one of these locks, one of these half-size, outdated, overaged locks
could tremendously cripple our economy, put our rural economies into a
significant downturn.
I urge our leadership in this body to move quickly for a speedy
override vote should a veto materialize. But again, my thanks, my
congratulations, and deep appreciation to the Environment and Public
Works Committee leadership and the diligent staff who have brought us
to this point.
It is time we pass the 2001 WRDA bill. It may be 6 years late, but it
is even more needed now than it was in 2001.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is it a fact that I have 34 minutes
remaining on my manager's time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Feingold graciously said he would yield me the
remainder of his time with the understanding that if he needed more, I
would give him some of it. So what is his amount that is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that that be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, again, in a way I am glad I didn't have a
chance to speak before because there has been so much interest in this
bill that I waited until we had a little quieter time on the floor,
although several are coming.
Part of our work is making sure that in coordination with local
governments and State governments and communities and the American
people, we do what we need to do so we can build our economy, so our
economy has behind it the infrastructure it needs. What happens when an
infrastructure fails? We saw that in Minnesota when the bridge
collapsed.
I am proud the Environment and Public Works Committee held a very
strong hearing at the behest of Senator Klobuchar, and we are moving
forward on a way to ensure that we can fund those kinds of
improvements. We saw what happens when water infrastructure fails, when
we look at what happened in Hurricane Katrina. We saw that the levees
we thought were built to protect against category 5 storms simply
didn't stand up.
There is no way we can talk our way out of the problem we face in
America. The problem we face is we have an aging infrastructure.
Whether it is our roads or bridges, our highways, or our water
infrastructure, these need attention. That is why today is such an
important day and why I am so proud to stand here, because even though
not every Member will support this bill, I would say almost every
Member will. Senator Feingold was eloquent and he was disappointed that
we didn't do everything he and Senator McCain asked us on Corps reform.
I understand that. We are very close friends and colleagues. The fact
is, I see it a little differently. We went a very long way. I know he
and I have our differences. What I wish to do, rather than take the

[[Page S11981]]

time to engage in an argument, is to place in the Record the program
highlights of Corps reform initiatives that are in this bill. I ask
unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 Corps Reform Initiatives--
Program Highlights

Independent Review

Creates a truly independent review process of projects
through a program of mandatory reviews with reviewers
selected by the independent National Academy of Sciences.
Projects over $45 million (with an expanded definition to
include beach nourishment projects), controversial projects,
and projects where a governor requests a review will all be
subject to independent review.
The review applies to project studies plus environmental
impact statements.
The review panels will be able examine all aspects of the
environmental, economic, and engineering aspects of the
proposed project.
The review panels will have the opportunity to receive,
evaluate, and comment upon input from States, local
governments, and the public.
Recommendations of the review panel must be a part of the
public project record, and any rejection of the
recommendations must be explained in the record.
The costs of the review are Federal and are not contingent
upon future appropriations.

Safety Assurance Reviews

Creates a new responsibility to have outside experts review
and assist the Corps of Engineers in the design and
construction of flood damage reduction or hurricane and storm
damage reduction projects to improve the performance of these
critical, life-saving projects.

Mitigation

Corps projects would have to comply with the same
mitigation standards and policies established under section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as any other
entity.
Corps mitigation plans must provide for the same or greater
ecosystem values as those lost to a water resources project
through implementation of not less than in-kind mitigation.
Corps studies must include detailed mitigation plans that
can be evaluated by the public and the Congress, including
specific statements on the ability to carry out the
mitigation plan.
Eliminates the Senate language that could have delayed
mitigation up to one year.
Establishes requirements for the Corps to conduct
monitoring of mitigation implementation until ecological
success criteria are met. In evaluating success, the Corps
must consult yearly with applicable Federal and State
agencies on mitigation status.
The increased mitigation requirements apply to all new
studies and any other project that must be reevaluated for
any reason.
Requires the Corps to develop and implement a publicly
available mitigation reporting system.

Planning Principles and Guidelines

Requires the Secretary to revise the planning Principles
and Guidelines for the first time since 1983. The process
must be in consultation with Federal agencies, and must
solicit and consider public and expert comments.
The factors to be included in the revised Principles and
Guidelines include the elements from both the Senate and
House bills, ensuring the broadest look at the existing
document and incorporating the most current and accurate
concepts.
Establshes a national policy to maximize sustainable
economic development, avoid the unwise use of floodplains and
minimize adverse impacts and vulnerabilities in floodplains;
and protect and restore the functions of natural systems and
mitigate any unavoidable impacts.
Requires a comprehensive report on U.S. vulnerabilities and
comparative risks related to flooding.

Watershed-based Planning

Increases Federal participation in watershed-based planning
to eliminate the lack of integration of the
interconnectedness of projects--a major short-coming of the
failure of the hurricane protection in New Orleans.

Levee Safety

Creates a National Levee Safety Assessment program, in
cooperation with the States, to address the lack of
information on and assessment of levees.
Creates a publicly available database with an inventory of
levees.
Requires a Federal inspection and public disclosure of all
Federally-owned or operated levees, all Federally constructed
but non-Federally operated levees, and non-Federally
constructed levees if requested by the owner.

Other Program Improvements

Expedites the process for deauthorizing the unconstructed
backlog of projects.
Creates a Federal responsibility to participate in the
monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects to ensure
project success.
Allows for non-profit entities to partner with the Corps of
Engineers in implementing projects, which is especially
important on small-scale environmental restoration projects.
Clarifies that the cost-sharing reforms enacted in 1986
apply to all projects and studies, stopping the Corps of
Engineers from creating waivers and loopholes.
Expands opportunities for the beneficial reuse of dredged
material for restoration and preservation benefits.
Ensures the authority of the Corps of Engineers to
participate in ecosystem restoration projects that include
dam removal.

Mrs. BOXER. What everyone will be able to read is the independent
review we now have in place in the bill that is truly independent, done
by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes safety assurance
reviews, mitigation, planning principles and guidelines, watershed-
based planning, levee safety, and other program improvements, including
expediting the process for deauthorizing the unconstructed backlog of
projects. Rather than get into a big argument, to me it is such a
positive day today.
I see the Senator from Virginia coming to say a few words.
This is a very important day. We are struggling in the Senate to work
together. The war in Iraq has torn us apart. It is very hard. But on
this matter of building an infrastructure and making sure it works, we
are as one. This conference report has the support of my ranking
member, Senator Inhofe, the entire Environment and Public Works
Committee. It is important to note that the conference report was
signed by every conferee from both Chambers. The conference report was
signed by every conferee, Republican, Democratic, Independent, as they
may be, in both Chambers. The conference report has already received an
overwhelming vote in the House: 381 in favor; 40 opposed. Imagine what
a wonderful message that is that we can work together.
I also say for the record that this conference report fully complies
with the rules of the Senate as amended by S. 1, the Honest Leadership
and Open Government Act of 2007. Under the requirements of new rule
XLIV, I certify that each congressionally directed spending item in the
conference report and the name of each Senator who submitted a request
to the committee for that item has been identified through a chart that
has been available on the committee Web site at least 48 hours prior to
the vote on this conference report. So we have been faithful as we must
be to the new rule XLIV on our ethics, where you can see what every
Senator requested and a certification that in fact there is no conflict
of interest, no pecuniary interest on the part of the Senator or any
member of the immediate family. This is truly a bipartisan bill.
I am going to make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion
of my 10 minutes, Senator Cardin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and
that then Senator Warner be recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe I was on the floor before the
Senator from Maryland.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senator from Maryland has been on the floor all
day.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. Well, I am not trying to run this.
Mrs. BOXER. How much time would my colleague wish?
Mr. WARNER. I am going to take 2 or 3 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Then why don't we give you 5 minutes first and then 10
minutes for Senator Cardin.
Mr. WARNER. Does that accommodate my colleague?
Mrs. BOXER. He is very pleased with that.
How many more minutes do I have on my 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 23 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. So, again, we have complied with the new ethics rules. I
want to say also, in terms of the Corps reform matters, there is an
environmental organization, American Rivers, and they have written a
very important release that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Rivers, August 1, 2007

Water Bill Begins Process of Modernizing the Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC--In a move that will help communities,
taxpayers, and the environment, a House-Senate Conference
Committee has produced reforms in a bill that will improve
how the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) does business. The
Water Resources

[[Page S11982]]

Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), H.R. 1495, will begin moving
the Corps into the 21st century.
The Corps is the nation's primary river management agency
and in 2006 accepted responsibility for faulty floodwall and
levee designs that led to the tragic flooding of New Orleans
following Hurricane Katrina. The Corps' designs were so
flawed that levees and floodwalls collapsed in the face of a
storm they should have withstood. Corps projects also
destroyed vital coastal wetlands that could have reduced the
Hurricane's storm surge, and funneled that surge into the
heart of New Orleans. The problems with Corps planning
highlighted by Katrina affect Corps projects across the
country.
The WRDA bill will produce critical improvements to the
Corps' planning process, including requiring an update of the
Corps' woefully obsolete planning guidelines that dictate how
the Corps evaluates specific projects. The bill will also
require the Corps to do a much better job of replacing
habitat lost to its projects. The Corps now routinely ignores
the basic wetlands mitigation standards that the agency
applies to private citizens. The bill will also establish a
new policy that gives a stronger emphasis on protecting the
environment and the natural systems that provide critical
natural flood protection to communities. It also directs that
there be a comprehensive study of the nation's flood risks
and flood management programs.
``The reforms in this bill begin to put the Corps on track
towards becoming a more reliable and credible agency,'' says
American Rivers' president Rebecca Wodder. ``While we hoped
that Congress would go farther in several critical areas, we
are pleased with the passage of this first round of urgently
needed changes. We intend to see that these changes are
executed to their fullest extent and call out any weaknesses
in this new process.''
The gains in the WRDA bill would not have been possible
without the tireless work from lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle, and both sides of Capitol Hill. Senators Russ Feingold
(D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) have long championed the issue
of Corps reform, and Senate Environment and Public Works
Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and House Transportation and
Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) deserve praise
for working to change key aspects of how the Corps operates.
Unfortunately, the conferees failed to adopt the robust
independent review provision that Senators Russ Feingold (D-
WI) and John McCain (R-AZ) and others had secured in the
Senate version of the WRDA bill in the last 2 years. The
conferees instead adopted a project review provision that
lacks complete independence. The final bill contains several
loopholes that would allow the Corps to avoid review under
certain circumstances and ignore a review panel's
recommendations. Worse still, the provision also inexplicably
disappears after 7 years. Independent review is particularly
important in light of the flooding of New Orleans and the
recent Government Accountability Office findings that Corps
project studies were so flawed that they could not provide a
reasonable basis for decision making.
``The nation has been very well served by the critical
leadership of Senators Feingold and McCain to reform the
Corps,'' says Melissa Samet, Senior Director for Water
Resources for American Rivers. ``We look forward to working
with them to ensure that the Corps strictly adheres to the
reforms included in this bill and that additional reforms as
included in future legislation.''
``Congress has taken a first step towards more responsible
river management,'' adds Wodder. ``American Rivers and our
colleagues throughout the nation will be watching to see that
the Corps lives up to the intent of the original authors of
this legislation and we will continue to fight further
reforms to ensure public safety and environmental
sustainability.''

Mrs. BOXER. They certainly believe we should have gone further with
Corps reform. That is clear.
But they do say:

The reforms in this bill begin to put the Corps on track
towards becoming a more reliable and credible agency.

This is important. They do say:

The gains in the WRDA bill would not have been possible
without the tireless work from lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle.

They name some names of Senators.
Even though, as I say, they would have wanted 100 percent of what
Senator Feingold asked for, they again say:

Congress has taken a first step towards more responsible
river management.

