[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14897-14984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

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

       A bill (S. 728) to provide for the consideration and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the

[[Page 14898]]

     Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers 
     and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to start off by making a 
general statement about the amendments we are going to offer, and I 
assume that time will come off the time of the amendment I will offer, 
the amendment on independent peer review. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that is the case.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will make a few remarks, and then I 
would like to turn to the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, my friend, Senator Jeffords, for a few remarks. Then after 
he has talked, I will offer the amendment.
  Mr. President, today the Senate will consider two tremendously 
important amendments to the Water Resources Development Act. Those 
amendments are the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins 
independent peer review amendment and the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-
Feinstein prioritization amendment.
  As many know, I have tried to work for a long time to modernize the 
Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that this Federal agency is best 
situated to serve our great Nation. I have worked alongside Senator 
McCain in these efforts, and I thank him for his dedication to helping 
me bring attention to the need for congressional leadership to address 
what many have noted as fundamental problems with the Corps.
  I want to be clear about my intentions with the amendments we will 
offer this morning, as well as our other efforts involving the Corps. 
We just want to get this agency back on track to serve the interests of 
all Americans. That is what it is about, period.
  As many have noted over the past few days, I have been trying to 
bring up this issue for quite some time. In fact, I have waited 6 long 
years to come down to the floor of the Senate to push for meaningful 
reform of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  Back in 2000, during debate on final passage of the last enacted 
WRDA, the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 
and the current ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, my 
friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, made a commitment to me to address 
the issues that plagued the Corps.
  At that time I sought to offer an amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an 
independent peer review process for the Army Corps. In response to my 
amendment, the bill managers adopted language to authorize the National 
Academy of Sciences to study peer review. This study has long been 
complete, and the final recommendation was clear. In a 2002 report--
Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning--the National Academy of 
Sciences recommended creation of a formalized process to independently 
review costly or controversial Corps projects.
  Four years later, and with Corps reform bills in the 106th, 107th, 
108th, and 109th Congresses, we are still trying to enact such a 
mechanism.
  I would just like to note that I am pleased to see my friend involved 
in this issue, particularly given the role he played in 2000. My only 
hope is, after 6 years of work on this issue, we can go home tonight 
knowing we did right by the taxpayers, by the citizens of our country 
who rely on sound Corps projects to protect their families, their 
property, and the natural systems they want to protect for future 
generations.
  Yes, Corps reform has been a work in progress. In 2001, I introduced 
a stand-alone bill to modernize the Corps. Later that Congress, I 
cosponsored a bill with Senator Smith from New Hampshire, Senator 
Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Ensign of Nevada, and Senator McCain, 
the senior Senator from Arizona. In March 2004 I introduced another 
stand-alone Corps reform bill along with Senator Daschle and Senator 
McCain. Then in the spring of 2005, Senator McCain and I offered 
another bill detailing the changes we hoped to see in the agency. And, 
finally, this spring we introduced another stand-alone bill.
  What these efforts have been about is restoring credibility and 
accountability to this Federal agency that has been rocked by scandal, 
overextended to the tune of a 35-year backlog, and constrained by a 
gloomy fiscal picture. We can do that today. We can restore credibility 
and accountability to the Corps by passing the amendments that my 
friend, the Senator from Arizona, and I will be offering.
  Some have said I have an ax to grind with the Corps. That is not 
true. The reason I am dedicated to improving this embattled agency is 
that I care about the Corps, and I want it to succeed. My home State of 
Wisconsin and numerous other States across our country rely on the 
Corps. From the Great Lakes to the Mississippi, the Corps is involved 
in providing aid to navigation, environmental restoration, flood 
control, and many other valuable services.
  I want to improve the way this agency operates, so that not only 
Wisconsinites but all Americans--particularly those who help pay for 
Corps projects either through their Federal tax dollars or, in many 
cases, through taxes they pay at a local level as part of a non-Federal 
cost-sharing arrangement--can rest easy knowing that their flood 
control projects are not going to fail them, their ecosystem 
restoration projects are going to protect our environmental treasures, 
and their navigation projects are based on sound economics and reliable 
traffic projections.
  Much of the work that has gone into reforming the Corps was done 
before our Nation saw a major U.S. city laid to waste. When Hurricane 
Katrina rocked New Orleans, none of us imagined the horrors that would 
ensue. None of us imagined that much of the flooding--much of the 
flooding--that occurred could have possibly been prevented had some of 
the reforms we will be discussing today been in place decades ago.
  Despite every wish to the contrary, the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina exposed serious problems that this body will be addressing for 
years to come. Many have stood on this floor and in their States and 
talked about what must be done to responsibly move forward in a post-
Katrina landscape. And many of those discussions have, of course, 
centered, appropriately, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  I am here to say that if you were outraged by FEMA's poor response, 
like me, then you should be equally outraged by problems with the Corps 
and the process that has determined where limited Federal resources are 
spent.
  While any hurricane that makes landfall will leave some level of 
destruction behind, the country has been shocked to learn that there 
were engineering flaws in the New Orleans levees, and that important 
information was ignored by the Corps. According to one of the 
independent reviewers looking into what happened with the levee 
failures, the causes of the failures ``are firmly founded in 
organizational and institutional failures that are primarily focused in 
the Corps of Engineers.''
  Now, I had the chance to visit New Orleans a little over a week ago, 
and I can attest that the sentiment toward the Corps is anything but 
cordial. There is a lot of anger toward the Corps down there, and we 
have a responsibility in Congress to address it.
  Additionally, following the hurricane, we have faced questions from 
our constituents about where the Corps was spending its limited budget 
and why. We have a responsibility to address those legitimate concerns, 
too.
  The Times-Picayune of New Orleans recently said the following:

       Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, are critical for 
     this state [meaning Louisiana, of course] which--after the 
     levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the 
     poster child [the poster child] for the Corps' shortcomings.
       The best chance for changing the way the Corps operates is 
     through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ 
     Feingold.

  And finally,

       Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in 
     changing the way the Corps does business. The McCain-Feingold 
     amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the 
     main authors of the water

[[Page 14899]]

     resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe and Kit Bond. What those 
     Senators offer as reform is meaningless, however . . . Sham 
     reform won't do anything to restore confidence in the Corps 
     and the Congress must do better.

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


                           Amendment No. 4681

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

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

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


                    Amendment No. 4681, as Modified

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

       Strike section 2007 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Construction activities.--The term ``construction 
     activities'' means development of detailed engineering and 
     design specifications during the preconstruction engineering 
     and design phase and the engineering and design phase of a 
     water resources project carried out by the Corps of 
     Engineers, and other activities carried out on a water 
     resources project prior to completion of the construction and 
     to turning the project over to the local cost-share partner.
       (2) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility report, reevaluation report, or environmental 
     impact statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Director of Independent Review.--The Secretary shall 
     appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of 
     Independent Review. The Director shall be selected from among 
     individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering, 
     hydrology, biology, economics, or another discipline related 
     to water resources management. The Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that the Director does not 
     have a financial, professional, or other conflict of interest 
     with projects subject to review. The Director of Independent 
     Review shall carry out the duties set forth in this section 
     and such other duties as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (c) Sound Project Planning.--
       (1) Projects subject to planning review.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that each project study for a water resources 
     project shall be reviewed by an independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection if--
       (A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $40,000,000, including mitigation costs;
       (B) the Governor of a State in which the water resources 
     project is located in whole or in part, or the Governor of a 
     State within the drainage basin in which a water resources 
     project is located and that would be directly affected 
     economically or environmentally as a result of the project, 
     requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an 
     independent panel of experts for the project;
       (C) the head of a Federal agency with authority to review 
     the project determines that the project is likely to have a 
     significant adverse impact on public safety, or on 
     environmental, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or 
     other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and 
     requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an 
     independent panel of experts for the project; or
       (D) the Secretary determines on his or her own initiative, 
     or shall determine within 30 days of receipt of a written 
     request for a controversy determination by any party, that 
     the project is controversial because--
       (i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size, 
     nature, potential safety risks, or effects of the project; or
       (ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic, 
     or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (2) Project planning review panels.--
       (A) Project planning review panel membership.--For each 
     water resources project subject to review under this 
     subsection, the Director of Independent Review shall 
     establish a panel of independent experts that shall be 
     composed of not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent 
     experts (including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1 
     biologist, and 1 economist) who represent a range of areas of 
     expertise. The Director of Independent Review shall apply the 
     National Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee 
     members to ensure that members have no conflict with the 
     project being reviewed, and shall consult with the National 
     Academy of Sciences in developing lists of individuals to 
     serve on panels of experts under this subsection. An 
     individual serving on a panel under this subsection shall be 
     compensated at a rate of pay to be determined by the 
     Secretary, and shall be allowed travel expenses.
       (B) Duties of project planning review panels.--An 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection shall review the project study, receive from the 
     public written and oral comments concerning the project 
     study, and submit a written report to the Secretary that 
     shall contain the panel's conclusions and recommendations 
     regarding project study issues identified as significant by 
     the panel, including issues such as--
       (i) economic and environmental assumptions and projections;
       (ii) project evaluation data;
       (iii) economic or environmental analyses;
       (iv) engineering analyses;
       (v) formulation of alternative plans;
       (vi) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
       (vii) models used in evaluation of economic or 
     environmental impacts of proposed projects; and
       (viii) any related biological opinions.
       (C) Project planning review record.--
       (i) In general.--After receiving a report from an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration any 
     recommendations contained in the report and shall immediately 
     make the report available to the public on the internet.
       (ii) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall prepare a 
     written explanation of any recommendations of the independent 
     panel of experts established under this subsection not 
     adopted by the Secretary. Recommendations and findings of the 
     independent panel of experts rejected without good cause 
     shown, as determined by judicial review, shall be given equal 
     deference as the recommendations and findings of the 
     Secretary during a judicial proceeding relating to the water 
     resources project.
       (iii) Submission to congress and public availability.--The 
     report of the independent panel of experts established under 
     this subsection and the written explanation of the Secretary 
     required by clause (ii) shall be included with the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers to Congress, shall be published in the 
     Federal Register, and shall be made available to the public 
     on the Internet.
       (D) Deadlines for project planning reviews.--

[[Page 14900]]