I feel pleased with this result. I know sometimes we see a glass half
full and sometimes we see it half empty. I see it half full. I am proud
we made these amazing strides toward Corps reform. Senator Feingold is,
shall we say, very disappointed, and I respect that. I do not see it
the way he sees it.
So when I come back to some more of my time--but I will yield at this
time--I will talk about how important this bill is to the health and
safety of our families, our communities, and our economy. At this time
I yield and we will go to the unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to our
distinguished chairwoman. I say to her, I commend you on your
leadership and that of our distinguished ranking colleague, Senator
Inhofe. It is quite an achievement. It has been 6 years of working to
get here, and I have been pleased to be a member of this committee for
a couple decades almost now. But it is a great achievement. I strongly
support what you have been able to do and personally thank you for your
inclusion of an amendment that I have felt very important. Senator
Webb, my colleague from Virginia, and I announced on July 30 the basic
text of that amendment. I am pleased today to add a few closing words.
The conference report--likely my last WRDA as a Senator--includes the
high priority Craney Island Eastward Expansion project. Craney Island
represents a significant opportunity for the Commonwealth to be home to
the development of state-of-the-art cargo operations. The project will
accommodate a major new terminal for the Virginia Port Authority and
will create over 54,000 new jobs annually, with wages of about $1.7
billion.
Now, this port serves not only the Commonwealth of Virginia, but its
tentacles reach deep into America. Many States are served.
As home to the world's largest naval base; that is, the Tidewater
region, and as one of the business commercial ports on the east coast,
Hampton Roads is a strategic, critical port necessary for national
defense, commerce, and trade. So this project will also directly and
indirectly serve our national defense.
This project will help position the Hampton Roads region to
strengthen its position as a major east coast port. The Port of
Virginia serves as a gateway. It is an interesting term; it is a
``gateway.'' In other words, things flow in, things flow out, and not
just for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Almost every State in the Union
ships down through this port on some occasions. More than 55 percent of
the cargo we move comes from outside of the borders of the Commonwealth
of Virginia. That is to say, this project is not just important for
Virginians but for other States and companies that rely on their goods
moving through the port in a reliable and cost-effective, safe manner.
For that reason, I am pleased the cost share for this project will be
equally divided--equally divided--between the Commonwealth of Virginia,
through its port authority, and the Federal Government. This is clearly
a project with strong national benefits, and it is only fitting that in
this case the Federal Government help shoulder part of the cost because
of the national security interests and the fact that we serve so many
other States.
Again, I thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member of
our committee and others who made this amendment possible.
I yield back the remainder of my time to my good friend and
colleague, such as he may continue with his speech.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might make a unanimous consent
request before my good colleague speaks.
First of all, because my friends on the other side are looking for
time, I yield them 3 minutes of my time, to Senator Inhofe, right off
the bat--3 minutes. If the Chair could add that to the time they have
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
Senator Cardin, Senator DeMint be recognized for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report
on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I start by thanking
Senator Boxer for her incredible leadership and Senator Inhofe for
bringing forward a process that allows us to reach this moment where,
after 7 years, we are going to be able to pass a Water Resources
Development Act.
Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have developed a process where we
could come forward with programs that are extremely important to our
country in a fiscally responsible manner,

[[Page S11983]]

where we can come together in a nonpartisan--not only bipartisan but
nonpartisan--way to move forward on this legislation.
Let me start off by saying that in our country today we spend .3
percent of our gross domestic product on infrastructure and buildings.
That is deplorable. We saw the consequences of that failure to invest
in our infrastructure--in our roads and our bridges and our buildings--
in what happened in Minnesota with the collapse of a bridge.
In the Environment and Public Works Committee, we had a hearing on
what we need to do as far as wastewater treatment facility plants and
how there are literally hundreds of projects that go unfunded that are
damaging our health and damaging our environment.
Well, today we are prepared to move forward with what I think is an
extremely important bill. Once again, I congratulate the leadership on
the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, for making
this possible.
This bill is very important to our country. It is very important to
our future. I am proud to be a member of the committee and proud to be
a supporter of this legislation.
Let me comment for a few minutes as to what it means for the region
of the country I represent, in this general area where we all are
today.
We have heard a lot about how this is going to help the people of
Louisiana, which I strongly support. I think we all have a
responsibility to deal with the problems from Katrina. We heard how it
is going to help in regard to the Everglades.
This bill is the most important act in regard to the Chesapeake Bay,
which is a national treasure, and helps give a model as to how we can
reclaim a body of water that is impacted by so many jurisdictions and
States. We not only provide for the restoration funds that are
important for the Chesapeake Bay, but we also provide, for the very
first time, that the Army Corps will supplement the Environmental
Protection Agency's effort to repair and improve wastewater treatment
facilities that benefit the Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, Blue Plains will benefit from this legislation. The
users in northern Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia--all
of us--will benefit from the wastewater treatment facility improvements
at Blue Plains.
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
will be the largest single nutrient reduction project in the bay
watershed in a decade. All the experts say that should be our highest
priority in regard to the Chesapeake Bay.
I am also pleased there is $20 million in regard to oyster
restoration included in this legislation, which is very important for
the Chesapeake Bay and very important for our environment. So we are
improving the Chesapeake Bay by this legislation, but we are also
dealing with the economic realities of our waterways.
The Port of Baltimore contributes $2 billion to our State's economy,
employing 18,000 Marylanders directly, and tens of thousands more
indirectly.
I listened to my colleague from Virginia talk about the Port of
Virginia. As with the Port of Virginia, the Port of Baltimore is vital
to our national security, our national interest. This legislation
extends the authorization for the 50-foot dredging of the Baltimore
Harbor and channels, which is very important to our economy, very
important to our region.

But the legislation does more. It continues the commitment of the
Army Corps and our communities to Poplar Island. Poplar Island was once
an inhabited island. It is no longer the case. But what we have done
with Poplar Island is we have made it a plus-plus. We have a location
for the dredge materials from the dredging in the Chesapeake Bay and
our harbors, but we have also created an environmental advantage.
Poplar Island has risen phoenix-like from the waters of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mr. President, 570 acres of upland habitat and an additional 570
acres of wetland habitat are being created through the leadership of
this Congress. That is good news for our environment and good news for
our economy. Poplar Island is a national model of how we should do the
dredging and environmental improvements. There is more in it for our
region.
Smith Island is a remote inhabited island in the Chesapeake Bay on
the Maryland-Virginia border. It has lost 3,300 acres of wetlands, and
it is threatened to be totally lost to erosion. This bill authorizes
the construction of 2 miles of breakwaters to protect over 2,100 acres
of wetlands and underwater grassbeds. It is very important to our
environment, very important to the people who happen to live on Smith
Island. I am pleased we have included that in this legislation.
This bill helps from the eastern shore of Maryland, to the Chesapeake
Bay, to the mountains of western Maryland. The rewatering of the C&O
Canal near Cumberland will not only help as far as the historical
restoration of that part of our State but will also be important for
flood control.
This legislation is comprehensive. It helps all the regions of our
country, but helps our Nation as a whole. I am proud to be a supporter
of this legislation. I am proud to have served on the committee that
helped create it. I urge my colleagues not only to support this
legislation but urge the President to please understand how important
this bill is to our country.
It is a modest investment. It starts to reverse the process where,
for too long, we have ignored our infrastructure in this country. It is
the right plan for America's future. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
I yield back my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns and
disappointment about a number of provisions that have been added to
this bill, the Water Resources Development Act, the bill we refer to as
WRDA, that were not part of the bill we passed in the Senate or not
part of the bill that was passed in the House.
These provisions are earmarks because they direct spending directly
at the request of a Member to a specific entity in their home State or
district. Unfortunately, these earmarks were not passed by either body
in an open or transparent way. Instead, they were added behind closed
doors in the dark of night, as we sometimes say here. As a result,
these earmarks cannot easily be debated, amended, or removed from the
bill.
I am very disappointed these provisions were added in secret. That is
not how we should do things here, and it is a direct violation of a
stated goal of the ethics bill that was recently passed and signed by
the President 10 days ago.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down to the floor
one by one and praised the new ethics bill because they said it would
stop earmarks from being added in the dark of night. I questioned the
effectiveness of these provisions at that time because they had been
watered down behind closed doors. Yet my colleagues on the other side
said it was the most sweeping ethics reform in decades. They said there
would be no more secret earmarks added to our bills in conference.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, this WRDA conference report
contains numerous earmarks that were not part of either the House or
the Senate bill. Unfortunately, anytime we talk about earmarks, it
seems very personal because it usually has a Member's name on it, so I
will start with South Carolina because one of the earmarks added in
conference was for South Carolina. Obviously, I would like to do
everything I can to help my own State, but this was not the time or the
way to do it. There are a number of items for $10 million, $11 million,
but, unfortunately, there is one item in here for $1.8 billion. That
earmark alone is more than 10 percent of the total cost of the original
bill. This was added in conference. It was not debated or voted on. Now
it is coming back and it is unamendable.
All of these projects that were added have added to the cost of this
bill, and actually the cost has exploded. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the projects contained in this bill
totalled some $14 billion when it left the Senate, but then it was
taken to conference. Behind closed doors, amounts were raised, new
projects were added, reforms were dropped, and the bill now costs $23.2
billion. That is right. The

[[Page S11984]]

price of this bill has increased 66 percent since it left the floor of
the Senate.
I know my colleagues, the Senator from California and the Senator
from Oklahoma, have worked very hard on this bill, and I believe there
are some good things in it. I was very pleased to work with the Senator
from California on some reforms that will help us deauthorize projects
that have not been funded in 5 years or more and are currently
inactive. As my colleagues know, the long list of backlogged projects
makes it very difficult for the Corps of Engineers to focus on real
priorities. I am looking forward to working with the Senator from
California to get a good list of the inactive projects from the
administration so the committee can deauthorize them in the next WRDA
bill. The Senator has told me she will deauthorize these projects, but
if for some reason we are not able to get that done, this bill provides
an automatic mechanism to deauthorize by the end of the fiscal year,
following the fiscal year in which the projects appear on the inactive
list. This reform is more important than ever because the bill we are
passing now or bringing back up now increases the backlog of projects
from $58 billion to approximately $80 billion. So while this bill takes
one step forward, unfortunately, it takes two steps back.
The pricetag of this bill is too high, and it violates an important
principle we need to honor. It includes new provisions that were not in
the bills we passed, and that has to stop. That is why I offered an
amendment, along with Senator Ensign and Senator McCain, to the ethics
bill earlier this year that would clarify that earmarks added in
conference were subject to rule XXVIII of the standing rules of the
Senate, which prohibits what we call out-of-scope matter from being
added to our bills in conference and which can only be waived by 67
votes. Further, the amendment we offered would have created a 60-vote
point of order against earmarks added in conference. If this point of
order was sustained, the provisions would be taken out of the bill.
Even the liberal Los Angeles Times editorial board this weekend made
their support for such a rule known. In a weekend editorial entitled
``The Value of Congressional Pork,'' the L.A. Times said such a rule
was a worthy proposal that would make it harder for lawmakers to insert
last-minute goodies during reconciliation of Senate and House bills.
This is just plain good Government.
Unfortunately, the clarification to rule XXVIII was eliminated from
the final bill, even though it was unanimously accepted here on the
floor in January. Even worse, the majority leader is now saying the 60-
vote point of order against what we call airdropped earmarks should
only apply to appropriations bills. This is very disappointing. There
is absolutely no reason why we should restrict authorization earmarks.
They can be as wasteful, as misguided and, I am afraid, as corrupting
as appropriations earmarks. Authorization earmarks can be traded for
bribes as easily as appropriations earmarks.
After checking with the Senate Parliamentarian, I understand there is
some confusion over the definition of earmarks for this particular
rule. The rule says it applies to provisions that provide a level of
funding to a specific project. What could be clearer? All the projects
I read about earlier fit that definition, regardless of whether they
are appropriations or authorizations. If people want to parse these
terms and say authorizations are not actual funding, then I am afraid
we are not being completely honest.
We all know how the Corps of Engineers works. We pass WRDA bills that
tell the Corps what projects to do, and then their annual
appropriations bills provide money to complete these projects. But
without an authorization in WRDA, the projects will not go forward.
Authorizations are important, and we should be as open and as
transparent about them as we are for appropriations.
I intended to raise a point of order today against these new
provisions under rule XLIV which was part of the ethics bill, but I
understand the unanimous consent agreement we are operating under
prohibits me from doing so. In a minute I am going to ask for unanimous
consent to be allowed to make this point of order against the
provision, and if I am allowed to do that and the Chair rules that the
point of order is acceptable under the rule, then, of course, I would
urge my colleagues to sustain this point of order so we can take these
provisions out. But before I do this, I would like to ask how much time
I have remaining of my 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DeMINT. I would like to reserve the remainder of my time but
yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Senator McCaskill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding me
some time. This is a unique bill in many ways. It is unique because
there is a different set of rules when it comes to the water projects
bill and the water resources development in this country for the Army
Corps of Engineers. I believe as a former auditor we should be allowing
the Army Corps of Engineers to direct funding based on a cost-benefit
analysis. A cost-benefit analysis would allow the prioritization of
projects based on the best value for our dollar.
The law requires, unlike any other place in our Government--it was
explained to me when I got here the law requires that Congress direct
this spending. I am uncomfortable with that. This is the only place
this year that my name is listed on a specific funding request for
Missouri, and I am not comfortable with that. I understand it is a
reality this law requires, that if Congress is not directing this
funding, there is no funding. I believe very much we should reform the
way we fund the Army Corps of Engineers projects. I believe it should
be driven by a cost-benefit analysis.
It is hard to understand why in this area, unlike any other area, not
only are we in a position to decide level of funding, we are going to
decide every single project. Now, since this is so unique, it is even
more important that we have complete transparency. Even though I was
uncomfortable with requesting specific funding, I understood the unique
nature of this particular bill, but I was comforted by the fact that I
believed all the projects were going to have a public airing, that they
were going to be included in either the House bill or the Senate bill,
and that there were not going to be any projects that were put into the
authorization bill through the conference process. Unfortunately, that
happened. That would bring me to the point of having to vote no on this
bill because I believe very strongly in the principle that whatever we
include must be included in either the deliberations of the House or
the Senate.
This isn't about the projects and the merit of the projects. I am
sure they are all very meritorious. In fact, painfully for me, one of
them is in Missouri. This isn't about the projects; this is about the
process. This isn't about Democrats and this isn't about Republicans.
This is about a bad habit. This is about getting into the habit of
directing authorization or spending in a conference report instead of
under the bright lights of the Senate floor, the House Floor or
committee work. We need to stop putting projects in conference reports
that were not in the bill. Some people will say it doesn't matter; we
have a backlog of all these projects. Well, if it doesn't matter, why
do we need to do it? If it does matter, it ought to be important enough
to be in one bill or the other.
I believe we need to reform not only the way we fund the Corps of
Engineers, to give more deference to their discretion based on cost-
benefit analysis, and I believe we need to stop the bad habit of always
putting projects in a conference report without the full affirmation
and public airing that the House and Senate deliberations provide.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague.
I would like to confirm what she has said. I take no issue with the
authority of the Senate to designate spending, particularly in
authorization bills. While this practice has certainly been abused,
particularly in our appropriations bills over the years, my point