       (i) In general.--Independent review of a project study 
     shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief of 
     Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
       (ii) Deadline for project planning review panel studies.--
     An independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection shall complete its review of the project study and 
     submit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 days 
     after the date of establishment of the panel, or not later 
     than 90 days after the close of the public comment period on 
     a draft project study that includes a preferred alternative, 
     whichever is later. The Secretary may extend these deadlines 
     for good cause.
       (iii) Failure to complete review and report.--If an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection does not submit to the Secretary a report by the 
     deadline established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers 
     may continue project planning without delay.
       (iv) Duration of panels.--An independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection shall terminate on the date 
     of submission of the report by the panel. Panels may be 
     established as early in the planning process as deemed 
     appropriate by the Director of Independent Review, but shall 
     be appointed no later than 90 days before the release for 
     public comment of a draft study subject to review under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days after a 
     determination that review is necessary under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D).
       (E) Effect on existing guidance.--The project planning 
     review required by this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy 
     any external review required by Engineering Circular 1105-2-
     408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision Documents.
       (d) Safety Assurance.--
       (1) Projects subject to safety assurance review.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the construction activities for 
     any flood damage reduction project shall be reviewed by an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection if the Director of Independent Review makes a 
     determination that an independent review is necessary to 
     ensure public health, safety, and welfare on any project--
       (A) for which the reliability of performance under 
     emergency conditions is critical;
       (B) that uses innovative materials or techniques;
       (C) for which the project design is lacking in redundancy, 
     or that has a unique construction sequencing or a short or 
     overlapping design construction schedule; or
       (D) other than a project described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C), as the Director of Independent Review determines 
     to be appropriate.
       (2) Safety assurance review panels.--At the appropriate 
     point in the development of detailed engineering and design 
     specifications for each water resources project subject to 
     review under this subsection, the Director of Independent 
     Review shall establish an independent panel of experts to 
     review and report to the Secretary on the adequacy of 
     construction activities for the project. An independent panel 
     of experts under this subsection shall be composed of not 
     less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts selected from 
     among individuals who are distinguished experts in 
     engineering, hydrology, or other pertinent disciplines. The 
     Director of Independent Review shall apply the National 
     Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee members 
     to ensure that panel members have no conflict with the 
     project being reviewed. An individual serving on a panel of 
     experts under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate 
     of pay to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be 
     allowed travel expenses.
       (3) Deadlines for safety assurance reviews.--An independent 
     panel of experts established under this subsection shall 
     submit a written report to the Secretary on the adequacy of 
     the construction activities prior to the initiation of 
     physical construction and periodically thereafter until 
     construction activities are completed on a publicly available 
     schedule determined by the Director of Independent Review for 
     the purposes of assuring the public safety. The Director of 
     Independent Review shall ensure that these reviews be carried 
     out in a way to protect the public health, safety, and 
     welfare, while not causing unnecessary delays in construction 
     activities.
       (4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a 
     written report from an independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) take into consideration recommendations contained in 
     the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations 
     not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation 
     available to the public on the Internet; and
       (B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (e) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of 
     experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a 
     Federal expense and shall not exceed--
       (A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary, at the written request of the 
     Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost 
     limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the implementation of this section.
       (g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Secretary to cause 
     or conduct a peer review of the engineering, scientific, or 
     technical basis of any water resources project in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  I offer this independent peer review amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Collins. As we all know, 
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, through their leadership of the 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, have done an 
extensive investigation into all aspects of the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina. I applaud their leadership and am proud they are cosponsoring 
this amendment, as I think it is a testament to the importance of 
implementing the changes included in this amendment. Additionally, 
Senator Jeffords has consistently pushed, through his position as 
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many 
of the provisions of this amendment. I publicly thank him for all his 
attention to this matter.
  Finally, Senator Carper has seen the need for an independent peer 
review amendment through both his Homeland Security Committee 
membership and his EPW Committee membership, and I appreciate his 
support in moving this issue forward.
  Before I explain exactly what my amendment does, let me take a few 
minutes to talk about what various Government reports have said about 
the Corps' study process, as these reports have been the basis of my 
efforts over the last 6 years.
  More than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, 
the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army inspector general, 
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and other independent experts have 
revealed a pattern of stunning flaws in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
project planning and implementation and urged substantial changes to 
the Corps' project planning process. Most recently, in June of this 
year, a report entitled ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Performance 
Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane 
Protection System Draft Final Report on the Interagency Performance 
Evaluation Task Force'' acknowledged that the New Orleans levees failed 
catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina because of poor design and 
flawed construction. In planning the system, the Corps did not take 
into account poor soil quality and failed to account for the sinking of 
land which caused sections to be as much as 2 feet lower than other 
sections.
  Breaches in four New Orleans canals were caused by foundation 
failures that were ``not considered in the original design.'' The 
system was designed to protect against a relatively low-strength 
hurricane, and the Corps did not respond to repeated warnings from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that a stronger 
hurricane should have been the standard. The Corps also did not 
reexamine the heights of the levees after it had been warned about 
significant subsidence.
  In discussing this report, the Corps' chief of engineers acknowledged 
that the agency must change, telling reporters that ``words alone will 
not restore trust in the Corps.''
  Also, in June of this year, a report issued by the American Society 
of Civil Engineers, ``Project Engineering Peer Review Within the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers,'' recommends that Congress enact legislation 
to mandate external, independent peer reviews for all major Corps 
projects that would include reviews of the feasibility report, 
subsequent design and engineering reports, the project plans, and 
specifications and construction. Reviews should be

[[Page 14901]]

carried out by experts who have no connection to the Corps, to the 
local project sponsor, or to the particular project contract.
  In May of this year, we got ``A Nation Still Unprepared,'' a report 
that resulted from the excellent work of my friend from Maine, Senator 
Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor of our independent peer review 
amendment, and Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking member of the committee, 
and another cosponsor of our amendment.
  That report recommends independent peer review of levee systems that 
protect population centers throughout the country. I don't know if 
Senator Collins or Senator Lieberman will have time to elaborate more 
on the thorough investigation their committee conducted and on their 
key findings and recommendations, but the report in many ways speaks 
volumes on its own.
  One of the most striking reports, conducted by R.B. Seed in May of 
this year, ``Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood 
Protection Systems and Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, Draft 
Final Report,'' finds that the catastrophic failure of the New Orleans 
regional flood protection system was the result of ``engineering 
lapses, poor judgments, and efforts to reduce costs at the expense of 
system reliability.'' The Corps failed to design the system with 
appropriate safety standards, failed to adequately address the complex 
geology of the region, failed to provide adequate design oversight, and 
engaged in ``a persistent pattern of attempts to reduce costs of 
constructed works at the price of corollary reduction in safety and 
reliability.''
  These failings led to the ``single most costly catastrophic failure 
of an engineered system in history'' that caused the deaths of more 
than 1,290 people and some $100 to $150 billion in damages to the 
greater New Orleans area.
  I could go on, and I will. I want my colleagues to know what is at 
stake. In March 2006, the Government Accountability Office testified 
that ``the Corps' track record of providing reliable information that 
can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.'' Four recent 
Corps studies examined by GAO were ``fraught with errors, mistakes, and 
miscalculations and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' These 
studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking.'' The 
recurring problems ``clearly indicate that the Corps' planning and 
project management processes cannot ensure that national priorities are 
appropriately established across the hundreds of civil works projects 
that are competing for scarce federal resources.'' Problems at the 
agency are ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the 
Corps' Civil Works portfolio'' so that effectively addressing these 
issues ``may require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the 
Corps' planning and project management processes rather than a 
piecemeal approach.''
  I commend to my coleagues this damning testimony before the House 
Energy and Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform 
by Ann Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO.
  In March of 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers External 
Review Panel for the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force 
letter to the Corps' chief of engineers found that decisions made 
during the original design phase led to the failure of the 17th Street 
canal floodwall in New Orleans and are representative of ``an overall 
pattern of engineering judgment inconsistent with that required for 
critical structures.'' These problems pose ``significant implications 
for the current and future safety offered by levees, floodwalls and 
control structures in New Orleans, and perhaps elsewhere.'' The 
External Review Panel recommends a number of immediate actions to 
improve Corps planning for ``levees and floodwalls in New Orleans and 
perhaps everywhere else in the nation,'' including external peer review 
of the Corps' design process for critical life safety structures.
  In September 2005, the GAO issued a report which backs up our call 
for prioritization. ``Army Corps of Engineers, Improved Planning and 
Financial Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions 
to Manage Project Funds'' finds that the Corps' excessive use of 
reprogramming funds is being used as a substitute for an effective 
priority-setting system for the civil works program and as a substitute 
for sound fiscal and project management.
  In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Corps reprogrammed funds over 
7,000 times and moved over $2.1 billion among projects within the 
investigations and constructions account.
  In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a 
report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the 
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.'' This report recommends that the 
National Ocean Council review and recommend changes to the Corps' civil 
works program to ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of 
coastal projects; provide greater transparency to the public; enforce 
requirements for mitigating the impacts of coastal projects; and 
coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts.
  The report also recommends that Congress modify its current 
authorization and funding processes to encourage the Corps to monitor 
outcomes from past projects and study the cumulative and regional 
impacts of its activities within coastal watersheds and ecosystems.
  In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a slew of reports:
  The ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New 
Opportunity for Service'' recommends modernizing the Corps's 
authorities, planning approaches, and guidelines to better match 
contemporary water resources management challenges.
  ``Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning'' 
recommends needed changes to ensure effective use of the adaptive 
management by the Corps for its civil works projects.
  ``River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers'' describes the challenges to water resources 
planning at the scale of river basins and coastal systems and 
recommends needed changes to the Corps' current planning practices.
  ``Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Planning'' 
recommends needed changes to the Corps' ``Principles and Guidelines'' 
in planning guidance policies.
  In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission's ``America's Living Oceans, 
Charting a Course for Sea Change, A Report to the Nation, 
Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy'' recommends enactment of 
``substantial reforms'' of the Corps, including legislation to ensure 
that Corps projects are environmentally and economically sound and 
reflect national priorities. The Pew report recommends development of 
uniform standards for Corps participation in shoreline restoration 
projects and transformation of the Corps over the long term into a 
strong and reliable force for environmental restoration. The report 
also recommends that Congress direct the Corps and other Federal 
agencies to develop a comprehensive floodplain management policy that 
emphasizes nonstructural control measures.
  In May 2002, the GAO found in its report ``Scientific Panel's 
Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance'' that the Corps 
has proposed no mitigation for almost 70 percent of its projects. And 
for those few projects where the Corps does perform mitigation, 80 
percent of the time it does not carry out the mitigation concurrently 
with project construction.
  In response to language that was included in the WRDA 2000 bill, the 
National Academy of Sciences, in ``Review Procedures for Water 
Resources Planning'' issued in 2002, recommends creation of a 
formalized process to independently review costly or controversial 
Corps projects. And in one of the most disturbing of the numerous 
reports on the Corps and the problems endemic in this agency, in 
November 2000, the Department of the Army Inspector General issued a 
report entitled

[[Page 14902]]