[[Page S11985]]

today is not to suggest that our committee and the floor of the Senate
do not have the right to authorize money for particular projects, but I
believe, as Senator McCaskill has said and made clear, that in the
debate on the Senate floor, it seemed we unanimously agreed these
projects should be brought to the floor of the Senate and that if
someone wanted to question them, we could have those amendments, and we
could ultimately vote on the whole package. But it seemed clear we all
agreed that new earmarks should not be added in conference and then for
that conference bill to come back without any chance of amending it.
That is not the type of business we talked about in the whole ethics
debate. So my issue is not with our ability to earmark or even the
practice of authorization bills designating spending but that they are
added in conference when we all agreed that if it was not added in
either the Senate or the House bill, it could not be added in
conference.
For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to raise a
point of order under rule XLIV.
Mrs. BOXER. I object. Mr. President, reserving the right to object,
let me say this. For 7 years, we waited for flood control and then we
saw Katrina. For 7 years, we have waited for environmental restoration.
For 7 years, we have waited for navigation improvements. For 7 years,
we have waited, and the bottom line is, every single project in this
bill has a letter attached to it saying who asked for it, whether it
was added in conference, added in the first bill, the second or the
third.
I would urge that we get on with this today, and I object to the
unanimous consent request that we slow this thing down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to suggest that one of the
reasons New Orleans was not prepared for Katrina is we have so many
problems with our infrastructure in the way we politically meddle with
the priorities of States, particularly with the Corps of Engineers that
has a backlog of billions of dollars over many years. We refuse to
clear out those backlogs so the Corps can focus on that which needs to
be done, such as the levees in New Orleans. Instead, year after year,
we add one earmark after another, until the Corps has no focus at all
on what they are doing, and we are trying to direct from Washington
what our water projects should be.
The fact that we have plussed this bill up from $14 billion to over
$23 billion, a 66-percent increase since this bill left the Senate
floor, says we have to have some shame. We have to have some honor in
this body. If we are going to do this, let's do it in a way that we all
said we would, and that is to bring these to the floor so we can debate
and vote on them instead of adding them in and trying to slip them by
in a conference bill.
I am very disappointed in this body, particularly after all the grand
debate about ethics reform, the disclosure of earmarks, the fact that
none would be added in secret. Over the last few weeks, we have pretty
much backtracked on everything we have talked about, to the point where
even liberal publications across the country are talking about the pork
we are producing in the Senate. Instead of doing the Nation's business
and delegating authority to States, we are in effect weakening our
ability to have a national infrastructure that is safe and works for
all Americans. I am very disappointed not only that this has been done
but that a Member of the Senate is not even allowed to raise a point of
order against the fact that it has been done.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from California
is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes at this time.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that now I have 14 minutes
remaining on my side. Senator Inhofe has how much time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 22\1/2\, and the Senator has about
13\1/2\.
Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Feingold retains 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. If he doesn't take that 20 minutes, Senator Inhofe and I
will share that time.
I am sorry that Senator DeMint has left the floor, which oftentimes
happens after a Senator speaks. But I have to say that when I said we
need to do these Katrina-related fixes, his answer was that the reason
we had a problem with Katrina in the first place is the Corps didn't do
a good job, and I think certainly the Corps didn't live up to our
expectations. But what Senator DeMint doesn't mention is that in this
bill before us, because of the hard work of Senator Feingold and
others, we have now put into this bill an independent review process
where there will be no projects going forward unless and until there is
an independent report that the National Academy of Sciences will, in
fact, oversee. We have gone light years from where we were before. That
is why we have so much strong support for the bill. The Audubon Society
supports the bill, along with the Clean Water Fund, the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Society,
the National Water Resources Association, and on and on and on. The
fact is, if we had allowed the DeMint request to go forward, we would
be back to square one. We cannot afford that. It has been 7 long years.
Again, the health of our communities is at stake. The safety of our
families is at stake. I could talk about Sacramento. Finally, we have
language in the authorization to move forward with the proper flood
control for the community of Sacramento. Mr. President, 300,000 people
live there. It is the home of our State, the capital of our State. We
finally reached agreement. These are not agreements that come from the
top down; they come from local government up. I think it is important,
as colleagues come to the floor to in a way demean this process, to
understand if they demean the process, they are demeaning their own
communities. In Oklahoma, or in California, or Georgia--I see Senator
Isakson here. He and Senator Baucus were invaluable to Senator Inhofe
and me in doing all of this.
The fact is these projects and these ideas and these needs come up
from local governments. As a matter of fact, homeowners' associations
find themselves faced with dangerous circumstances because a river is
rising and there have not been the needed improvements. Senator Inhofe
and I share a commitment to shoring up our infrastructure, including
water resources, and I think when we look at all of the things that
come before us--and we are so torn in half here, Democrat versus
Republican--here we have an opportunity to move forward in a bipartisan
fashion. As Senator Inhofe would say in his way, because he has been
hammering at this, this is one step of a very important process. We
have added these independent reviews so that we have checks and
balances all the way through.
I will retain the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 22
minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and Chairman Boxer and
Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for their outstanding work on the WRDA
bill. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and point
out the critical need for the infrastructure we have in this country.
Historically, every 2 years we have passed the WRDA bill. Now we have
gone 7 years without that. What happened in the last 7 years? We have
had significant droughts, we have had Katrina, and we have had other
great tragedies. It is about time that we came back to the floor and
passed a comprehensive bill.
I know there has been criticism of the amount of the bill. I saw a
CBO score of about $23 billion. I remind my colleagues that this is an
authorization, No. 1. No. 2, it is 7 years in the making, not 2. No. 3,
we have had significant tragedies and have significant threats in our
own States that need to be addressed and need to be prioritized.

[[Page S11986]]

I will take my own State as an example. I represent a State with a
major metropolitan area, Atlanta. That city has 5 million people whose
water source is Lake Lanier and the Chattahoochee River. We don't have
aquifers in the north to draw from, only the surface water that we
retain. Through the leadership of a visionary Governor a few years ago,
we passed the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District to take the
consolidated area of north Georgia and put it into a singular planning
district for water purposes, management of storm water, to see if we
could maximize the return we get on the investment we make in the most
precious thing we have, our water.

This legislation has money for conveyance systems. Local water
authorities joined together with a regional plan to cooperate and build
a solid water infrastructure.
Secondly, the Big Creek Water Management and Restoration Program is
in here, which I started 9 years ago with the city of Roswell, which
was developed to manage storm water, its runoff, and control water
better in a major urban area. It was cited by the EPA as one of the
most outstanding projects of its type in America.
Also in here is a very visionary agreement between the Governor of
Georgia and the Governor of South Carolina, who signed a bistate water
compact for the construction of a port to be operated jointly by the
State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina in Jasper County, SC,
on the Savannah River. The Ports of Charleston and Savannah are two of
the major ports on the east coast of the United States. With this
planned agreement and the funding that pays for the study put up by
those States, and the study authorized in this legislation, these two
States will set a historic precedent to reach out together and form
partnerships so as to make the maximum use of the port capabilities and
facilities of our States on the Atlantic Coast.
A lot of work has gone into this legislation. Senator Inhofe has
worked tirelessly, as has Chairman Boxer, but I want to mention the
ones who don't get much credit: Mike Quiello and Caroline McLean, on my
own staff; Angie Giancarlo; Let Mon Lee; Jeff Rosato; Ken Kopocis;
Tyler Rushforth; Paul Wilkins; and Jo-Ellen Darcy, all who spent
countless hours to make this legislation come to pass.
I thank the ranking member for the time. I commit my vote to passage
of the conference report and ask my colleagues to join me and show a
significant vote for the WRDA conference committee report.
I yield back my time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from
Georgia. Working on these authorization committees is not easy. We have
a lot of hearings and a lot of expertise, people looking, studying to
see what is deserving to be authorized. I can tell you that the Senator
from Georgia--I don't know of a member on the committee who has worked
harder, or maybe even as hard as the Senator from Georgia. So I thank
him for coming here today and making his statement.
I know my good friend from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, would not
intentionally misrepresent anything, but when he says once it is
authorized, it is just like spending, that isn't true. I know he hasn't
thought that through or he would not make that statement. We have a
backlog, which has already been talked about several times here--a
backlog of some $32 billion of Corps projects that have been authorized
but haven't been done. That speaks for itself. They are out there. How
can you say that--by the way, it is worthwhile saying or some people
might say: Why are you authorizing more if they haven't even done
those? Maybe some of them are no longer necessary. I will give you a
couple examples. In Oklahoma, we have a channel that goes all the way
to Muskogee, OK, or the Port of Katusa. A lot of people don't think of
us as being navigable in Oklahoma, but we are. It is a short distance
that is 9 feet, where the choke is. So we have had it authorized for a
long period of time to make that a 12-foot channel. It would make a
huge difference. It hasn't been authorized.
The Passaic River in New Jersey has a flood control tunnel up there
that was authorized at $1.2 billion back in 1990. That wasn't last year
or the year before. So far, no money has come in there.
Mr. President, I was disappointed in the way time was handled here.
Let me make a few comments and then perhaps see if anybody else comes
down who needs to be heard.
Right now, let me first redeem myself. We have a lot of people
talking about this. I know a lot of people are watching, saying we are
going to find out who the conservatives are. There are a lot of ``born-
again'' conservatives I have heard so far, who are not conservative but
are opposing an authorization bill. I say that, redeeming myself, in
that--every organization, including Human Events and the American
Conservative Union, says I am not No. 2 or No. 3, Mr. President, I am
No. 1. Did you know that I am the No. 1 most conservative Member of the
Senate?
I am here to tell you something that is very unpopular because nobody
is going to understand it after I explain it to you. I will get right
into it. I am going to tell you what authorization is. I hope some
Members are listening, but I fear they are not. I think minds are made
up. By the way, this bill will pass by an overwhelming majority. No
question about that. In a way, we are wasting a lot of time right now.
But I think it is important that at least somebody says something that
has to be said: What is authorization all about?
The background of authorization goes all the way back to 1816. In
1816, our permanent committees were put together. We didn't have
committees prior to that. So the responsibilities of authorizing and
appropriating were put into these 11 committees in accordance with
jurisdiction.
By 1867, 51 years later, the Senate created the Appropriations
Committee. The Appropriations Committee had the idea that there was to
be separate authorizing language with the appropriations. They were
going to actually spend the money. Somebody else was going to do the
authorization.
In 1899, it was seen that they had kind of moved together, so the
Appropriations Committee was actually legislating on appropriation
bills.
In 1922, a major change took place. In 1922, after the Accounting Act
of 1921, the Senate changed the rules. They established not only that
the Senators were going to be appropriating and not authorizing on the
appropriations bills, but that is when the current rule XVI came into
effect. It had been there for a different purpose. Rule XVI says if the
appropriators appropriate something that is not authorized, it is going
to take a 60-vote point of order. That is huge. That was very clear in
1922. They said we want to make it virtually impossible for the
appropriators, without going through any authorization, to unilaterally
say we ought to have all these projects; we don't care if they are
worthwhile or not. That is what happened.
Then, slowly, since that time it has been going back to the
appropriators getting more and more power. They have been diminishing
the power of the authorizers.
Put up the military chart.
I am on another committee.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee is an
authorization committee. Let me tell you why the process of authorizing
is important. I could use almost any example I want to, but I will use
missile defense.
Right now, there are very few people around since 9/11 who don't know
that there are monsters out there who will send a missile into the
United States. We now have a missile defense system we are still
developing. There are three phases: the boost phase, the midcourse
phase, and the terminal phase.
In the boost phase, quite frankly, we do not have anything that will
knock down a missile. We are working on two systems: one, a kinetic
energy booster, and the other is an airborne laser system. The airborne
laser system is going to be great for us, but we are not there yet.
Midcourse--we all have heard about the AEGIS system. I believe there
are 16 AEGIS ships right now. They have the capability of knocking down
a missile during the midcourse phase. We also have ground-based
systems. We

[[Page S11987]]

know we need this redundancy because we don't know from where these
missiles are going to be fired. We all know the President has been
trying to get a location in Eastern Europe and up around the old Soviet
Union, and it has been very difficult. What we ultimately have to have
is a way of knocking these missiles down from anyplace in midcourse. We
have two systems. An appropriator might look at that and say: I know
where we can save money. We don't need two midcourse systems; one is
enough. But that is not right because the expertise in the authorizing
committees says we have to have that coverage.
Lastly, the terminal phase. We know about the THAAD system, the PAC-
3, the Patriot Capability-3 advanced system. One may say they are
redundant, but they are not.
Here is the point I am trying to make. The reason we know, in the
Senate Armed Services Committee, it is important we have these systems
is because we are staffed with a lot of really smart people. They are
specialists in this area of national defense. I could have used the F-
22 versus the F-35 or any other system we have, but the point is that
the Armed Services Committee is an authorizing committee which is
staffed with experts. So is the Environment and Public Works Committee.
We have people who are experts in certain areas. The committee
authorizes projects for the future.
If we take away the Senate Armed Services Committee and the committee
is no longer able to authorize, then we are going to have appropriators
sitting around waiting for somebody to come up with what they want.
Maybe it is a contractor they know who has a system and they will go
ahead and use that system, but they wouldn't have the expertise.
I am not bashing appropriators. That is a very important part of the
process. But they have to have some kind of a discipline in their
spending. There is no discipline.
Let me mention something else that would be very unpopular. I said
this on the floor during the Transportation reauthorization bill,
which, at the time the Republicans were in the majority, I chaired the
committee Senator Boxer now chairs. At that time, a lot of people were
trying to latch on to items that were wrong so they could use them to
demagog. Remember the famous bridge to nowhere? Actually, it would have
been more accurate to say it is a bridge to nobody because the bridge
actually went someplace where they couldn't get except by barge traffic
and they could never develop that area.
One of the few things that works well in Government, in my
estimation, is the way we do the Transportation reauthorization.
Everyone pays at the pump, and then the money comes into the highway
trust fund. Then we establish criteria.
Senator Boxer will remember that we had some 30 criteria we used with
the Transportation reauthorization bill. One of the criteria was, What
do the people at home want? In the case of the bridge to nowhere, the
100 projects the State of Alaska said they wanted to do with their tax
dollars, it was No. 5 from the top. We, in our infinite wisdom in
Washington, say we are smarter than the dumb people out in the States.
We said: Even though this is what you want or have to have, you can't
have it because we have this infinite wisdom in Washington.
I use these examples only because the authorizing system does work.
We are supposed to pass this water resources development
reauthorization every 2 years. If we had done that every 2 years, we
would not be faced with what we are faced today. We would not be
looking at $21 billion. It averages out about $3 billion, if my math
serves me correctly. We tried to get a bill in 2002, and we were not
able to do it. We tried in 2004, and we were not able to do it. We
tried in 2006, and that didn't work, either. In fact, we did our job;
we just ran out of time, as I recall. Now it is 2007. If we don't do it
this time, it is going to be another year, and it is going to mean the
appropriators are going to go ahead and do these projects without going
through the right authorizing process.
I have to say it, and I say it in all sincerity to my good
conservative friends: This is not money we are spending; it is
authorizing projects as to what meets certain criteria. If we look at
some of the problems we are having right now--Hurricane Katrina, that
was not foreseen and that was a wake-up call. It could happen anywhere.
It was an infrastructure need. The collapse of the bridge in
Minneapolis, that was a bridge on an interstate. In Oklahoma, on I-40,
we have a bridge built with the same technology at the same time, and
right now chunks of concrete are dropping off that bridge and falling
down below. We have, in my State of Oklahoma, the worst bridge
situation. I am not proud of this fact, but it is true. We have more
deteriorating bridges than any other State. These are projects we need
to be doing.
I am ranked as the No. 1 most conservative politician, but I have
always been a big spender in two areas: One, defend America--we need to
defend America; no one else is going to do that for us--and No. 2,
infrastructure. That is what we have talked about today.
We went through the long, involved Transportation reauthorization.
Mr. President, I am embarrassed to tell you, as sizable as that
Transportation reauthorization bill was, if we were able to spend all
the money that was authorized, it would not even maintain the current
system we have today.
Let me mention one other point. Where were my conservative friends in
2000 when we passed this huge, open-ended bill called the Everglades
Restoration Act? It didn't have any Corps of Engineers report. It did
not have a Chief's report. It was open-ended, and the vote was 99 to 1.
Guess who the one was. It was me. Where were my conservative friends at
that time? That was huge.
In retrospect, I was right and the other 99 were wrong. They might
argue with me on that point. But, nonetheless, in the current bill,
there are now some reports in the Everglades, so we are doing it the
right way with this bill.
I reserve the remainder of my time in case somebody else wishes to
speak, but I have to say, in case I run out of time, I have a letter
from the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, Secretary
Woodley, and the arguments they use as to why they would recommend the
President veto this bill are not right.
Frankly, I am really disappointed. If we are going to pass this
bill--and it is going to be passed by a veto-proof margin--if the
President vetoes it, he knows it is going to be overridden, and I have
to question why he would veto it. Again, we are reauthorizing. We are
not appropriating one nickel with this bill.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to Senator Landrieu of
Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the comments of
the good Senator from Oklahoma, who I believe made some very
appropriate and strong arguments for this bill.
There are some reasons to vote against the bill, I guess, but I
wouldn't say one of them is because you are a conservative. The Senator
from Oklahoma is absolutely correct, this is a conservative approach to
infrastructure. This is the right approach. This is about investments.
Whether one is representing the State of California, which tends to be
sometimes more liberal on issues, or representing a State such as
Oklahoma, which tends to be more conservative, this is the right vote.
My colleagues can vote against this bill because they don't think it
has enough Corps reforms. Senator Feingold's position, although I
disagree with it, is a legitimate position. He just believes the Corps
should have more reforms. Actually, I agree with a lot of what he says.
But we couldn't get a majority of Senators to go along with his
proposal. We had to drop it or sacrifice the whole bill. I did not
think it was worth sacrificing the whole bill. We have some reforms,
and I am committed and others are committed to continuing to work to
reform the Corps, to streamline the Corps, to force them to stop
wasting so much money and time. I am committed to do that in the
future.
But right now, we have wetlands to save and levees to build. The
Senator

[[Page S11988]]

from Oklahoma is exactly correct. This is a chart that shows the civil
works as a percentage of the gross domestic product since 1929. There
is a crisis in America. We are down below half a percentage point
relative to gross domestic product. We are spending less today than we
did in 1929.
I know nobody believes this information, but this is not a chart that
came from Mary Landrieu's office; this is a chart from the Corps of
Engineers.
We can see in the runup to the wars, World War I and World War II,
how this bolted up because we had to make some of these investments.
But look at the precipitous slide, Mr. President. I say this because
the Senator is correct. The National Chamber of Commerce--not a bastion
of liberalism--is supporting this bill. The Manufacturers of America--
not a bastion of liberalism--sent out a letter supporting this bill.
Why? Because business cannot operate without ports and navigation and
flood control. Agriculture cannot operate if every year their fields
get flooded.
I don't know how to explain this anymore. This is not porkbarrel,
runaway spending. This is critical investments, and it has been 7 years
since this bill has passed.
Senator Boxer didn't run up a big tab. She has worked her heart out
with Senator Inhofe to get a bill passed in 7 months that should have
passed 7 years ago.
As to the argument from the good Senator from South Carolina--and I
know somebody has to come to the floor and read talking points from
some organization about this bill, but I wish to say something about
South Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas. This chart shows the
hurricanes that have hit since 1955. I don't know how many more
Katrinas, I don't know how many more Ritas, I don't know how many more
Hugos we need. But these are the tracks of the storms. We have 300
million people who live in the United States. I am just going to take a
wild guess that 50 percent of them live in the Northeast and the South
because I know the interior West is very lightly populated, so I would
imagine the gravity of the population is where we are looking now.
How many more storms have to hit before we pass a water bill? How
many more homes have to be flooded? We lost 275,000 in Louisiana and
Mississippi last year. Two years ago today, Rita slammed into south
Louisiana and east Texas. I focus so much on my State, and, of course,
I represent Louisiana, but I picked up the Houston Chronicle this
morning, front page, big headline: People in south Texas still waiting
for help from the Federal Government for homes destroyed 2 years ago.
This bill is not going to solve every problem. It is not going to
build every levee. But we better get about raising this chart up a
little bit or I don't know what our manufacturers and businesses are
going to do. You can buy anything you want on the Internet, but every
now and then you have to ship it. You can purchase it with a mouse
click, but that product has to get on a ship, it has to get on a truck,
it has to get on a barge. It has to go somewhere. If we don't start
building levees and protecting our people from these storms--and Lord
help us if there is another terrorist attack--I just don't know what we
are going to do. So there is some urgency about this situation.
I will say in my final minutes that I hope the President will not
veto this bill. I hope he will reconsider his position and look at the
vote, the overwhelming vote in the House--and I think we are going to
have an overwhelming vote in the Senate--and say: I thought about
vetoing this bill, but I decided not to because the arguments have been
good.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. So I hope the President will reconsider this number,
the lowest investment since 1929. I hope he will look at the hurricane
maps, and then I hope he will look at the land loss in Louisiana.
I would like to just end with this. We have lost more than twice the
amount of land in just the last storm--these red dots represent
significant land loss--that if an enemy came and took this land away
from us, we would declare World War III. But it is not an enemy, it is
ourselves.
So let us pass the WRDA bill.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary
leadership. There are many good reasons to pass this bill, and I hope
we can get a good vote in just a few minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report
on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The bill that is before
us today contains key Corps reform measures. It helps move America
forward in addressing a lengthy backlog of critical water
infrastructure projects, and it authorizes essential ecosystem
restoration efforts.
This bill contains a number of provisions that are vital to
Maryland--from Cumberland in western Maryland to the great cities of
Baltimore and Washington and down to tiny Smith Island, which sits in
the Chesapeake Bay.
Like so many other projects contained in this bill, the Cumberland
effort will have multiple benefits. Increased public safety will come
from the flood control provisions. The project also serves historic and
community restoration efforts, including the rewatering of the National
Park Service's Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the reconstruction of the
historic turning basin there.
For the first time, the Army Corps will supplement the Environmental
Protection Agency's effort to repair and improve wastewater treatment
facilities to benefit the Chesapeake Bay. The Corps will be able to
support sewage treatment upgrades such as the one at Blue Plains, which
serves customers in the District of Columbia, northern Virginia, and
Maryland.
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
will be the largest single nitrogen reduction project in the bay
watershed in a decade.
The Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports on the east coast.
It is a vital engine of economic activity, contributing $2 billion to
the State's economy and employing 18,000 Marylanders directly and tens
of thousands more indirectly. WRDA 2007 extends the authorization for
the 50-foot dredging of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels. The dredging
that is authorized in this bill is essential to the economy of
Baltimore and the entire region. But it produces millions of tons of
dredge materials annually. In this bill, that sediment is being put to
beneficial reuse. The Corps is literally rebuilding an island in the
Chesapeake.
Poplar Island once was home to residents and hunting lodges. It had
nearly vanished, the victim of rising sea level and unrelenting
erosion. Since this project's authorization in 1996, however, the Corps
has restored over 1,100 acres of remote island habitat. Poplar Island
has risen, phoenix-like, from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Five
hundred and seventy acres of upland habitat and an additional 570 acres
of wetland habitat are being created.
Today, even as the project continues, the island is once again home
to migratory shore birds, mammals, and reptiles. It even serves as a
nesting area for Maryland's famous terrapins. The expansion of
authorized in the bill will build upon this success. It will add an
additional 575 acres, about half upland and half wetlands, to the
restored island.
The Poplar Island expansion project authorized in this bill is
important to the Port of Baltimore and to the ecological health of the
Chesapeake Bay. But it is also a model for the Nation, showing us how
Corps projects can be engines of economic success while at the same
time serving beneficial ecological functions.
Smith Island is a remote inhabited island in the Chesapeake Bay on
the Maryland-Virginia border. It has lost over 3,300 acres of wetlands,
threatening the people who live there and degrading the Chesapeake Bay
in the process. This bill authorizes the construction of 2 miles of
breakwaters to protect over 2,100 acres of wetlands and underwater
grass beds.
WRDA 2007 is unlike any earlier WRDA bill. It contains Corps reform
measures, ecological restoration projects, and environmental
infrastructure projects. These provisions represent the future of the
Corps of Engineers. It is the reason I support this legislation. I urge
my colleagues to join me.