``Investigation of Allegations Against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Involving Manipulation of Studies Related to the Upper Mississippi 
River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Systems.'' Their report found 
that the Corps deceptively and intentionally manipulated data in an 
attempt to justify a $1.2 billion expansion of locks on the upper 
Mississippi River and that the Corps has an institutional bias for 
constructing costly, large-scale structural projects.
  Back in 1999--yes, 7 years ago--the National Academy of Sciences, in 
their report titled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' recommends key changes to the Corps' 
planning process and examines the length of time and cost of Corps 
studies in comparison with similar studies carried out by the private 
sector.
  Twelve years ago, in June of 1994, the Interagency Floodplain 
Management Review Committee report, ``Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain 
Management Into the 21st Century,'' a Report to the Administration 
Floodplain Management Task Force--often referred to as the Galloway 
Report after the report's primary author, BG Gerald Galloway--
recommends changes to the Nation's water resources policies based on 
lessons learned from the great Midwest Flood of 1993, including 
modernizing the Corps' Principles and Guidelines, requiring the Corps 
to give full consideration to nonstructural flood damage reduction 
alternatives, requiring periodic reviews of completed Corps projects, 
adopting floodplain management guidelines that would minimize impacts 
to floodplains land reduce vulnerabilities to population centers and 
critical infrastructure, and reinstituting the Water Resources Council 
to facilitate improvement in Federal water resources planning.
  Lastly, but certainly not least, in 1994 that very busy National 
Academy of Sciences issued yet another scathing report, ``Restoring and 
Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology,'' 
which finds, among other things, that the Corps and all Federal 
agencies with responsibility for marine habitat management should 
revise their policies and procedures to increase use of restoration 
technologies; take into account which natural functions can be restored 
or facilitated; improve coordination concerning marine resources; 
include environmental and economic benefits derived from nonstrucural 
measures in benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat projects; and examine 
the feasibility of improving economic incentives for marine habitat 
restoration. It has been a long recitation of these reports, but it is 
an amazing record.
  Over 12 years of analysis on how we can improve the Corps of 
Engineers. During that time, WRDA bills passed in 1996, 1999, and 2000, 
with the only reform coming in the NAS study I got included in the 2000 
bill. That is why today is the day to implement the knowledge we have 
from all of this expert consideration of the Corps. Today is the day 
for action.
  With that history in mind, let me describe what our independent peer 
review amendment does: No. 1, it requires independent review of 
projects that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety. 
Under my amendment Corps project planning will be independently 
reviewed if the project costs more than $40 million, a Governor 
requests a review, a Federal agency finds the project will have a 
significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the Army determines 
that the project is controversial; No. 2, it ensures truly independent 
review panels by implementing National Academy of Sciences criteria 
about who would be eligible to provide expert review; No. 3, if 
implements the recommendation of the 2002 National Academy of Sciences 
report on peer review that said that independent reviewers should be 
given the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of 
decisionmakers; No. 4, it includes strict deadlines for reviews. 
Reviews are subject to a strict timeline that requires independent 
review panels to complete the review 180 days after being impaneled or 
90 days following the close of public comment, whichever provides the 
most time. This timeline balances the need to not delay the planning 
process with the need to ensure that the panel will be able to review 
the full draft study and to consider any relevant public comments; and 
No. 5, it implements recommendations from the Senate Homeland Security 
and Government Affairs Committee's Katrina report by requiring review 
of the more detailed technical design and construction work for Corps 
flood control projects where failure could jeopardize the public 
safety.
  In a nutshell, that is what the amendment does.
  Mr. President, when you have worked on an issue as long as I have 
worked on Corps reform, you are likely to hear your intentions 
mischaracterized.
  I wish to address at some point today some of the myths out there 
about what we are trying to do here. At this point, I inquire whether 
my cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona, is interested in addressing 
this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma wants to speak 
first.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, Mr. President, I think the ranking member of the 
committee would like to make a short statement, and then it would be 
fine for Senator McCain to go and, after that, Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold-McCain 
amendment on the Army Corps of Engineers' independent peer review, 
which I am proud to cosponsor.
  For years, we have heard from a variety of reports about the need for 
reforming the Corps, reports that Senator Feingold has elaborated on in 
his statement.
  I thank him for his leadership in this issue. In fact, Senator 
Feingold has been a leader on this issue for many years. Through his 
efforts, an amendment was included in the last water resources bill in 
2000 directing the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a 1-year 
study on peer review. In the 107th Congress, Senator Feingold 
introduced a comprehensive Corps reform bill and the Environment and 
Public Works Committee held a hearing on it.
  While development of the bill before the Senate today was a bi-
partisan effort, independent reviews, mitigation and planning, and 
issues considered Corps reform, were not negotiated by the bill's 
managers.
  However, in the previous Congress, the managers were able to reach a 
compromise agreement on these issues, including peer review, which I 
offered during committee consideration of this bill, but it did not 
prevail.
  Since committee consideration of the bill, some improvements have 
been made to the planning provisions of the bill, due to the work of 
Senator Feingold, and I want to thank him for working with the managers 
to incorporate those revisions.
  I think many believe there should be independent peer review of Corps 
projects, the debate is over what form that review should take and 
which projects should be reviewed.
  In fact, the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Woodley, on March 
31, 2004, in testimony before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee stated:

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

  I think the Feingold-McCain amendment provides the strong, truly 
independent peer review that is needed to assure that taxpayer dollars 
are being spent on projects that have had the utmost scrutiny and 
unbiased review. The Inhofe/Bond amendment does not.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feingold, 
Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords in sponsoring the amendment. This

[[Page 14903]]

amendment has been described already by my friend from Wisconsin. I 
will point out again that it establishes a truly independent system for 
conducting peer review of certain Army Corps projects.
  As my colleagues know, the Corps comes under intense scrutiny by 
Government watchdog agencies and taxpayer groups, including the 
Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences. 
Investigation after investigation into the Corps' project review 
practices has revealed serious problems with the quality, objectivity, 
and credibility of the Corps when reporting on the economic and 
environmental feasibility of proposed water projects. One GAO report 
concluded in 2006 that the Corps' planning studies ``were fraught with 
errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and 
outdated data.'' The same GAO report cited several examples of the 
Corps' failure to properly analyze projects.
  These include the Sacramento flood protection project. According to 
the GAO, the Corps didn't fully analyze likely cost increases for the 
Sacramento flood protection project or report cost overruns to Congress 
in a timely manner. The GAO found that the estimated cost of the 
project originally totaled about $114 million but increased to about 
$500 million by 2002. By the time the Corps reported those cost 
increases to Congress in 2002, it had already spent or planned to spend 
more than double its original estimated cost.
  The Delaware deepening project: The GAO found that the Corps 
substantially overstated the projected economic benefits of the 
Delaware River channel-deepening project. Whereas the Corps estimated 
the benefits to be $40.1 million per year in 1998, the GAO projected 
only $13.3 million per year. The GAO urged the Corps to reanalyze the 
project, which later revealed it could be built for $56 million less 
than the Corps estimated.
  The list goes on and on of these projects that have been understated 
in cost, not properly justified. There is not a proper prioritization.
  Regarding the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty project, 
according to the GAO, the Corps' analysis of the Oregon Inlet jetty 
project, issued in 2001, failed to ``consider alternatives to the 
proposed project, used outdated data to estimate benefits to fishing 
trawlers, and did not account for the effects on smaller fishing 
vessels.''
  In 2005, the Corps adopted guidelines for conducting external reviews 
of projects. It sounds like a good idea. The current guidelines give 
the Corps virtually complete discretion to decide what projects should 
be reviewed from outside the Corps. The so-called peer reviewers 
themselves are selected by the Corps and in some circumstances can even 
be Corps employees. According to the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, Corps officials have identified approximately 25 engineering 
studies as eligible for outside peer review since the peer review 
guidelines were enacted over a year ago, but the Corps has not been 
able to point to any study where an external review was actually 
carried out.
  Clearly, the system needs to be fixed. According to this amendment, 
Corps studies would be subject to peer review if the project cost more 
than $40 million, the Governor of an affected State requests a review, 
a Federal agency with statutory authority to review a project finds 
that it will have significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the 
Army determines that the project is controversial.
  This kind of issue hits home pretty much when we have a situation 
such as the catastrophe in New Orleans.
  According to a March 25, 2006, article in the Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It goes on to say:

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

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

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

  There have been many studies and views of what happened in New 
Orleans. We all know that canal intensified the damage. We all know 
that the levees were not well built. Some of them, according to other 
news reports, had already been turned over to the local authorities.
  What we are asking for is rather modest. I am going to be astonished 
at the response of my dear friends from Missouri and Oklahoma about 
this because basically all this says is that there would be a peer 
review if a project costs more than $40 million, and if the Governor of 
an affected State--which seems to be a fairly good Republican principle 
to me--requests a review that it should be allowed, and a Federal 
agency with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will 
have a significant adverse impact or the Secretary of the Army 
determines that the project is controversial.
  The timing of the review is flexible, but the duration is strictly 
limited in order to not delay the process. Reviewers will be able to 
consider all the data, facts, and models used.
  Finally, the amendment establishes an independent safety assurance 
review for flood control projects where the public safety could be at 
risk should the project fail.
  By the way, that was recommended in the Senate Homeland Security 
Committee's report on Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page 14904]]

  I would think that the Members of this body, knowing the intense 
criticism that the Corps of Engineers has come under for years and 
these dramatic cost overruns time after time--I later may submit for 
the Record the very long list of cost overruns that have been incurred 
due to bad estimates to start with--that we would want to have greater 
oversight, that we would want to have a peer review system that would 
only apply to projects over $40 million each and if a Governor of a 
State requests it.
  If I were in the Corps of Engineers, maybe I would like to continue 
to do business as usual, but I think we showed in New Orleans that we 
are not talking about just cost overruns. We are not just talking about 
featherbedding in bureaucracies. We are talking about the lives of our 
citizens and catastrophes that could take place.
  I hope my colleagues will understand that this amendment is meant to 
try to improve the image of the Corps of Engineers, to give greater 
confidence to the taxpayers of America that their tax dollars are being 
wisely spent, and that we will do everything we can to prevent the kind 
of construction and failing that took place in New Orleans which caused 
so much damage, including the construction of a canal that aggravated 
dramatically the disaster that took place.
  I might add, it was also the Corps of Engineers' projects which 
depleted the wetlands which have been the natural barrier to hurricanes 
for hundreds of years, which are disappearing as we speak. As we speak, 
the wetlands south of Louisiana are being eroded on a daily basis.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his 
involvement in this issue. I hope my colleagues will understand, 
considering the rather significant shortfalls and shortcomings we have 
found involved in the Corps of Engineers, that we would want to support 
an effort for greater accountability and greater transparency and more 
involvement by local government.
  I also remind my colleagues that there are many projects which are on 
the boards, in planning stages. We will be discussing that when I 
propose my amendment for a process of prioritization for these 
projects.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following cosponsors to the Inhofe-Bond amendment: Senators Cochran, 
Domenici, and Thune.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, also, I am going to announce what we are 
doing. We are going to be considering these two amendments, and after 
the time has expired for both amendments under the time agreement, then 
we will actually be voting on them side by side. That will take place 
and people will have a choice.
  I also want to mention that the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Arizona acknowledge that the underlying substitute 
amendment does improve this situation. I don't think anyone is saying 
that what we have had in the past is acceptable. It is not acceptable. 
We are talking about making major changes, and the underlying 
substitute amendment does that as well as either of the amendments we 
are considering now.
  Before I forget to do this, I wish to repeat something I said a 
couple of days ago. I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and all 
the members of our committee for working closely together so that this 
very significant legislation could come to the floor. I think, 
regardless of what amendments are adopted, we are going to have a 
dramatic improvement over the current system.
  Speaking of thanking people, I thank Senator Bond. He is the one who 
has been a driving force in this committee. I yield to him at this time 
whatever time he wants to consume on our amendment or on the Feingold-
McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I just did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the chairman of the 
committee for giving me this opportunity to respond.
  I was very pleased that my friend from Arizona finally called 
attention to the St. John's Bayou-New Madrid floodway project. This is 
a very important project. I invite the Senator out to see it sometime 
because this area, a large area of southeast Missouri, was converted to 
cropland in the early 1900s.
  One can argue whether that was a good idea, but for over a century, 
it has been farmed and farmed successfully. They are not wetlands. 
There are no wetlands being drained there. This is cropland, and it is 
farmed. Some of the farming is done by very low economic people. 
Minority communities are located there. The minority community of 
Pinhook holds many of the farmers who farm this land.
  We have had very compelling testimony before the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. When the late Jimmy Robbins, one of the leaders 
of Pinhook, came up and explained that without closing the St. John's 
Bayou-New Madrid floodway, every time the river comes up, the river 
floods Pinhook. The entire community is covered in floodwater. They 
have to get out high-wheel tractors and large farm tractors to ferry 
their children to school, to ferry them back and forth to work, to take 
care of their basic needs.
  Do we want to subject these people to continued flooding?
  My predecessor, Senator Tom Eagleton, back in 1976, proposed bringing 
relief to the minority communities living in the area that floods when 
the Mississippi River rises. Guess what. That was a mere 30 years ago 
because his project had been reviewed, re-reviewed, replanned, 
challenged, re-reviewed, re-reviewed, and the people of Pinhook 
continued to be flooded.
  This is not about draining wetlands. This is a problem of what 
happens to the people who actually live there.
  The purpose of the project is to protect communities, farmlands, and 
wildlife in a flood-prone area. No wetlands will be drained. The 
majority of the land has been leveled, improved, irrigated and is not 
functioning as wetlands habitat but is functioning as farmland.
  The Corps has reevaluated operations for fishery habitat for the area 
and determined that this project still exceeds the 1-to-1 benefit-to-
cost ratio. I can tell you it is a whole lot more expensive than it 
would have been had the project been done in a timely fashion after 
1976. That is what happens when you study, when you threaten to 
bankrupt local communities trying to pay their share. You put the State 
at great expense to continue these operations.
  Yes, we should study, and the amendment that has been proposed by 
Senator Inhofe and me provides for review to make sure the review is 
accurate. But to provide the additional bureaucracy, the additional 
hassle that the Feingold-McCain amendment provides does not in any way 
assure that the taxpayers will get a better deal, the environment will 
be better or that the needs of the people in the communities will be 
better satisfied.
  I want to discuss, very briefly, the technical and scientific 
independent review amendment offered by Senator Inhofe and me and the 
peer review amendment offered by Senators McCain and Feingold. Although 
the difference between independent review and independent peer review 
appears to be semantic and minor, when you look at what is in them, you 
see the difference. Both proposed amendments address Corps reform and 
both address external review. Nobody is arguing to say there shouldn't 
be review, that we shouldn't take a look and see what needs to be done 
and how it needs to be done better. Everybody can focus on the problems 
of New Orleans. Well, when you look at the problems of New Orleans, 
there are many factors that go into account. We are not going to 
address those here. But you take a look at how money was spent locally 
that was supposed to be spent on levees, and you take a look at the 
decisions made along the way that were not well made.

[[Page 14905]]

  Senator Inhofe and I have offered an amendment which is before us 
that is going to require an independent review by qualified, interested 
experts, compiled by the National Academy of Sciences, and the review 
will occur throughout the entire process. In other words, people such 
as representatives from the National Academy of Sciences, the IRC, the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, will be focusing on the project as 
it is developed. There are many stages in the development of these 
projects, and they need to be reviewed to make sure the work that is 
being done by the Corps is being done accurately.
  This is a general operation of what happens before you go to a 
decision to move forward. There is the chief's report; it is referred. 
There are letters, OSA reviews, the Office of Management and Budget 
reviews, the Office of Management and Budget has to clear it, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army recommends it to Congress, and then 
Congress approves it. All of these steps--there are about 103 separate 
steps that have to be followed. So it comes to the Congress as a 
policymaker to decide whether it is an appropriate policy. But all 
along that path, we want to have people who are scientifically 
qualified to make sure that if they are building a levee, they build a 
levee that will hold as projected. If they are building a lock, they 
want to make sure it will hold water, that it will be sound, that it 
will be safe, whether it is a levee or a lock.
  As a result of the admission from the Corps that some of the problems 
existed with the planning and construction of the New Orleans levees, 
no one--not even the Corps--is denying that realistic reform is an 
important component of this WRDA bill. The challenge is to enact 
realistic reform that provides sufficient project review without 
creating unnecessary costs.
  The Inhofe-Bond amendment proposed does just that. It provides reform 
that will establish greater accountability and assure us that 
scientific, technical standards are observed without adding unjustified 
delays and costs.
  The peer review panels in the Feingold-McCain amendment are not 
clearly restricted to reviewing the scientific and engineering basis. 
The panels are permitted to get into policy, value, public controversy, 
and make the decisions that Congress and the local community are 
supposed to make. The local community decides whether to support it. 
Congress makes a policy decision. Congress has provided already for 
public hearings, public comment. Yesterday I went through the process 
of the number of meetings that had been held with Governors, with 
public hearings on the locks projects on the upper Mississippi, with 
the number of comments, the number of people who participated. There is 
tremendous public participation and input. Setting up a separate body 
to judge that input, rather than the Congress, is not, I think, good 
policy. We are supposed to make the policy based on the best scientific 
recommendations we can get. OMB has a crack at the policy when they 
send it up. But these policy reviews would be second-guessing the 
scientific decisions.
  Let's think about how this would play out in the transition. Once the 
comment period moves beyond the technicality and the science, what 
independent experts are dictating the project approval? We should not 
dilute public review by giving technocrats a larger role in policy 
recommendations than is given to the general public. There is a reason 
why we rely upon the appropriate training and expertise of the people 
who are generating the process to develop and construct our 
infrastructure and safety needs.
  Let's take a look at the local cost share that would go into the 
Feingold-McCain process. It doesn't even provide for integration of 
peer review until the end of the process. Making sure that the 
independent review begins as the process goes forward is the way that 
we assure the process is better. We want integration of the review all 
throughout before you make a major mistake and go off in the wrong 
direction. When you wait to have end-of-the-line peer review--does it 
make any sense to wait until a car is coming off of an assembly line, 
is rolled off the assembly line, to test to make sure that the lights 
work and the switches work? You test them before you put them into the 
car. That is what we are doing, we test along the line to make sure 
that what you are putting into the process works. You don't want to put 
components into a car only to find out, Hey, the lights don't work, the 
switches don't work, and then have to start tearing the car apart.
  That is what the Feingold-McCain amendment does. It is end-of-the-
line peer review. It invites multiple passes through the study process 
with unacceptable expense and delay, and it would, in effect, become a 
second study process. The first go-round, the local cost share, would 
increase, because they have to pay for it, the locals have to pay for 
it. It takes 1 to 3 years to go through the process in the first place, 
and then you start a peer review at the end and it could take another 
period of time, and if they send it back, you start it 1 to 3 years 
over. That becomes extremely expensive for the local cosponsors. It 
becomes extremely expensive for the taxpayers who are paying for the 
tab if you redo it without reviewing the project as you go forward. 
Doubling the time and moving the costs of a project outside of the 
realm of the local community's ability to pay makes no sense.
  Now, of course, beyond the peer review process, there is the 
congressional process. Congress must authorize and fund studies on each 
project and then authorize and appropriate funds to construct each 
project. As we all know, the congressional process does take years. If 
my ancient memory serves me, this is the 2002 Water Resources 
Development Act. This was the bill that was due in 2002. Here we are 4 
years later. Don't let anybody tell you that Congress doesn't review it 
and review it and review it and review it until it is lying on the 
floor gasping for breath.
  The amendment Senator Inhofe and I propose establishes a peer review 
panel that provides a safety net. We are elected to represent the 
interests of constituents. We are not appointed bureaucrats. The 
amendment takes away our authority to act on behalf of our constituents 
and meet the needs of our local communities. It removes the checks and 
balances set forth in our Constitution by shifting power away to other 
people.
  Now, why do we wait until the end of the line to do this peer review 
in the first place? The collaborative solutions to urgent flood and 
storm control and other important questions would be moved to the end 
of the process and sent back to the drawing board.
  Let's try another analogy. We test our schoolchildren throughout each 
grade level and assess their progress. If a child has difficulty 
reading, it is flagged, and intervention and extra help should be 
provided. We do not wait until students reach the end of the eighth 
grade and then test them to see if they have learned to read in the 
first grade and send them back to the first grade. You ought to be 
testing them each year to make sure they are proficient, and you ought 
to be testing the hypotheses of this process throughout.
  Common sense says that independent review is effective only if it is 
used throughout the process. Can you imagine an employee working on a 
project and planning for several years, and then during the end-of-the-
line review finding a technical error and having to go back to the 
beginning? Not only is that unnecessarily delaying and expensive, but 
it kills the motivation of employees, and it delays. I, along with 
Senator Inhofe, propose independent peer review during this study 
process.
  One other thing, the inclusion of the expectation of litigation. 
Their amendment talks about judicial review and invites judicial 
review. Well, that is another cost adder that will continue to impose 
burdens on communities and delay the effectiveness of the ability to 
construct needed projects. With the clear-cut incentives to litigate, 
we are going to see more lawsuits and less projects. Clear-cut 
opportunities to litigate, if the committee is unhappy with the chief's 
report, will only complicate the cost-benefit analysis, when it is 
already too challenging to place a