[[Page S11989]]

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that the passage of this bill
is long overdue and I commend Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for
their efforts to pass this bill.
There are numerous projects in this bill that are important to each
state. I would like to take a few moments and highlight what this bill
means to New Mexico and our environment.
I would like to point out that the New Mexico related projects in
this bill were included, at my request, in the WRDA bill we passed in
2006. So the content in this bill should not be a surprise to any of us
and I hope that we can get this bill signed by the President quickly.
One of the most critical New Mexico projects contained in this year's
WRDA bill involves New Mexico's Bosque. I have long envisioned the
rehabilitation and restoration of the Bosque. In fact, I have
introduced legislation in this Congress that would do just that. This
bill will allow us to implement this vision that concerns this long
neglected treasure of the Southwest.
The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of
people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian
forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns
that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in
the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.
Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream
development have severely degraded the Bosque. As a result, public
access is problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is
threatened.
Yet the Middle Rio Grande Bosque remains one of the most biologically
diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque
and create a space that is open and attractive to the public. I want to
ensure that this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is
preserved for generations to come--not only for generations of humans,
but for the diverse plant and animal species that reside in the Bosque
as well.
The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for
threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds,
healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood
trees. This project can increase the quality of life for a city while
assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. Where trash
is now strewn, paths and trails will run. Where jetty jacks and
discarded rubble lie, cottonwoods will grow. The dead trees and
underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy
groves of trees. Schoolchildren will be able to study and maybe catch
sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space
like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress
embrace that chance on this occasion.
Having grown up along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is
something I treasure, and I lament the degradation that has occurred.
Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991,
and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the
work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river.
Another project that is of great importance to New Mexico is the
Southwest Valley Flood Control Project. New Mexico is a desert State
prone to flash flooding during our monsoon season. In order to protect
our cities we must take proactive steps to ensure that communities are
prepared in the event of flooding. The Southwest Valley is one such
area that is subject to flooding from rainfall runoff. Due to
unfavorable topography, flood waters pond in low lying developed areas
and cannot drain by gravity flow to the Rio Grande River. This project
resolves this problem and calls for the construction of detention
basins and a pumping station in Albuquerque for flood control in the
Southwest Valley.
This legislation also has a significant impact on our environment.
The Rio Grande Environmental Management Program authorizes the Corps to
address environmental restoration and management on the Rio Grande and
its tributaries through planning, design and construction of habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement projects and a long term river data
acquisition and management program. This simple provision establishes a
continuing authority for addressing environmental restoration and
management on the Rio Grande and its tributaries within the state of
New Mexico. This project consists of two main components. The first
component consists of planning, design and construction of small
habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects and the second
component calls for a long term river data acquisition and management
program. The impacts that this project will have on New Mexico will be
tremendous.
Another program outlined in this year's WRDA bill provides authority
to the Corps to study, adopt, and construct emergency streambank and
shoreline protection works for protection of public highways and
bridges, and other public works, and nonprofit public services such as
churches, hospitals, and schools. This program provides authority for
the Corps to carry out ecosystem restoration and protection projects if
the project will improve environmental quality, is in the public
interest, and is cost effective. This is a worthy initiative that will
benefit the environment throughout the United States.
I urge my fellow Senators to help further enhance and protect our
environment through passage of this legislation. I believe that each
State stands to benefit from this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to support this legislation
today, which is so important for our Nation's water infrastructure. We
need to repair and upgrade our waterways because so many of our
businesses--and millions of jobs--depend on them. The bill would also
help restore aquatic ecosystems and habitats, and it includes several
provisions that are important for Michigan and the Great Lakes.
I wish to express my thanks to the chair and ranking member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Boxer and Inhofe, for
their work on this bill. I also want to thank them for including a
number of important provisions for the Great Lakes, one of the world's
greatest natural resources. The Michigan and Great Lakes projects that
I had requested, and which were included in the Senate bill, were
retained in the conference report. Additionally, other important
projects included in the House WRDA bill that I asked to be included in
the conference report were retained.
I am also pleased that a provision that I added as an amendment to
the Senate WRDA bill was retained in the conference report. This
provision would expedite the operation and maintenance, including
dredging, of the Great Lakes commercial navigation channels and
infrastructure. This is a key provision because the Great Lakes are in
the midst of a crisis: Freighters are getting stuck in shipping
channels, other ships are carrying reduced loads, and some shipments
have simply ceased altogether. This WRDA provision would work to
address the very serious dredging backlog in the Great Lakes, which has
been exacerbated by historically low water levels. I am also thankful
that the bill includes a Sense of the Congress that states that the
Corps' budget for dredging should be developed by using all available
economic data rather than focusing on a single metric such as the
amount of cargo being moved. I worked with the Senate bill managers to
address this problem when WRDA was being debated on the Senate floor.
At that time, the bill managers agreed to work with me to address this
problem in the conference committee, and indeed they did. And for that,
I am grateful.
Also of vital importance for the Great Lakes navigation system is a
provision in the conference report that modifies the authorization to
construct a second Poe-sized lock at Sault Ste. Marie, so that it will
be constructed at full Federal expense for a total cost of
$341,714,000. Two-thirds of the carrying capacity of the U.S. Great
Lakes fleet is currently limited to the one large lock, the Poe lock.
If the Poe lock should fail, shipping between Lake Superior and Lake
Huron would essentially cease, and the steel industry, coal-reliant
industries, and agricultural industries dependent on farm exports would
be severely harmed. This authorization to waive the non-Federal cost-
share requirement is an important step for ensuring the viability of
the Great Lakes shipping infrastructure.

[[Page S11990]]

Another important provision for the health of the Great Lakes that
was retained in the bill is a provision that authorizes the completion
of the dispersal barrier to prevent invasive species, such as the Asian
carp, from moving between the Mississippi River watershed and the Great
Lakes. Further, the bill directs the Corps to operate both barriers I
and II at full Federal expense and provides credit to those States that
provided funds to begin construction of barrier II. The bill also
directs the Corps to conduct a feasibility study on other ways to
prevent the spread of invasives between the Great Lakes and Mississippi
River.
The bill also retains a Senate WRDA provision that I have been
working on for many years: the improvement of Michigan's water and
sewage infrastructure. An authorization of $35 million is included in
the WRDA conference report for a statewide environmental infrastructure
project to correct combined sewer overflows, which is a major source of
pollution in the Great Lakes and other waterbodies in Michigan.
Combined sewer overflows carry both stormwater and sewage, and these
can be discharged into streams, rivers, and lakes during periods of
heavy rains. The $35 million provision in WRDA authorizes the Army
Corps to partner with communities throughout Michigan to improve their
sewer infrastructure. These improvements would not only benefit
communities but would also help protect our precious water resources.
As the recent tragic collapse of a Minnesota bridge has made all too
clear, the repair and modernization of this Nation's infrastructure
needs to be a much higher priority. Just as roads and bridges need
urgent repairs, we cannot wait further for authorizing important water
projects that protect lives and property, support commerce and
industry, and preserve and restore our environmental resources. We have
waited 7 years for this bill. Now is the time to pass this bill, and it
should not be held up by a Presidential veto, which I am confident the
Congress would override.
While these important provisions, as well as several others that I
have not mentioned, provide the authorization for addressing the
dredging backlog in the Great Lakes, restoring the environmental
integrity of our waters, and providing critical flood protection
projects, the appropriations needed to make these provisions a reality
are down the road. The next critical step is to appropriate the actual
funding for these necessary projects.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong
opposition to the conference report on the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007. The legislation being considered today far exceeds the
already outrageous spending that was approved in both the House- and
Senate-passed bills and would drastically increase the backlog of Army
Corps of Engineers construction projects while doing nothing to
modernize the system for funding these projects. I wonder, did we learn
nothing from Hurricane Katrina?
In August of 2005, this Nation witnessed a horrible national
disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction
and tragedy beyond compare, more so than our Nation had seen in
decades. Almost 2 years later, the gulf coast region is still trying to
rebuild, and there is a long road ahead. I thought that we had learned
a few lessons from this tragedy, but as our Nation continues to
dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we are now
being asked to quickly approve a conference report that only
perpetuates the problems with both the funding and management of the
Corps of Engineers.
During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an
amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a
system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects.
Of course, that amendment was not adopted. It is unacceptable to me
that this Congress isn't interested in how best to allocate our limited
Corps resources or how taxpayer dollars would be used most effectively.
My question is, What is wrong with having some concept of what our
Nation's priorities are for waterworks projects? Why are we rejecting
policies to help us identify where the greatest infrastructure needs
are? Are people worried that showing the American people how their
money is really being spent may result in their pet project being moved
down the list for funding?
Today's practice, as illustrated again by this legislation, allows a
Member of Congress to get a project authorized and funded without
having any idea of how that project affects the overall infrastructure
of our Nation's waterways--or whether it is even needed. There is
already a $58 billion backlog in Corps projects, and the bill before us
increases that backlog by an additional $23.2 billion according to the
Congressional Budget Office. That is a 40-percent increase in the size
of the existing backlog. Yet consider how much funding the Corps
receives annually on average--$2 billion. Anyone can do the math and
realize that we are perpetuating a significant problem. But that won't
stop so many of my colleagues from congratulating themselves on passage
of this bill--a bill the White House intends to veto.
I find it particularly ironic that just before the August recess this
body claimed to be turning a new page and taking significant steps
toward ending the process of secret earmarks and porkbarrel politics
when it passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
This bill is beyond more of the same with over 900 projects, up from
600 projects in both the Senate and the House passed bills. As stated
in a recent letter from the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, ``Because the conference version of H.R. 1495
significantly exceeds the cost of either the House or Senate bill and
contains other unacceptable provisions discussed below, the President
will veto the bill.'' I applaud the President's vow to veto this bill.
While the bill before us today includes an ``independent'' review
process in name, as Senator Feingold and I have pushed for during
debate on the last two Senate-passed bills, the conference report
provision does not promote true independent review at all. Senator
Feingold and I championed language that would have established a
process by which the planning and design of Corps projects could be
reviewed by a panel of experts. As stated by an editorial in the
Washington Post on August 6, 2007, entitled ``Watered Down,'' ``The
Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and economic
analysis of such projects, tailored to the political needs of its
funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by independent experts
would deter such behavior, which threatens not only the federal budget
but public safety. The Senate version of the legislation was very tough
on this point.'' I will ask to have the editorial printed in the Record
immediately following my remarks.
The legislation before us drastically dilutes the Senate-passed
provision and gives the Corps undue influence over this panel. The
review process will actually be housed within the Corps rather than
outside the agency as the Senate bill required, and the Corps' Chief of
Engineers is also given significant authority to decide the timing of
review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to implement a review
panel's recommendations. This new system will only compound the
problems with an agency that has brought about countless mismanaged and
incredibly expensive construction and maintenance projects.
I believe this conference report is fundamentally flawed in many
ways, not the least of which is its cost. As stated by the Tax Payers
for Common Sense, ``In High School Civics students learn that
conference committees are where lawmakers hash out the differences
between House and Senate bills. But in the case of WRDA (H.R. 1495),
the Corps of Engineers water projects bill, a $14 billion Senate bill
met a $15 billion house and ballooned into a whopping $21 billion
monster. . . . The ultimate price tag will be far higher because of
numerous policy changes that are intended to shift costs from who
benefits onto the federal taxpayer. For these reasons, the President
did the right thing by promising to veto the bill if it gets to his
desk. . . . Lawmakers should start over again and come back with a
fiscally responsible bill that includes stronger policy reforms for
independent peer review of costly, controversial, or critical projects,
modernized economic guidance and creates a system to prioritize

[[Page S11991]]

limited federal funding. All these proposals will save taxpayers in the
long term.''
Mr. President, it is time that we end this process of blind spending,
throwing money at projects that may or may not benefit the larger good.
It is time for us to take a post-Katrina look at the world and learn
from our experiences over the past years instead of being content with
business as usual. Shouldn't we be doing all that we can to reform the
Corps and ensure that the most urgent projects are being funded and
constructed? Or are we more content with needless earmarks--too often
at the expense of projects that are of most need?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.
Mr. President, I ask to have the editorial to which I referred
printed in the Record.
The article follows.