[[Page 14906]]

value on human life and the economic lifeline of the country. The Corps 
study process already takes too long and will be too expensive, and it 
will continue to delay the progress we need.
  Media reports and editorials have criticized what went on, and they 
play the blame game--they burden the Corps with the blame. But Senators 
should understand that the Corps needs to have an improved process, and 
we are going to do our best to make sure that process is driven by 
sound science throughout the process.
  About 80 of our colleagues signed a letter saying, Bring this bill to 
the floor. The 80 colleagues who are signed on to that letter believe 
they have projects in their communities, in their States, that are 
important. If you wish to continue to delay the passage of the WRDA 
bill for another 2, 4, 6, 8 years, then forget about the environmental 
benefits--the environmental benefits which are more than half of the 
authorization of this project, and the environmental benefits which the 
Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and other responsible 
environmental groups say need to happen. Trying to delay the bill or 
trying to delay the process of implementation of Corps studies and 
recommendations is very costly and denies us the ability to accomplish 
things that are important for the safety, the well-being of our 
communities and the people who live in them.
  Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to oppose the Feingold-McCain 
amendment and to support the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we had a list of people wanting to be 
heard. It is my understanding the Senator from Montana wants to be 
heard, and that would come from the minority time on general debate.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana, the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over 70 years ago one of Montana's most 
renowned political figures, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, attended a 
meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt where be proposed building 
the Fort Peck Dam in Central Montana. Fort Peck would be the largest 
hydraulic earth-filled dam in the world requiring over 11,000 workers 
at peak construction. At a pricetag of $75 million, the cost of 
construction was large even by today's standards. Fifteen minutes after 
Senator Wheeler's meeting with President Roosevelt had begun, Senator 
Wheeler walked out with a promise from President Roosevelt to have the 
Army Corps of Engineers build Fort Peck Dam. Construction began in 
1933.
  While it has taken this Congress significantly longer than it did 
Senator Wheeler to advance the water resource needs of the Nation, I am 
pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, 
and Bond--to bring the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 to the 
floor.
  It has been nearly 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into 
law. Protection of public safety, continued growth of the economy, and 
the restoration of the environment depend on our timely action.
  Much has changed since the Corps constructed Fort Peck Dam. Today 
much of the Corps work in Montana is focused on ecosystem restoration. 
That is why I included a provision in this bill that will allow the 
Corps to plan conservation projects on the Yellowstone River that are 
identified in the course of the Yellowstone River Cumulative Effects 
Study. A cumulative effects study has been ongoing along the 
Yellowstone River for several years, authorized by WRDA 1999. This 
study has been very successful, and has involved close collaboration 
with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District 
Council, and local conservation districts, among many others. The 
provision included in the bill today would provide the Corps with the 
authority to move forward with planning, design and construction of 
ecosystem restoration projects along the Yellowstone as they are 
identified by the cumulative effects study. It is so important. All 
these factors work together. It provides for public participation in 
the selection of projects, and consultation with the State of Montana, 
the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and others.
  The Yellowstone is the longest free flowing river in the county. Much 
of southern and eastern Montana depends on the health of the 
Yellowstone River. It irrigates fields, provides world-class fishing, 
sustains the tourism sector, and supplies clean drinking water. It is a 
source of great pride and economic strength for all Montana. This 
provision will protect the Yellowstone and Montana's recreational 
heritage for generations to come.
  While the Corps' mission has evolved to include ecosystem 
restoration, part of the Corps' central mission is to develop our water 
resources to maintain our economic competitiveness. Economic 
development and ecosystem restoration used to be thought of as mutually 
exclusive. No more. This view is needlessly divisive. This bill 
includes a provision that has brought together both irrigators and 
environmentalists. The Intake project on the Yellowstone River will 
authorize the Corps to work with the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
design and construction of a dam and diversion works that will help 
both farmers and endangered fish. Rebuilding the dam at Intake will 
guarantee farmers water for their crops and allow the endangered 
sturgeon to pass through the dam, opening 238 miles of river habitat 
for the endangered fish.
  This bill also includes urgently needed hurricane protection and 
coastal restoration projects for the State of Louisiana. Indeed, this 
bill authorizes the Corps in consultation with the Governor of 
Louisiana to create a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for 
Louisiana to rehabilitate coastal barrier islands and wetlands that 
serve as natural hurricane barriers.
  Unfortunately, some things at the Corps have not changed. In 1938 the 
Fort Peck Dam tragically failed. Thirty-four workers were swept away in 
a landslide. Eight lost their lives. The landslide was the result of 
inaccurate soils and foundation analysis. If we do not learn the 
lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
  Sixty-seven years later as Hurricane Katrina bared down on the city 
of New Orleans, floodwalls around New Orleans failed because of faulty 
soils analysis. What makes this event even more tragic is that an 
internal Corps study predicted exactly how the floodwalls would fail, 
and it went unread. The underlying bill does not go far enough to 
ensure that the Corps learns from the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. The Corps needs a robust program of independent peer review and 
project prioritization. The Corps currently has a $58 billion project 
backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget. At that pace it would 
take the Corps roughly 30 years just to work through the backlog of 
projects. With limited Federal resources, it is important that the 
Corps separate the wheat from the chaff.
  In fact I would like to see the prioritization framework extended to 
cover not only construction projects but ongoing operational activities 
of the Corps as well. Recreation on the Missouri River generates nearly 
$85 million a year, while the barge industry provides only $9 million a 
year. Despite this disparity, the Corps continues to maintain at least 
a 6-month navigation season on the Missouri unless total water system 
storage on the Missouri drops below 31 million acre feet. That is dryer 
than a dust bowl drought. It makes no sense to waste precious taxpayer 
and water resources to maintain a navigation season on the Missouri in 
drought years. That is why I was pleased to work with Senators Feingold 
and McCain to include a provision in their project prioritization 
amendment that directs the Water Resources Planning Coordinating 
Committee to recommend to Congress a process for prioritizing ongoing 
operational activities of the Corps.
  I am proud of the work my colleagues and I have done on this bill. 
It's been nearly 6 years in the making, but it has a solid base. This 
bill keeps our

[[Page 14907]]

economy competitive. It restores fisheries along the Yellowstone River 
so our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. It protects the gulf coast 
from the ravages of hurricanes. But it can do more. With the right 
amendments, it can reform the way the Corps does business to rebuild 
the floodwalls of New Orleans and the public's trust in the Corps.
  I very much hope this amendment succeeds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield time to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the Inhofe-Bond 
amendment. I would like to make it very clear that the Inhofe-Bond 
amendment is not an independent review amendment. In fact, it is 
business as usual.
  We have an expansion of a system that has never worked before and 
will continue to fail in the future because we are putting the fox in 
charge of the hen house. We are putting the Corps of Engineers in 
charge of reviewing their own work.
  To begin with, I hesitate to call it an independent peer review 
amendment, considering that the amendment directs the Chief of 
Engineers to select the panels, guaranteeing that the panels will not 
be independent. The amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final 
arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. The Corps 
gets to select the reviewers. There are no criteria at all for ensuring 
independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps 
has control over whether, how, and who will review the projects. Their 
version, according to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, would be prepared by 
the Corps, controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and 
reported by the Corps, locking out input from other relevant water 
resources agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security.
  Putting the structure of the review aside, let's look more closely at 
what requirements would need to be met in order to trigger a review of 
a Corps project. According to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, it gives the 
Corps complete discretion to avoid review of most projects. Review is 
mandatory only for projects costing more than $100 million. Inhofe-Bond 
lets the Corps ignore Governor and agency requests for review. Inhofe-
Bond prohibits review of the Corps' project proposal. Reviews could 
only examine scientific, engineering or technical bases of the decision 
or recommendation but not the recommendations resulting from that data. 
The environment review accompanying a feasibility study would not be 
subject to review.
  The Inhofe-Bond amendment prohibits reassessment of key models and 
data. This permanent moratorium guarantees that the Corps will continue 
to use models that are widely recognized as inaccurate and flawed.
  Mr. President, I think events of New Orleans cry out for independent 
review and outside scrutiny. It is alarming what we have found out, 
after some of the hubbub concerning Katrina has died down.

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

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

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

  I hope my colleagues will do everything in their power to make sure 
we never see a repeat of this. There are admitted failures in the 
process, and I respect the effort of my colleagues from Oklahoma and 
Missouri to make some changes. But our argument is it is not enough. It 
is not enough. Virtually every environmental organization in America 
supports this amendment. Virtually every outside organization supports 
this amendment. The administration supports this amendment.
  I hope that we would make sure that we can tell our constituents and 
the people who live in areas that may be buffeted by hurricanes or 
other natural disasters, particularly as we enter another what is 
predicted to be a heavy hurricane season, that at least in future 
projects, we have installed a proper system of scrutiny and oversight--
not only so their tax dollars aren't wasted but, far more important, 
that they don't experience an unnecessary disaster.
  I urge we adopt the amendment of Senator Feingold and myself and 
reject the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
  I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Iowa is here, but I don't see him. Let me do this. We don't have any 
other speakers requesting time.
  Yesterday, Senator Bond had printed in the Record the National 
Waterways Alliance letter that we received, dated June 30 of this year, 
wherein they were strongly requesting the passage of the WRDA bill 
which--I think we all are in agreement on that. We have not had a 
reauthorization since the year 2000.
  They also say they want us to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment and 
reject the Feingold-McCain Corps reform. I bring this up because the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona commented about a lot of groups that 
were in favor of their amendment. But there are 288 organizations--
labor organizations, Chamber organizations, waterway organizations of 
the National Waterway Alliance. I will go ahead and read a few:
  American Farm Bureau Federation, American Shore and Beach 
Preservation Association, Arkansas Basin Development Association--this 
is kind of interesting. A lot of people don't realize my State of 
Oklahoma is navigable. We have a port. It comes up through the Arkansas 
River, comes across from the Mississippi into Arkansas and up to my 
home town of Tulsa, OK. Obviously, they are in support of this, too.
  The California Coastal Coalition, the Carpenters' District Council of 
Greater Saint Louis and Vicinity, Grain & Feed Association of Illinois, 
the Harris County Flood Control District of Texas, the Illinois Chamber 
of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, and many of the 
Illinois--almost every organization in Illinois, I believe; the 
International Union of Operating Engineers, Iowa Corn Growers 
Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Renewable Fuels 
Association, Johnson Terminal in Muskogee, OK, Kansas Corn Growers, 
Kentucky Corn Growers, the Long Island Coastal Alliance, Louisiana 
Department of Transportation and Development, Maritime Association of 
the Port of New York and New Jersey, Maritime Exchange for the Delaware 
River and Bay, the

[[Page 14908]]

Mid-Central Illinois Regional Council of Carpenters, Missouri Farm 
Bureau Federation, Mississippi Welders Supply, Incorporated, the 
Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Levee & Drainage District 
Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National 
Association of Waterfront Employees, National Corn Growers Association, 
National Grain & Feed Association, National Grain Trade Council, 
National Grange, National Heavy & Highway Alliance, Laborers' 
International Union of North America, International Union of Operating 
Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, International 
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Works 
of America, Operative Plasterers' & Cement Mason International 
Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the 
International Union, Brickyard Layers & Allied Craftworkers.
  The list goes on and on, including, of course, our State of Oklahoma 
Department of Transportation.
  I guess what I am saying here is most States--the National Farm 
Bureau as well as the American Farm Bureau and individual State farm 
bureaus--are all in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment and they are 
all opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I don't want people to 
think these organizations are ambivalent. They are strongly in support 
of our approach.
  Again, we all agree on one thing: that is, the need to make some 
improvements. We like our peer review system better, and we will have 
ample time to talk about that.
  I understand Senator Grassley is here. I yield whatever time he wants 
to take and suggest it come off the general debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss the issue of the 
Water Resources Development Act and particularly that part of the act 
that deals with the improvement of transportation on the Mississippi 
River because that improvement is very essential not only to the 
economy of Iowa but to the economy of the whole Midwest, and in turn 
that relates to the economy of the United States.
  Most importantly, it affects the economy--meaning the economic 
competitiveness of our industry and agriculture, and primarily 
agriculture with competition around the world, and particularly that, 
as I see it, of Brazil. Brazil is becoming very much a competitor with 
the Midwest of the United States in the production of a lot of grains, 
particularly soybeans.
  I owe a thank you, particularly to Senators Bond and Inhofe, for 
their strong leadership in moving this legislation forward.
  This used to happen every 2 years, a bill called the Water Resources 
Development Act. But we have not dealt with this issue since the year 
2000. This bill is not only long overdue, but it is a very important 
bill. Not only does the bill which is before us include many updates in 
existing authorized projects, but it also authorizes new projects 
throughout the country.
  Several examples of these much-needed projects beyond the ones I am 
going to emphasize are the coastal wetland restorations, but the one I 
want to emphasize the improvement of is the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers. Coastal wetland restoration will help protect our 
inland waterways. We think, maybe too often, of that as being an 
environmental issue, but it is also about protecting our inland 
waterways, making sure that there is a multiple use of the rivers, 
recreation, food, as well as commerce.
  In the process of the wetland restoration protecting our offshore 
energy supply, we provide much-needed flood protection in the gulf 
coast region. But for my State and the Midwest generally, the Upper 
Mississippi and Illinois River navigation and ecosystem investments are 
also very vital because of the multipurpose use of the river. Of 
course, Iowa is bounded on the east side by the Mississippi River for 
the entire north and west distance of our State. And Iowa, as well as 
the Nation, relies on the river to move both goods that are 
domestically oriented and distributed as well as goods that are 
internationally distributed.
  The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production 
worldwide. My State is also the No. 1 producer of corn, and usually we 
are also the No. 1 producer of soybeans.
  In regard to corn production, the per-ton cost of transporting corn 
in the United States is lower than any other country. But our country 
must not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to 
deteriorate. Quite frankly, that is what this legislation is all about. 
Because of deterioration, it needs to be enhanced, it needs to be 
improved, and it needs to be kept up to date. Our international 
competitors are making major investments in their transportation 
systems.
  In Brazil, surface transportation--meaning railroads and highways, 
primarily highways--is very much inferior to ours. In March, I took a 
trip to Brazil. I can tell you that when we were out in the 
countryside, what we would call rural Brazil, we ran into more potholes 
than you could count, something that farmers of Iowa would not 
anticipate or tolerate from our local officials. You wonder how local 
officials get reelected because they are not going to be reelected 
because of filling potholes. But Brazil, on the other hand, as far as 
their river transportation, brings into question the competitive 
advantage the United States might have that we could be losing. Brazil 
has made significant investments in its river infrastructure. They do 
not have to have locks and dams, such as we do on the Mississippi, in 
the case of the Amazon. I saw facilities on my trip to Brazil on the 
Amazon that we could be very jealous of, the opportunity to bring 
commercial seagoing ships up the Amazon to load in Brazil on the Amazon 
and coming in this far with very major terminals for loading primarily 
soybeans, but also they can go up the river as well.
  There is a new facility being built at this point. I believe these 
ships go even further up. But at least I wanted to be sure of here and 
here that it is possible to load those ships at that point. They don't 
have to use barges as we do from Iowa to New Orleans to load. This 
would be the equivalent of our being able to take oceangoing ships up 
to Memphis to load for soybeans.
  You can understand then that we have this lock and dam situation that 
makes it possible for us to use the Mississippi River for major 
transportation. Keeping that up to date is very important if we are 
going to be economically competitive with how they can move their 
agricultural products--primarily soybeans--out of Brazil into the world 
trade.
  What they don't have that we have is very good roads, although they 
are improving them. They don't have the railroad system we have in the 
United States that makes it possible for us to get our grain very 
easily to the Mississippi River or using railroads to get it down to 
the gulf. But they are working on that. Right now we are competitive 
because they do not have that land infrastructure we have. When they 
get that, we will have a hard time competing.
  That brings up the point of this legislation and getting it passed, 
to make sure our Mississippi infrastructure is up to date. We must 
invest in major improvements in all of our transportation 
infrastructure. If we don't make these investments in our roads, our 
rails and water, the U.S. agricultural industry and labor will pay the 
price.
  Last year we did a lot to help with surface transportation, primarily 
referred to as the highway bill, although maybe not entirely highways. 
We provided $295 billion for road, transit, and rail improvements in 
that bill we passed last year. These funds will help facilitate the 
movement of our goods. The surface transportation bill will help 
alleviate congestion so our trucks can move more efficiently.
  It also provides additional loan authority and tax credit to help 
railroads invest in much-needed capital improvements and to help meet 
the large demands for their services.

[[Page 14909]]

  According to the Congressional Research Service, last year U.S. 
exports of goods and services totaled $1.275 trillion compared to 
$1.115 trillion in 2004 and $1.023 trillion in the year 2003.
  You can see very much an enhancement in value of our exports from the 
United States according to the Congressional Research Service. Of 
course, our consumers and our manufacturers, and to some extent food 
supply, rely upon importing goods into the United States. But whether 
it is exports or imports, whether it is consumers or input into 
manufacturing and agriculture, many of these goods travel on our inland 
waterways.
  Again, emphasizing the need to get this legislation passed, because 
it is also forecast to beat our exports and imports are going to 
continue to grow in the future, we must be able to efficiently and 
economically move these goods.
  When I get more parochial in my economic observance of the need of 
this legislation, it is because nearly two-thirds of all grain as well 
as soybean exports are moved through the Mississippi and Illinois 
Rivers. According to one study, unless the Army Corps of Engineers 
modernizes, which means Congress giving them the ability to do it, 
unless we modernize the lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi 
and the Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting just one commodity, 
corn, to the export market would rise by 17 cents per bushel.
  As a result, corn and soybean exports would decline by 68 million and 
10 million bushels per year, respectively, and the decline in corn and 
soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 million. This 
highlights how important barge transportation is to the farmers but in 
turn to the economy generally.
  In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river 
transportation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
towboats might have 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than either train 
locomotives or our big semitrucks in transporting anything, but 
particularly in regard to what I am talking about, the necessity of 
moving grain. A color chart used by the Senator from Missouri shows the 
same thing. I have a black-and-white chart. The information is the 
same, but it is cheaper to make white charts than it is colored charts.
  It shows one barge can move what 15 jumbo hopper cars of railroads 
can move or what 58 large semis can move. Not only is that an 
environmental issue, that is an issue of economy of moving a product. 
Most importantly, when you are waiting for a long train at a crossing, 
think in terms of fewer hopper cars because of what one barge can move. 
Of all of the trucks you meet on the interstate or the two-lane 
highways of the Midwest, think how many more there would be if we did 
not have transportation to the gulf by barge. If you have 15 of these 
barges being pushed by one motor, you would have 2.25 miles of train, 
180 cars or, in this case, 870 large semis.
  I hope everyone can see that moving a lot of merchandise to export on 
the Mississippi River is taking an awful lot of pressure off the 
highways, an awful lot of pressure off of the railroads. It is 
environmentally sound in the process.
  The Army Corps of Engineers data suggests that the Nation currently 
saves $100 to $300 million in air pollution abatement when moving bulk 
commodities by barge through the Mississippi River system. In these 
times of high fuel prices and with the need to conserve energy, one 
gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry one ton of freight 2.5 times 
further than rail and nine times further than trucks.
  Quoting the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimate, shifting 
from barge to rail results in fuel usage emissions and probable 
accident increases by the following percentages: 331-percent fuel 
usage; 470 percent less emissions; and 290 percent less probable 
accidents. Shifting traffic from barge to trucks increases fuel use 826 
percent, emissions 709 percent, and probable accidents by 5.967 
percent. In addition, another 1,333 heavy trucks would be added to our 
already congested roads.
  For these above reasons, we have this legislation before the Senate. 
Several of my Senate colleagues for many years have been seeking 
authorization for this lock and dam modernization as well as enhanced 
environmental restoration of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. To 
get that done, we have to get this bill to the President for his 
signature.
  I am very pleased the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
included these important initiatives in this Water Resources 
Development Act and that a truly bipartisan group of Senators is 
advocating for this important modernization. If anyone believes it is 
always Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking 
Republicans, this is an ideal initiative that shows how widespread 
bipartisan support and cooperation can be in this Senate when there is 
a national emergency. That national emergency is environmental, the 
national emergency is for our economy to be competitive, the national 
emergency is safety on our highways, to relieve glut on our railroads. 
It is all around.
  This is a bipartisan effort to cooperate for the good of this Nation 
because this lock-and-dam system of the Upper Mississippi River was 
built in the late 1930s, I suppose over a period of a few decades. But 
many lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot accommodate the 
barges we are talking about used in the modern day to get things into 
the international market. These structures require a modernization 
because there is a tow configuration that needs a double lock to pass. 
This adds to mounting delay time when we do not have the modernization. 
It amounts to increased costs to the shippers, increased harm to our 
environment with higher emissions and higher sediment suspensions in 
the river channel, the loss of jobs when we are not competitive, and 
lower wages when we are not competitive.
  Increased traffic levels without these improvements will result in 
gross farm revenue loss of over $105 million per year. This does not 
take into account the huge cost of increased highway and rail 
transportation.
  We realize the authorization of the lock-and-dam improvements is a 
first step in a lengthy process, but it is a necessary step and one 
that a bipartisan group of Senators, an increasing number of Senators 
in a bipartisan way, has been working on for a few years.
  It is an important and necessary project for our Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this balanced legislation, not to vote for any 
amendments that are going to dilute it or harm it in any way. When we 
get this number of Senators working together in a bipartisan fashion, 
this ought to be a test of something that is needed, a test of 
something that is good, something to move forward on. It is balanced 
legislation and, of course, it is good for the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
in support of the bill. The Senator from Iowa is in support of the 
Inhofe-Bond amendment and opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I 
remind him that virtually every organization in Iowa, including the 
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa 
Corn Growers Association, and others, are in support of the Bond-Inhofe 
amendment.
  I also make a request, and I am sure others will join, asking Members 
to come to the Senate if they want to speak on either of the two 
amendments that are being discussed right now.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Burns as a cosponsor of the 
Inhofe-Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding Senator Hatch is going to be 
making a request to be heard as if in morning business for 15 minutes. 
Because of the time constrains we are operating under, I will ask that 
time be taken off of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')

[[Page 14910]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
New York, who will speak in morning business, but I understand the time 
will be charged to my side of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time generously, as he always does, and note that I support 
his amendment and look forward to voting on it.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 4682