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 6, 2007]

Watered Down

Another pork-laden bill for the Army Corps of Engineers contains modest
checks on future projects

When Last we checked, the Water Resources Development Act
was a $14 billion bill larded with pork-barrel projects. Now
it is a $21 billion bill, having taken on still more pork in
a House-Senate conference committee, and it appears headed
for passage. One small factor in the bill's growth was the
addition, during the closed-door conference, of tens of
millions of dollars' worth of pet projects not previously
debated in either chamber. Interestingly enough, Congress has
also just passed an ethics bill that was arguably designed,
in part, to prevent this sort of thing. But that legislation
has not yet taken effect.
Of greater concern are the bill's provisions for
independent review of proposed dams, levees and other
projects to be built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
Corps has a long history of overly rosy environmental and
economic analysis of such projects, tailored to the political
needs of its funders in Congress. Review of Corps projects by
independent experts would deter such behavior, which
threatens not only the federal budget but public safety.
The Senate version of the legislation was very tough on
this point. It would have required peer review of projects
costing $40 million or more and permitted state governors,
federal agencies and the general public to initiate mandatory
peer reviews of other projects. It would have created a
separate federal office to oversee the reviews, and it stated
explicitly that federal courts did not have to defer to the
Corps' reasoning when the agency decided to reject the
findings of an independent panel. But, after negotiations
between the Senate and the House, which favored a nearly
toothless process, the final bill leaves out much of the
Senate language: It raises the minimum dollar amount
slightly, to $45 million, and says that only governors, not
federal agencies or public interest groups, can call for
mandatory peer review. The Corps can waive review of smaller
projects where it sees no environmental issues. Inexplicably,
the peer review law expires in seven years.
The good news is that the bill requires the Corps to assign
the reviews to the respected National Academy of Sciences; it
also wisely permits reviewers to consider a wide range of
issues. President Bush has understandably threatened a veto
because of the bill's cost, but there are more than enough
votes to override. Imperfect as it is, this bill is likely to
become law. Supporters of the compromise, such as Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, say that their tough oversight will
make it work, a promise that will itself be tested in the
months ahead.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, although I supported the Senate-passed
version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, I cannot
support the conference version of WRDA because it significantly exceeds
the costs of both the Senate and House-passed bills and includes many
projects outside the Army Corps of Engineers' traditional
responsibilities. I am not alone in my opposition. Indeed, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant Secretary of
the Army have indicated to Congress that the President will veto the
bill in its current form.
The conference reported version of WRDA would cost approximately $21
billion, which is about $7 billion more than the Senate and House-
passed versions. The $21 billion ``compromise'' reached in conference
is not a fiscally responsible bill and, therefore, should not pass.
The conference version also inappropriately contains many projects
outside the Corps' primary missions of navigation, flood damage
reduction, and ecosystem restoration, such as environmental
infrastructure projects. These environmental infrastructure projects
divert vital resources away from the Corps' primary responsibilities,
and add to the backlog of Corps projects. This is especially troubling
since according to the Congressional Research Service the Corps'
backlog of authorized projects is currently estimated to be 800
totaling nearly $38 billion to $60 billion.
I do recognize that the conference version of WRDA contains a number
of important projects, some of which are located in my home state of
Arizona. I would like to thank the Environment and Public Works
Committee for including many of the projects I requested in the bill.
It is important to note, however, that because of the backlog of Corps
projects and concerns relating to WRDA's costs, I limited the requests
I made. The same cannot be said for the conference version of WRDA.
Consequently, I cannot support the bill in its current form.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. We have waited a long time for this
bill, almost 7 years.
I thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for their hard work
on this legislation and getting this bill through a conference and here
before us today.
The bill authorizes navigation, ecosystem restoration, and flood and
storm damage reduction projects all over the country. Most
significantly for Illinois, the bill will increase lock capacity and
improve the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
The Mississippi River is the backbone of our waterway transportation
system and transports $12 billion worth of products each year,
including over 1 billion bushels of grain to ports around the world.
This efficient river transportation is vital to Illinois. Shipping via
barge keeps exports competitive and reduces transportation costs. That
is good for producers and consumers. More than half of Illinois' annual
corn crop and 75 percent of all U.S. soybean exports travel via the
Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
There are huge cost and environmental benefits to shipping by barge
as well. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of trucks and 40
percent of the cost of trains. They release much less carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, and use much less fuel to operate.
But the system of locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi that
make travel possible are in desperate need of modernization. The
current system was built 70 years ago and needs to be updated to
account for modern barging. Many of the older locks are only 600 feet
in length, while most current barge tows using the waterway are twice
as long. That means these goods take twice as long to get down river
and into the marketplace. The conference report before us today
authorizes replacing and upgrading many of the locks and dams along the
Mississippi.
The legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for replacing and upgrading
locks and dams and another $1.7 billion for ecosystem restoration along
the river.
As we have seen in the tragedy that occurred along Minnesota's 35W
Bridge, our country's infrastructure is aging and overburdened.
The projects included in the bill are sorely needed to shore up our
waterway system, a vital component of our national infrastructure.
Unfortunately, the President has threatened to veto the WRDA bill.
This bill is years overdue, and a veto by this Administration will mean
yet another delay for important projects in Illinois and across the
country.
The WRDA conference report passed the House this August by a vote of
380-40. And when the Senate originally considered the bill earlier this
year, there were only four dissenting votes.
The bill will be sent to the President with broad bipartisan support
from both the House and the Senate, and he should reconsider his threat
to veto this bill.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield just on the time issue?
It is my understanding that Senator Feingold has yielded us 20
minutes, so

[[Page S11992]]

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe get an additional 10
minutes and I get an additional 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me say to my good friend from
Louisiana that I do agree with her. I hope the President doesn't veto
this bill, but whether he does or doesn't, it won't make any
difference. The outcome is going to be the same. We are going to have
this bill. But let me give him the assurance that the place to start
using his veto is when we start spending money in places we shouldn't
spend money and not on this authorization.
I am going to make sure everybody understands, even though I have
made a number of statements here in support of this authorization bill,
it doesn't mean I am going to support everything on it. There will be
things, when it comes up to appropriations time, that I will be down
here leading the opposition and asking the President to veto some of
these things. But you have to have discipline in some way. There has to
be some kind of a guideline, some kind of criteria used.
Let me for a minute talk parochially about my State of Oklahoma.
These are things that are in here for my State but things that should
be in here. These are things the Government should be doing.
Lake Arcadia is a good example. The city of Edmond is the fastest
growing city in Oklahoma. Because of a set of circumstances, they were
being billed and have been billed for years now for water they were not
even using. All that is corrected in here. In the event this bill
should not pass, those people of the city of Edmond, OK, are going to
have to come up with money to pay for something they never got.
Lake Texoma--the same situation. The Red River Chloride Control
Project in this bill clarifies the operation and maintenance of
Oklahoma chloride control projects at the Red River. This is critically
important to our farmers in southern Oklahoma.
We have Ottawa County's Tar Creek. The most devastating Superfund
site in America that has been addressed now for 25, 26 years is Tar
Creek in northern Oklahoma, which goes into southern Kansas, and
nothing has been done. We have spent millions and millions of dollars,
until 4\1/2\ years ago, when I became chairman of this committee, with
the help of the Democrats, Senator Boxer included, we were able to
actually get in there and do something. We have some of the projects
that are necessary to ultimately take care of that devastating thing in
northern Oklahoma.
Now, I spent several years--three terms--being mayor of a major city
in Oklahoma--Tulsa, OK. In Tulsa, OK, one of the biggest problems we
had--and I daresay if you were to talk to any mayor in America they
would say the same thing--the biggest problem in my city was not
prostitution or crime in the streets; it was unfunded mandates. So we
had the Federal Government coming along telling us what to do and
mandating that certain things be done, and some of my poorer
communities in Oklahoma were just not able to do it. Let me just give a
couple of examples.
All of these towns and cities in Oklahoma I have been in and I have
seen different things the Federal Government has come in and told them
to do and not funded them. They are projects in Ada, Norman, Wilburton,
Weatherford, Bethany, Woodward, Langley, Durant, Midwest City--that
project in Midwest City is a water infrastructure type of project--
Ardmore, Guymon, OK, out in the panhandle. I was out there during the
last recess, and they were having a very serious problem with
wastewater treatment. This would resolve that problem. Altus, OK;
Chickasha, OK; Goodwell, OK; Bartlesville, Konawa, Mustang, and Alva.
And when you stop and you think about all these things, these are
things that--it should not be their responsibility. They do not have
the capability of doing it. They are all things that came from the
Federal government. Here I am, the No. 1 most conservative Member,
saying Government does have a function. The major function I have
always said is defending America and its infrastructure.
Let me mention a couple of things, if I could, Madam President.
I have a letter here from the Department of the Army, the Assistant
Secretary of Civil Works, which is the Corps of Engineers, and they say
the Corps already has an enormous backlog of ongoing projects that will
require future appropriations of some $38 billion. Well, I use that in
my argument as to why this is necessary. There is a reason for the
backlog. At the time, they were authorized, but then circumstances
changed. Some of these projects don't need to be done and will never be
done.
By the way, when you talk about the amount of money that is going to
be authorized, you don't know, first of all, how much of that $21
billion or $23 billion--maybe half of it--will ultimately be spent. We
don't know. Some may be spent next year, some 10 years from now. It is
just authorizing, just saying that at this snapshot in time, these are
things which need to be done in America, these are legitimate, these
meet the criteria. So that argument is no good.
He says that adding excessive new authorizations to this backlog is
unaffordable and unnecessary. This sentence implies it is inadvisable
to authorize new projects until all current authorized projects are
completed, and nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly
providing adequate hurricane protection in New Orleans is a higher
priority than some of the already authorized projects, but we didn't
know it at the time these were authorized. That is why this is
important.
It said in this letter that the bill will include numerous
authorizations that are outside of and inappropriate for the mission of
the Corps of Engineers, and so forth. Well, the conference report does
not include authorization of surface transportation projects for the
Corps of Engineers. That isn't something we do.
So you look at the arguments they have, and it gets right back to the
argument that the attack here, as I said, going all the way back to
1816, is on the authorization process. The only discipline we have in
spending in this body is to have an authorization process.
Again, I will repeat, there is going to be some of these that are
authorized that I would feel in my heart should not be appropriated,
and I will fight against their appropriation. That is where the battle
should be fought, and I think it is going to be.