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

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

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

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2:30 be for 
concurrent debate on the pending Feingold-McCain amendment and the 
pending Inhofe-Bond amendment and be equally divided between the bill 
managers or their designees, and that at 2:30 the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 4681, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. For clarification, I encourage Members to come down 
because our time is running out. It is confusing when you have two 
amendments that you are using the same time for. So essentially the 
time that we would have in favor of the Inhofe-Bond amendment would be 
the same as the time in opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment. I 
appreciate the Senator from Wisconsin for his cooperation in moving 
this along.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his continued cooperation in the way in which this debate is 
proceeding. I will use a few minutes of my time to bring us back to the 
debate on these two amendments that are before us. First, to make it 
absolutely clear to people that the amendment that Senator McCain and I 
are offering certainly would not slow down the bill in any way or 
delude the bill; we have a time agreement. However, it turns out the 
legislation will go forward and there is an obvious expectation that 
the bill will pass. In light of the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, I 
want to make it clear to people that this in no way is going to somehow 
stop the bill from going through this body. We will let the chips fall 
where they may based on the results of the votes, but there is no 
slowing down of the bill.
  Secondly, I was struck by the response to our amendment. Senator 
McCain and I laid out some pretty damning evidence about what the Army 
Corps of Engineers' role may have been in the Katrina disaster, which 
everybody admits is one of the worst disasters in the history of our 
country. I think the Senator from Missouri indicated that he didn't 
think we ought to engage in a blame game. I wouldn't call it a blame 
game, but somebody has to be held responsible. We have to acknowledge 
what might have caused this horrendous problem, and the evidence is 
overwhelming. Just as FEMA's performance was abysmal, so, too, was the 
role of the Army Corps of Engineers in properly establishing levees and 
other engineering that had to be done. And it may well have been 
significantly responsible for the tragedy that occurred in New Orleans. 
I don't know if they plan to mount a response to that, but I hope the 
record makes it clear that this New Orleans situation is Exhibit A in 
the kinds of problems that can occur if you don't have appropriate 
review of these Army Corps of Engineers projects.
  I wanted to also respond to some of the specific issues the Senator 
from Missouri spoke about. He talked about what issues an independent 
review group could consider. I want to make it very clear. Under my 
amendment, which directly implements the recommendations of the 2002 
National Academy of Sciences' report on peer review, independent panels 
will ensure that the Corps' proposed approach to a problem will work to 
resolve the identified problem and not cause unintended adverse 
consequences. Independent review panels will not take away any 
decisionmaking responsibilities. I want to be clear on that because a 
couple of the comments today could at least be interpreted to suggest 
that somehow this is going to take away the decisionmaking power from 
those who have it. Under my amendment, no decisionmaking 
responsibilities are taken away from the Army Corps of Engineers. The 
amendment simply allows for independent experts to identify problems in 
the best possible way.
  Why would anyone not want to hear the important feedback from 
independent experts?
  I would like to talk a little more in detail about one of the biggest 
differences between our independent review amendment and the Inhofe-
Bond alternative which will be voted on side by side starting at 2:30, 
as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated. One of the very clear 
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences' 2002 report on 
peer review is that reviewers should have the flexibility to comment on 
important issues to decisionmakers.
  On this point, the two competing amendments are very different. I 
want my colleagues to understand the importance and the potential 
ramifications of the difference as they consider these two amendments.
  My amendment implements the recommendations of the National Academy 
of Sciences by allowing a thorough analysis of a Corps feasibility 
study. The Inhofe-Bond amendment ignores this recommendation by sharply 
limiting what independent reviewers would be allowed to consider. On 
this point, it is good to give an example of why this matters. Many of 
us know about the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO, in Louisiana. In 
Louisiana, MRGO is what this project is referred as.
  According to most scientists who have looked at it, MRGO, a Corps 
navigation channel, greatly exacerbated the impact of Hurricane Katrina 
by funneling and intensifying Katrina's storm surge directly into New 
Orleans and by destroying 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands that could 
have buffered the storm's surge. These same experts, including the 
independent reviewers looking into what happened in New Orleans, have 
said that the devastating flooding that overwhelmed St. Bernard Parish 
and the lower ninth ward of New Orleans came from the MRGO. I was in 
both of those parishes 10 days ago, and that is exactly what the 
National Guard and other people and experts indicated to me while I was 
physically looking at this destruction.
  Only 52 of the 28,000 structures in St. Bernard Parish escaped 
unscathed from Katrina. For years, community leaders, including the St. 
Bernard Parish Council, activists, and scientists warned that the MRGO 
was a hurricane highway and called for closing the outlet. This is not 
merely an after-the-fact recognition that something was wrong. People 
who lived and some who died in these communities were warning about 
this potential disaster before it occurred.
  Why is this relevant? Under the Inhofe-Bond limited review, the other 
amendment, a panel would not have been able to examine the full 
implications of constructing the Mississippi

[[Page 14911]]

River Gulf Outlet or MRGO in New Orleans. While reviewers would have 
been able to assess whether the Corps properly calculated the wetlands 
impact of the MRGO, they would not have been able to comment on the 
fact that the recommended plan would put New Orleans at risk by 
destroying wetlands vital for buffering storm surge and by creating a 
funneling effect that would intensify the storm surge. The Inhofe-Bond 
review also would not have allowed any comment on the appropriateness 
of proceeding with the MRGO in light of the increased danger to the 
city and the fact that traffic projections were vastly overstated.
  I think we can all agree that this example shows what can be at stake 
if we don't allow reviewers some flexibility to bring up important 
issues. This isn't the only example of where the Inhofe-Bond amendment 
falls short, but I will try to say more about that later. This is a 
timely and very serious example of the dramatic difference between the 
amendment that Senator McCain and I have offered and the, frankly, 
inadequate amendment that is offered as an alternative.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, let me make a couple of 
observations. I think in the discussions we have had so far, there are 
a lot of things we agree on. We agree that we need to change the system 
we have right now. I don't really take issue with some of the things 
that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have said 
about existing problems with the way that the Corps of Engineers has 
been working. I recognize also that the Senator from Wisconsin agrees 
that the underlying substitute amendment does include some provisions 
to require peer review, specifically for Corps of Engineers studies. 
The Inhofe-Bond amendment gives additional detail and clarity to that 
requirement as well as the Feingold-McCain amendment gives additional 
detail and clarity to that amendment. So there are some areas where I 
think we are in agreement.
  Also, we are in agreement on the necessity of reauthorizing the Water 
Resources Development Act. It has not been addressed since the year 
2000.
  Our amendment ensures that peer review is integrated into the Corps 
study process. Most stakeholders agree that the current study process 
is already too long and further delays are not advisable. That is not a 
reason to ignore the critical role that peer review can play, but it is 
a reason to demand that peer review not be an end of the process 
addition or delay.
  Our amendment clarifies that peer review panels are to review the 
technical and scientific information that forms the basis of decisions, 
but the decisions themselves are a function of the Government. It is 
something the Government should be doing, not any independent peer 
review. Decisions regarding how best to meet our Nation's water 
resources needs all involve tradeoffs of some sort. No outside group or 
distinct subject matter experts can truly be considered experts at 
making those decisions.
  I am sure they would all have opinions, but everyone has opinions. 
Government officials, on the other hand, are specifically charged with 
making the decision. They have that responsibility. I believe that is 
one of the distinctions between the Inhofe-Bond amendment and the 
approach taken by Senators Feingold and McCain.
  Another aspect of the Inhofe-Bond amendment I would highlight is the 
detailing of which project studies at a minimum should undergo peer 
review. Independent reviews are required if the estimated total project 
cost is more than $100 million. I believe the Feingold-McCain approach 
is $40 million. We also say it has to be over $100 million and if the 
Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. 
Independent reviews may be required if a Governor or head of a Federal 
agency requests the review.
  I know some of those opposed to this amendment have argued that these 
triggers are too lenient, but I don't believe that is the case.
  Of the 44 new or contingent authorizations included in the substitute 
amendment, 18 would have been subject to independent peer review based 
on the $100 million trigger alone. That is 40 percent of these projects 
based on just one of the four possible triggers. The other triggers 
would be in addition to this requirement of the minimum of $100 
million. I don't consider that lenient at all. The Inhofe-Bond 
amendment also incorporates a recommendation of the American Society of 
Civil Engineers to require independent review of technical and design 
specifications of certain projects critical to public safety beyond the 
study phase.
  Finally, I would like to address another baseless charge that has 
been made against this amendment: that these panels wouldn't really be 
independent because the chief of engineers is the official in charge of 
selecting the panels. The amendment is clear that the Corps must issue 
guidelines that are consistent with the Information Quality Act as 
implemented in OMB's revised bulletin from December 2004. This bulletin 
discusses in some detail requirements for reviewers, including 
expertise and balance of panels, lack of conflicts of interest, and 
independence.
  I have been a little concerned, after reading the Feingold-McCain 
amendment, as to just how this works. It is my understanding that it 
would--in my opinion and in the way I look at things--create another 
bureaucracy and another board that would be looking at these. I am not 
sure this is really going to be necessary. I do believe that we have 
tried to strike a balance. I believe we have done so. I am quite 
confident we can trust a three-star general to follow direct commands, 
especially those issued in law.
  As I have outlined, the Inhofe-Bond independent peer review amendment 
would ensure review of critical information by experts outside the 
Corps without creating unnecessary burdens and delays.
  As was stated before, we are going to first be voting at 2:30 on the 
Feingold-McCain amendment and then on the Inhofe-Bond amendment. I will 
be encouraging them to vote against the Feingold-McCain amendment and 
for our amendment. But having said that, I would like to say that we 
are in agreement. Sometimes you get into a discussion on these things 
and it sounds as if everyone is in disagreement. This isn't like a 
climate change debate. This isn't one where everybody gets all fired 
up. I know we are all trying to do the same thing. We know there is 
room for improvement in the way the Corps of Engineers operates. I have 
a few examples I could use. We have right now a problem in Oklahoma 
with one of the individuals who has not been doing a conscientious job. 
We can't get the Corps of Engineers to listen to us in terms of how 
this particular bureaucrat is abusive in his treatment of individuals.
  I think that we need to do something. Our underlying substitute 
amendment does something. I think probably either of these two 
amendments will take that one step further. There are areas where we 
agree.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to yield 12 minutes to 
one of our strong supporters and cosponsors of the amendment, the 
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, to my colleague and friend, Senator 
Feingold, I thank him very much for yielding, and I thank him even more 
for his leadership and that of Senator McCain in offering this 
amendment.
  Before I talk about the amendment, I want to also thank Senator 
Inhofe and our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, as well as Senators 
Bond and Baucus, for bringing this bill to the floor today. It has 
taken 6 long years and a huge amount of work on the part of them and 
their staffs and our staffs as we have prepared for this debate today.
  We are finally able to move this important legislation because of 
their dogged determination, really a collective determination and 
willingness to