I don't want to question anyone's sincerity in their opposition, but
I think there are a lot of people who will go home and have a press
release saying: I voted against spending some $23 billion. Nothing
could be further from the truth. You oppose the authorization system
and you oppose discipline in spending.
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, could you tell us how much time remains
between Senator Inhofe and myself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 6 minutes, and
the Senator from California has 13 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, let me say as we wind down that I think
this committee, of which I am so proud to be the chairman, and I am so
pleased to work with Senator Inhofe on these infrastructure issues, has
done its work. I think we have done our job.
Now, of course, you can always find something that somebody doesn't
like in a bill, but the fact is, as Senator Inhofe explained with a
most instructive set of charts--and I thank him so much for going back
through the history of the difference between appropriations and
authorizations--this is an important step and a necessary step in the
process but by no means the last step.
He talked about the appropriations process, and I talked about the
process now that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain got added to this
bill. Although they are still not happy with everything we have done,
it creates an independent review. So we will have independent review,
we will have appropriations. Therefore, this is a very necessary first
step after these projects have come up really from our constituents,
from our homeowners, from our city councils, from our boards of
supervisors, from our mayors and governors, et cetera. So I believe we
have put together a bill that meets our communities' needs, and I think
we have done it in the very best way we can. We have complied with the
new ethics rules.

[[Page S11993]]

By the way, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
letter dated today from Majority Leader Reid and the Rules Committee
chair, Senator Feinstein, replying to Senator DeMint on the issue of
whether the Senate rule XLIV point of order applies to authorization
bills.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Office of the Majority Leader,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.
Sen. Jim DeMint,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator DeMint: Thank you for your letter last
Thursday regarding the earmark reform provisions in Public
Law 110-81, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of
2007. This law, which passed the House by a vote of 411-8 and
the Senate by a vote of 83-14, has been hailed by independent
congressional reform advocates as ``far-reaching reform'' and
``landmark legislation.'' According to Democracy 21 President
Fred Wertheimer, ``this Congress has passed fundamental
government integrity reforms to respond to the worst
congressional corruption scandals in thirty years.''
The new law (and procedures adopted by Senate committees in
anticipation of the law's enactment) has already improved
public awareness of earmarking activity--activity that had
been obscured from public view even as the number of earmarks
exploded during Republican control of Congress over the last
decade. For the first time, earmarks and the identity of
their sponsors are fully disclosed on the Internet before
legislation comes to the Senate floor, and there is a
meaningful process to curb the inclusion of dead-of-night
spending in conference reports.
Your letter of September 20 challenges an anticipated
ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian regarding the scope of
the new point of order in Rule XLIV. But you fail to
acknowledge that the ruling you now claim to be ``saddened''
by is compelled by key definitions in two amendments you
sponsored during Senate floor debate last January, both of
which were incorporated into the final bill essentially word-
for-word. Further, the anticipated ruling is grounded on
sound policy reasons involving the distinction between mere
authorizations and actual spending provisions--a distinction
that you and Senator Coburn openly discussed during floor
debate on your amendments.
At the outset, we note that many of the new rules in Pub.
L. 110-81 apply to authorization bills as well as spending
bills. For example, the newly strengthened Rule XXVIII, which
permits ``surgical'' points of order against out-of-scope
matter in a conference report, applies to all types of
conference reports, including authorizing bills and
appropriations bills. The Rule XXVIII point of order
maintains the longstanding definition of out-of-scope matter.
Similarly, the disclosure requirements in new Rule XLIV
apply to legislative items that merely authorize spending, as
well as those that actually spend money. Moreover, disclosure
is required for items in committee reports as well as in
legislative text. Information about such items, including the
identity of the members who sponsored them, must be posted on
a public Internet website 48 hours before a bill is
considered on the Senate floor.
The new point of order in Rule XLIV, however, applies to
actual spending rather than to mere authorizations. This new
point of order is extraordinary because, for the first time,
Senate rules prohibit conferees from including in a
conference report matter plainly within the scope of the
conference. The anticipated interpretation by the
Parliamentarian is compelled by the plain language of
amendments that you yourself sponsored during Senate debate
on the ethics bill.
Amendment No. 11, which you successfully offered and the
relevant part of which was included word-for-word in the
final law, requires public disclosure not only of certain
items ``providing'' funding but also items ``authorizing or
recommending'' funding. Thus, the explicit language requires
disclosure of items in appropriations bills, authorizing
bills, and even report language accompanying bills.
But Amendment No. 98, which you co-sponsored with Senators
Ensign and McCain and which was adopted by unanimous consent,
contains a completely different definition of items that
would be subject to a point of order if included in a
conference report. This definition, unlike the definition in
Amendment No. 11, makes no reference to authorizations;
instead, it describes an item ``containing a specific level
of funding for any specific account, specific program,
specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific
funding was provided for'' in either the House or Senate
bill. Further, a provision in that amendment made clear that
it only applied to appropriations conference reports--if a
point of order was sustained, ``any modification of total
amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the
matter struck from the conference report shall be made''
(emphasis added). The definition in Amendment No. 98 was
incorporated essentially word-for-word into Public Law 110-
81.
The inclusion of the word ``authorizing'' in Amendment No.
11 and the absence of that word--along with the trigger of
``specific funding'' and reference to ``amounts
appropriated''--in Amendment No. 98 compel the
Parliamentarian's ruling that authorizations are subject to
disclosure but not subject to the new point of order in Rule
XLIV. An authorization bill does not contain ``specific
funding'' and it does not ``appropriate'' any amounts; it is
merely permission for possible funding in the future. An
analysis by the Congressional Research Service confirms this
interpretation:

In summary . . . both the originally-passed rule (Section
102) and the new Rule XLIV, paragraph 8, would seem to apply
to provisions providing appropriations and direct spending
only, generally to provisions that provide some form of
spending authority. Neither rule would seem to apply to
provisions simply authorizing or reauthorizing a program,
project, or activity, without providing any funding.

Memo from the Congressional Research Service to Majority
Leader Reid, September 11, 2007.

The remarks of you and your co-sponsors during the Senate
floor debate on S. 1 also reflect this understanding. In
arguing for earmark reform you spoke about ``spending'' and
``appropriations'' bills. For example, you said: ``And if we
put that money in an appropriations bill designated just for
them, it is an earmark. That is a Federal earmark.'' (Cong.
Rec. 8417, Jan. 11, 2007). You urged that Congress ``show the
American people that we were going to spend their money in an
honest way.'' (Id. at 8416). You said you were ``trying to
let the American people know how we are spending their
money.'' (Id. at S417). And you made the point that ``in the
appropriations bills there were 12,852 earmarks.'' (Id. at
S426). (Emphases added in each case.)
In your floor colloquy with Senator Coburn, he repeatedly
emphasized that your shared concern was with ``appropriations
bills'' and ``spending.'' (See id. at 425-427). In fact,
Senator Coburn was very explicit in identifying the
difference between an authorizing bill and an appropriations
bill and stated flatly: ``you don't have an earmark if it is
authorized'' (Id. at S42); ``Items authorized are not
earmarks'' (Id. at S427).
Similarly, in Senator Ensign and McCain's comments
regarding Amendment No. 98, they spoke about federal spending
and appropriations bills, not authorizing bills--``We should
scrutinize how Federal dollars are spent''; ``We must ensure
that taxpayers'' dollars are being spent wisely''; ``The
growth in earmarked funding in appropriations bills during
the past 12 years has been staggering.'' (Id. at S 741,
emphases added). Nothing in the floor debate on S. 1 reflects
an intent to subject authorizing language in conference
reports to the point of order under Rule XLIV. Quite the
opposite--the plain language of the amendments and the floor
debate on earmarks was focused on spending and appropriations
bills. The sentiments you now express simply do not square
with relevant legislative history.
There are sound policy reasons for the distinction between
authorizations and spending provisions under Rule XLIV. The
availability of a surgical point of order against a
conference report represents an exception to the long-
standing parliamentary principle that a conference report may
not be amended. Since conference reports must be adopted in
identical form by both houses of Congress, endless amendment
of conference reports would disrupt the orderly resolution of
legislative disagreements. In order to instill needed
discipline in the legislative process, the new law creates
two exceptions to that principle: the surgical point of order
against out-of-scope material under Rule XXVIII and the point
of order against new spending items in conference reports
under Rule XLIV. But extension of the Rule XLIV point of
order to authorizing language in conference reports is
unwarranted and would thwart finality in the legislative
process.
Stronger safeguards are appropriate when Congress actually
spends taxpayer money, whether in appropriations bills or in
other bills which directly affect the federal budget. But
when Congress passes an authorizing bill, it is simply
expressing a goal. For instance, spending for disadvantaged
students under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act was
authorized at $25 billion in FY07, but only $12.8 billion in
funding was actually appropriated. The pending Water
Resources Development bill authorizes billions of dollars for
water projects, but the actual funding of those projects will
occur through the appropriations process. In fact, tens of
billions of dollars worth of water resources projects have
been authorized over the years, but have not yet been
funded through an appropriations bill. Each of the
spending decisions in the appropriations bills will be
subject to the discipline that the new Senate rules impose
on such bills and may be challenged during consideration
of those bills.
When earmark abuse occurs, it involves the unjustified use
of taxpayer money--not the setting of authorization levels.
It is appropriate to require full disclosure of all items
that involve specific member-requested projects, including
authorizations, but only those items that actually spend
taxpayer money should be subject to the extraordinary
procedure of allowing a point of order to strike a provision
that is within the scope of conference from a conference
report.
Despite your ongoing campaign to discredit the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act, we remain confident its
passage was a major accomplishment. 83 Senators and 411 House
members voted for the

[[Page S11994]]

final bill because they recognized it for what it is: the
most sweeping ethics reforms in years and a huge step forward
toward restoring the confidence of the American people in
their government.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid,
Senate, Majority Leader.
Dianne Feinstein,
Chair, Senate Rules Committee.

Mrs. BOXER. So, Madam President, we have complied in full with the
Ethics Committee, and we worked with the Parliamentarian every step of
the way to make sure we were in total concert with that new law because
we are respectful of it. We have letters from every Senator. We have a
transparent process here. Everyone who asked for a project put their
name on the line, and we made sure there was no pecuniary interest of a
Member or their family.
So this is an important day for our country. We have all said this in
different ways, but we are authorizing projects our communities need to
help protect millions of people in our Nation from catastrophic
flooding. It also will help restore the great wetlands, estuaries, and
rivers of our Nation, places where wildlife thrive and that our
families enjoy today. We want to make sure they enjoy them in the
future--the hunting, the fishing, the boating, the camping, the outdoor
industries.
By the way, those outdoor industries are a very important part of our
economy. We call it the recreation economy. Without these projects,
they simply won't be able to thrive.
WRDA makes other important contributions. It authorizes projects for
our communities that they need to increase their capacity at their
ports, to make shipping easier, safer, and more efficient. It literally
keeps America's economy moving. You cannot have a great country if you
don't keep up with the infrastructure needs. We saw what happened when
a bridge collapses, and we are dealing with that in the committee as
well.
Look what happens if we don't keep up with our water projects. We are
not going to be able to move our ships. I know there are, for example,
in California so many ports, but in many cases a lot of silt builds up
and they can't move those ships through. So we need to do that. These
are our gateways to the world. Our manufactured goods, such as computer
chips, agricultural goods, grains, wines, and fruits, pass through our
ports and harbors to be sold around the world. We have $5.5 billion
worth of goods passing through our ports each day and more than 2.5
billion tons of trade moving through our ports each year. Colleagues,
that volume is expected to double over the next 15 years.
That is why we say to this President: Please, please sign this bill.
Why do we have to fight over every single thing? The fact is, you can't
have a great economy, the greatest economy in the world, if we can't
keep our goods moving. And we need to create thousands of new jobs
right here in America. The port economy is responsible for
approximately 5 million jobs--and ``jobs'' is your middle name, Madam
President. So this bill will keep jobs being created and keep goods
moving. WRDA is essential for goods movement.
I mentioned recreation. Maybe some people don't know this, but the
Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation,
operating more than 2,500 recreation areas at 463 projects and leasing
an additional 1,800 sites to State or local parks and recreation
authorities or private interests. At these projects around the country,
the Corps hosts 360 million visitors a year at its lakes, beaches, and
other areas. One in ten Americans--25 million people--visits a Corps
project at least once a year, and this generates 600,000 jobs related
to all of this movement.
So, colleagues, we can all agree that public health and safety,
economic growth, and environmental protection are important goals, and
this bill helps to achieve them.
Finally, I wish to say a word of thanks to leader Harry Reid, who has
just come onto the floor to make a statement of his own. I know Senator
Inhofe and I spoke to Senator Reid many, many times, and I know it is
difficult for him because, just so the public understands, everyone who
gets a bill out of his or her committee goes right to the majority
leader to beg for time.
He made a commitment to me. He told me, and I remember it: When the
Jewish holidays are completed, we will turn to WRDA. And that is what
he did. He is a man of his word. This is so very important for the
country.
Finally, let me thank the staff. First, the Democratic staff: Bettina
Poirier, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushforth; EPW Republican
staff: Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, Let Mon Lee--I
have gotten to know these as family; also, the staff of Senator Baucus:
Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins; and staff of Senator Isakson: Mike
Quiello.
This has been not an easy time. But when you get a bill that is
supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of
Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, and the three biggest
construction labor organizations--Laborers' International,
International Union of Operating Engineers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners--when you get all those, plus a host of local
people, plus a host of water people, I think we are answering a need.
Again, I thank each and every member of the staff, my dear friend
Senator Inhofe for being such a good fighter for this, and all the
Members of the Senate. I know we are going to have a great vote.
It is my understanding Senator Inhofe may have a closing word prior
to Senator Reid speaking, so I yield my time.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding I do have more
time left than I will take. A quick word. I had a communication from my
wife that she thought I was getting a little emotional about this, so
let me end on a very positive note and say, yes, I have a presentation
I make to groups, to conservative groups, talking about the history of
authorizations since 1816. I gave an abbreviated edition a few minutes
ago.
It is so frustrating to me to see people saying, if for some reason--
it isn't going to happen. This is going to pass by a huge margin. If
the President vetoes, he knows it will be overridden. But if for some
reason this didn't pass, we would be right back where we were in 2002,
2004, 2006, and we would be having appropriators out there without any
kind of discipline or any kind of process to go through in making those
determinations.
I think it would be the wrong thing to do.
Lastly--I didn't mention this--in Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas, we
had quite a number of floods. If it had not been for what the Corps of
Engineers had already done that was previously authorized and then
later on was appropriated, it would have cost us, they now say, $5.4
billion more in damages than it did.
I hope the good conservatives will look at this and realize we have
to have authorization in the process.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
Mr. REID. This will be the first and last vote today.
Madam President, I have been chairman of this committee on two
separate occasions, the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is
a masterful piece of legislation that was put together by the two
managers of this bill; the chairman, Senator Boxer, ranking member
Senator Inhofe. They have been in reverse rolls. Senator Inhofe was
chairman of this committee.
People complain about the Senate not working together on a bipartisan
basis and perhaps that is true on a lot of occasions. But there are
many occasions where we need to look at the glass being half full
rather than being half empty, and here is an example of the glass being
half full. This is a fine piece of legislation that is being pushed by
two Senators with ideological bents that are totally different. Senator
Boxer has one political philosophy, Senator Inhofe has another. But
that is how things should work around here.
Being a little bit personal about this, I think people recognize that
Senator Ensign and I work very well together. We are not political
soulmates, but we are friends and we work together. That is what has
been accomplished. We don't have political soulmates, but they work
together, giving and taking, and legislation is the art of compromise,
consensus building. That is

[[Page S11995]]

what this is. Senator Boxer didn't get all she wanted. Senator Inhofe
didn't get all he wanted. But they got something good for this country.
I want the record spread with the fact that this is an extremely
important piece of legislation that literally could not have been
accomplished--not only with what they did in committee--they got it
passed on the floor--frankly, without the persistence they have had.
Anytime I tried to turn away from it, they would head me in the right
direction. I am glad we are here. This bill deserves a big vote. This
is one of the finest pieces of legislation this body has passed all
year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 12, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

YEAS--81

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

NAYS--12

Allard
Burr
Coburn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Gregg
Kyl
McCaskill
Sessions
Sununu

NOT VOTING--7

Biden
Brownback
Dodd
Kerry
McCain
Obama
Smith
The conference report was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we conclude this historic vote, I
thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle and briefly will put a few
names into the Record. I know we are moving to another bill. I wish to
thank Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Reid, for living up to
his commitment.
For the Record, there were several people on my staff who worked so
hard over the last 7 years: Herman ``Bubba'' Gesser, Allen Richey, Paul
Rainwater, Kathleen Strottman, Jason Matthews, Jason Schendle,
Stephanie Leger, Robert Bailey, Jennifer Lancaster, Tanner Jackson,
Mark Tiner, Lauren Jardell, Elaine Kimbrell and Lucia Marker-Moore.
That is how long this bill has been going on. I have literally had 12
people in and out of the Projects Department working on this bill.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the
vote today on the conference report of the Water Resources Development
Act. Had I been present, I would have supported the conference report
because it authorizes a number of essential flood control, navigation
and ecosystem projects in Massachusetts and around the Nation. We have
a responsibility to safeguard our environment, and this legislation
will help ensure that future generations will be able to take full
advantage of all that nature offers in Massachusetts.
The conference report directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study
the Gateway region of Lawrence to determine whether to fill abandoned
channels along the Merrimack and Spicket Rivers. Filling the channels
will allow for the site to be redeveloped safely and stop chemical
leakage into the Merrimack River. It also requires the Army Corps to
conduct a navigation study of the Merrimack River in Haverhill to
determine whether the agency should proceed with dredging to improve
navigation.
The conference report modifies the coordinates of the Federal
navigation channels in the Mystic River in Medford and the Island End
River in Chelsea. The modifications will support waterfront development
by increasing access to the channels.
It also directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study Woods Hole, the
East Basin of Cape Cod Canal in Sandwich, and Oak Bluffs Harbor to
determine whether the Army Corps should proceed with dredging in those
areas to improve navigation. It modifies the coordinates of the federal
navigation channels in Chatham's Aunt Lydia's Cove and Falmouth Harbor.
These modifications will support waterfront development by increasing
access to the channels.
An earlier Army Corps of Engineers restoration plan for Milford Pond
recommends that the pond be dredged. The conference report authorizes
the Army Corps of Engineers to assist the community in removing the
excess sediment.
Finally, the conference report directs the Army Corps to prepare an
environmental restoration report on Mill Pond in Littleton. This report
is an essential step before the Army Corps can assist the community in
removing excess sediment and restoring the pond.
Much good will come from the provisions I have described here, all of
which I worked to include in the final version of the Water Resources
Development Act. However, we must recognize that our work to improve
Corps of Engineers project planning is not done. Corps project planning
must account for climate change, and Corps projects should use
nonstructural approaches whenever practicable to help protect the
natural systems that can buffer the increased floods, storms, storm
surges, and droughts that we will see as the Earth's temperature
continues to rise. The safety and well-being of communities across the
country are at stake.
Many of my colleagues have already expressed their support for this
important change. In May of this year, 51 Senators voted for a
bipartisan climate change amendment to the Water Resources Development
Act that I offered along with Senators Collins, Feingold, Sanders,
Carper, Reed, Biden, Whitehouse, Cantwell, Snowe and Nelson.
Unfortunately, we needed 60 votes to sustain the amendment.
I remain deeply committed to ensuring that the Corps, and all of our
federal agencies, plan for the future climate that we know will be upon
us, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight.
It is clear that climate change is real and that its affects must be
factored into our public policy. It is equally clear that climate
change will have very significant consequences for the safety and
welfare of the American people, and people across the globe.
The basic facts are these: At both poles and in nearly all points in
between, the temperature of the Earth's surface is heating up at a
frightening and potentially catastrophic rate. Temperatures have
already increased about .8 degrees Centigrade, about 1.4 degrees
Fahrenheit. Even if we could stop all greenhouse gas emissions

[[Page S11996]]

today, the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere almost
certainly will produce additional temperature increases. Realistic
projections of future warming range from 2 to 11.5 deg. F.
These are the findings of scientists and governments from across the
globe, as set forth in the most recent report of the IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report was written by
some 600 scientists and reviewed by 600 experts. It was then edited by
officials from 154 governments. The IPCC report concludes that it is
``unequivocal that Earth's climate is warming as it is now evident from
the observations of increases in global averages of air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snows and ice, and rising global
mean sea level.''
Scientists expect that the earth's increased temperatures will cause
an increase in extreme weather events, including more powerful storms,
more frequent floods, and extended droughts. These changes threaten the
health and safety of individuals and communities around the globe.
These changes also pose a significant threat to the economy, and will
put added pressure on water resources, increasing competition among
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological uses.
The United States is extremely vulnerable to these threats. Coastal
communities and habitats, especially along the gulf and Atlantic
coasts, will be stressed by increasing sea level and more intense
storms, both of which can lead to greater storm surges and flooding. In
the West, there will be more flooding in the winter and early spring
followed by more water shortages during the summer. The Great Lakes and
major river systems are expected to have lower water levels,
exacerbating existing challenges for managing water quality,
navigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and water transfers. The
Southwestern United States is already in the midst of a drought that is
projected to continue in the 21st century and may cause the area to
transition to a more arid climate.
The Corps of Engineers stands on the front lines of all of these
threats to our water resources. They are our first responders in the
fight against global warming. Hurricane and flood protection for New
Orleans, levees along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, levees in
Sacramento, CA, and ports up and down our coasts, east and west are
just a few of the many hundreds of Corps projects that will feel the
strain, impact, and consequences of global climate change.
Corps planning currently does not take climate change into account.
To the contrary, the Corps' current planning guidelines are explicitly
based on the existence of a stable and unchanging climate, and on the
assumption that flooding is not affected by climate trends or cycles.
Continued reliance on these outdated guidelines is like driving down
the highway at 80 miles an hour with blinders on. It is bound to lead
to disaster.
The only climate change impact addressed by the Corps' guidelines is
sea level rise. Under its internal planning guidelines, the Corps is
supposed to take account of sea level rise when planning coastal
projects. Those guidelines do not require the Corps to assess any other
effects of global warming like increased hurricanes, storm surges, and
flooding. The Corps' compliance even with its internal requirement to
look at sea level rise is spotty at best. For example, in proposing a
$133 million dredging project for Bolinas Lagoon in northern
California, the Corps said it would not address sea level rise because
it was too complicated to do so.
As importantly, despite a statutory mandate to consider non
structural approaches to project planning, the Corps rarely recommends
such approaches. This is true even where such approaches could provide
the same or better project benefits. The Corps instead relies heavily
on its traditional approaches of straight jacketing rivers with levees
and floodwalls. These types of projects sever critical connections
between rivers and their wetlands and floodplains, and lead to
significant coastal and floodplain wetland losses. These approaches
have left coastal communities, like New Orleans, far more vulnerable,
and have exacerbated flood damages by inducing development in high
risk, flood prone areas and by increasing downstream flooding.
Nonstructural approaches should be used whenever possible as they
avoid damage to healthy rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands that
can help buffer the increased storms and flooding that we are seeing as
a result of climate change. These systems protect against flooding and
storm surge by acting as natural sponges and basins that absorb flood
waters and act as barriers between storm surges and homes, buildings,
and people. Healthy streams and wetlands also help minimize the impacts
of drought by recharging groundwater supplies and filtering pollutants
from drinking water. Protecting these resources also provides a host of
additional benefits, including providing critical habitat for fish and
wildlife, and exceptional recreational opportunities.
Hurricane Katrina showed us the tragic consequences of an intense
storm running head on into a badly degraded wetlands system and faulty
Corps project planning. Coastal wetlands lost to Corps projects were
not available to buffer the Hurricane's storm surge before it slammed
into the city. One Corps project, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
funneled the storm surge into the heart of New Orleans. Corps projects
in New Orleans also were not designed to address the increased sea
level rise or land subsidence, and were not strong enough to withstand
the type of storm that scientists say may become all too common.
I am committed to ensuring that future Corps planning does not repeat
the mistakes of the past, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this
fight as we consider future WRDA bills. Corps project planning must
account for the realities of climate change, and protect the natural
systems that can buffer its affects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak with
Senator Feingold in morning business for 15 minutes.
I understand the other side is going to object to a unanimous consent
request. I am going to ask if you would like me to do it upfront. Is
that correct?
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I always oblige the Senator from Nevada. So if I have
unanimous consent, that will be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, the Senator is going to
ask for unanimous consent on the bill?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may finish. It is my understanding that the
Senator has another commitment, and therefore I am happy to accommodate
him in that regard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to ask, you are going to ask
unanimous consent on H.R. 1255 also?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to do that also.
Mr. BUNNING. I will wait then.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will do them both first and then both Senators can
object, and then Senator Feingold and I will have some time to speak,
if that is agreeable.
Mr. BUNNING. Thank you very much.

____________________