[[Page 14912]]

work with all of us to address our States' respective needs, and an 
openness to debating possible reforms for the way we plan and 
prioritize water resource projects.
  This bill includes several provisions that are very important to my 
State of Delaware. I want to quickly highlight maybe two of those and 
talk about the importance of modernizing the Corps of Engineers.
  First, this bill preserves something called the St. Georges Bridge 
over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, the 14-mile canal that really 
connects the Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake Bay. It serves to divide 
Delaware in half. It takes up valuable space within my little State, 
disrupts our commerce and the movement of people and goods, and 
provides a shortcut for ships trying to get from the Delaware Bay to 
the Chesapeake Bay, and it helps to divert traffic away from my port, 
the Port of Wilmington. To say that I am not a great admirer of all 
that the C&D Canal does for my State would be an understatement. I have 
proposed, tongue-in-cheek, that we appropriate shovels to the people of 
Delaware so we can line up on either side of the C&D Canal and fill it 
in, and that we bring in plants and trees from other parts of the 
country to use up enormous quantities of water, and that we might plant 
them in the bed of the canal to soak up the water and then we can go 
across, like the children of Israel, on dry land. Well, none of that 
has happened, so we have to figure out how to get across the C&D Canal 
that disrupts commerce in my State.
  In return for the imposition of this canal, the Corps of Engineers 
has been obligated for three quarters of a century to provide 
sufficient access across that canal. Yet, in recent years, in spite of 
population growth that has stretched the capacity of the current 
bridges, the Corps has sought to reduce the number of bridges across 
the C&D Canal. Thanks to the support of the chairman and ranking 
member, that will not happen.
  The second important provision in this bill to our State is a late 
entry. A little over a year ago, some of you may recall that the Senate 
passed a bill by unanimous consent to rename our new bridge over the 
C&D Canal along State Route 1 for former U.S. Senator Bill Roth, my 
predecessor. Senator Roth served in the Senate for 30 years and in the 
House of Representatives for a time before that. I see Senator Bond 
here; he served with him for a number of those years. Bill Roth, for 
over a third of a century, served the people of Delaware admirably and 
with distinction in the House and later, for many years, in the Senate. 
He also worked hard to make sure about 15 years ago that this new 
bridge over the C&D Canal would be built.
  The bill to name the State Route 1 bridge at St. Georges for Senator 
Roth passed the Senate unanimously. It has been held up in the House 
for the past year. I appreciate Senator Inhofe's and Senator Jeffords' 
willingness to move it forward by agreeing to add it to the Water 
Resources Development Act. On behalf of our State and the Roth family, 
we express our deepest gratitude.
  I also rise today to voice my support for Senator Feingold's and 
Senator McCain's Corps independent review amendment. It is essential 
that we apply the lessons that we learned from Hurricane Katrina. This 
amendment seeks to do that, at least in part.
  This past April, I had the opportunity to tour both the devastation 
in New Orleans, as well as the wetlands that act as a buffer for that 
city. As a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I have spent many hours hearing from experts about why the 
levees failed in New Orleans.
  One thing became inescapably clear: There were warnings that were not 
heeded. The McCain-Feingold amendment seeks to prevent that from 
happening again.
  The McCain-Feingold independent review amendment--which I have 
cosponsored--requires an independent panel of experts to be constituted 
to review projects that will cost greater than $40 million.
  That panel will be fully independent of the Corps and made up of 
anywhere from five to nine experts in engineering, hydrology, biology, 
and economics. This panel will be able to review every aspect of a 
proposed project, from the data and assumptions that went into the 
Corps' analysis into the actual design of the final project that is 
chosen.
  Having such a review of the New Orleans levee system likely would 
have drawn attention to the flaws in the Corps' design, including the 
facts that they failed to account for the natural subsidence of the 
city and that the flood walls were not properly anchored in the swampy 
southern Louisiana ground.
  We often talk about these proposals as ``Corps reform.'' But in a 
real sense, they are also congressional reforms. That is because the 
findings of the independent panels merely provide more information to 
us, the Congress. They are not binding. It will still be up to us in 
the Congress to decide how to proceed, and we will need to do a better 
job ourselves in the future. But we cannot be expected to make good 
decisions if we don't have good information.
  Moreover, in these days of tighter budgets, we are not going to be 
able to gather support of our constituents for big navigation projects 
that they fear will destroy wetlands that are needed for flood 
protection or for a flood control project that people don't believe 
will work.
  As the New Orleans Times-Picayune stated in a recent editorial:

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

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

       Words alone will not restore trust in the Corps.

  These amendments will provide some substantive change to back up the 
claim that we will never let what happened in New Orleans happen again.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold independent 
review amendment. I am pleased to be among its cosponsors. I urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk about all of the 
things that the Corps has done wrong and the problems in the past. I 
don't think anybody believes that there is not a need for reform, 
review, independent review by experts who can comment on and who can 
provide valuable input to the Corps. The Corps has learned a lot of 
lessons, and the Inhofe-Bond proposal creates a mechanism for improving 
technical quality of the projects that move forward, not an incubator 
for more lawsuits to delay needed projects.
  The Inhofe-Bond amendment would encourage independent review of 
technical information and science, not a review of policy decisions, 
which are appropriately made in the executive branch and by this body. 
We don't want to outsource our policy decisions to some other group, as 
the Feingold-McCain amendment would do. We want to continue an open, 
fair, and public review of recommendations, and not create a public 
review created by special interests designed to undo projects for 
reasons other than policy reasons.
  We support stabilizing, not destabilizing, Federal/ non-Federal 
interests in reliance on the Corps. We support Presidential oversight 
of independent review, not handing government functions over to some 
unelected commission.
  When you take a look at the past work of the Corps, you see that the 
Corps now currently provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by 
local communities and businesses. The Corps manages a supply of one-
quarter of our Nation's hydropower. The Corps operates 463 lake 
recreation areas. The Corps moves 630 million tons of cargo valued at 
over $73 billion annually over the inland water system. It manages over 
12 million acres of land and water.
  The levees that have been properly constructed have prevented an 
estimated $76 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years, with an 
investment of one-seventh of that value.

[[Page 14913]]

These are the tremendous values that can be provided if we can pass 
this bill and if we can make sensible Corps reform, without providing 
major hindrances and roadblocks.
  I hope that the 80 Senators who joined with us in saying ``bring this 
bill to the floor'' will realize that there is such a thing as 
appropriate review and there is such a thing as unnecessary, late-stage 
second guessing, which can be extremely expensive and can delay the 
benefits that could come from the work of the Corps.
  The McCain-Feingold independent review amendment has a tremendous 
potential to delay project construction. They wait until the end of the 
process, and any mistakes found at the end of the process, as 
envisioned in the Feingold-McCain amendment, would necessitate a repeat 
of the study to correct the problems--beginning over again. Clearly, 
this would delay project construction and drive up costs.
  Under our proposal, since reviews are integrated into the process, 
any mistakes made or improvements suggested could be corrected and 
incorporated at the time. As I said earlier today, it is like waiting 
to test students in the eighth grade to see if they have first-grade 
reading capabilities. If a child cannot read at the first-grade level 
when he or she finishes the first grade, give them remediation then, 
help prepare them for the second grade; don't wait until they get to 
the eighth grade and say we just wasted 8 years of this child's 
education because they could not read at the first-grade level. This 
essentially--testing at the eighth grade level for first-grade 
compliance--is what the Feingold-McCain amendment would do.
  Let's be clear about it. We passed a bill 2 years ago that had all 
sorts of regulatory redtape and delays. This was opposed by the House, 
which could not agree on a conference with us. That is why we lost this 
bill. Putting in a batch of redtape and bureaucratic delays is going to 
make possible negotiations with the House extremely difficult and could 
lead to no bill being passed again.
  So the 2002 Water Resources Development Act that we are still trying 
to pass in 2006 would go into 2007 and 2008. The benefits that come 
from the authorized projects in this bill will be delayed. I want the 
80 Senators who want to see this bill passed--because they have 
projects that are important--to understand that the review that is 
necessary is being incorporated in the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is 
being incorporated in a sensible timeframe, reviewing with 
representatives from the National Academy of Science, the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, and the Independent Research Council, as 
the project goes along.
  Everybody knows there needs to be review. The Corps has learned a lot 
of lessons from mistakes. We ought to learn from our mistakes. One of 
the mistakes we have made is to try to burden the process and make it 
so cumbersome it can't work.
  If you don't want to see the Corps providing water supply, protecting 
against floods and hurricanes, making sure we have the most efficient, 
economical, environmentally friendly, energy-friendly means of 
transportation, then support more bureaucracy, more redtape, and more 
delays.
  If, on the other hand, you want to see the Corps do the job and get 
the job done right, then I ask my colleagues to support the Inhofe-Bond 
amendment and let us get on about the business of protecting people 
from floods, from hurricanes, and making sure that our waterways 
continue to be an efficient energy-conserving means of transporting 
bulk commodities.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from California in support of our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his 
leadership. I also thank Senator McCain. They have two amendments 
before us, the next one coming shortly. I enthusiastically support this 
amendment. I think this one is very much a reform. I strongly oppose 
the other one. But I am not going to use my time now to talk about the 
second amendment because I do want to concentrate on what an important 
step forward this particular amendment is.
  The 2005 hurricane season taught us many valuable lessons--lessons 
that we will never forget because we saw them with our very own eyes. 
And one of the most important lessons is that major water resources 
projects and especially flood control projects must be carefully 
reviewed to be sure they will be effective.
  What a disaster it is for our taxpayers to spend millions and 
billions on these projects, only to learn that they were not designed 
well or they didn't meet the real threat that was posed by Mother 
Nature or that there was cronyism dealing with putting together the 
alternatives.
  I believe this amendment will put independent and expert eyes on the 
data, on the science, and on the engineering of our major public works 
projects. We need these independent and expert eyes because so much is 
at stake.
  I come from a State that has every kind of natural disaster 
imaginable. The people there are very good at pointing out what the 
problems are, and we have to be equally as good in responding to these 
needs and making sure we give them quality, that we give them the 
protection they deserve.
  In this amendment, we are giving the people what they deserve. When a 
review is triggered under this proposal, a panel of experts, of 
engineers and hydrologists to biologists and economists, must look at 
the underlying technical data and look at the project in its whole and 
make sure that the project will meet and achieve its goals.
  There is little point in expending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars 
unless we know it is being spent right. What this particular amendment 
does is bring in those outside experts to kind of give a seal of 
approval on what we are doing.
  Again, I don't go along with the next amendment, and I will be back 
to talk about that, but this amendment does what needs to be done. The 
panel will make recommendations to improve the project. This particular 
amendment is common sense, pure and simple.
  Complex and costly engineering projects deserve the additional 
scrutiny. Mistakes do happen. You know what. Mistakes will happen no 
matter how many panels we have, but the idea is to cut down on those 
mistakes. We are all human. We all make mistakes, but how much better 
is it to get a very seasoned pair of eyes to take a look at what we are 
doing.
  I believe this amendment will make these projects safer, and they 
will make them more effective.
  I support the Army Corps of Engineers' mission. When I first got into 
politics in local government, I worked very closely with the Corps on 
many flood control projects. We have had our arguments, we have had our 
debates, but over the years, we have managed to work well together. But 
there were moments during those debates when I knew I could benefit 
from outside experts, and that is what we are giving to the Congress 
and, therefore, to the American people. We are going to have additional 
scrutiny, and we are going to make sure that mistakes are rare.
  When we talk about mistakes, it is one thing to make a mistake on an 
issue that doesn't put lives at risk, but we are talking about the 
protection of life and limb for our people.
  I think this amendment will help the Corps do its job better. It will 
improve public faith in the work of the Corps because, frankly, after 
Katrina, many people are saying to me: Can we trust these public works 
projects, these flood control projects to really protect us?
  They have doubts, and they should have doubts, having seen what they 
saw.
  I, again, thank Senators Feingold and McCain for their leadership on 
this particular amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I know it is 
going to be a close vote, but I really do believe people listening to 
this debate will see

[[Page 14914]]

that all we are saying in support of this amendment is we are bringing 
in outside experts to keep an eye on taxpayers' dollars and keep an eye 
on these designs to make sure that when we fund a public works project, 
we have done everything in our power to make sure it is designed well, 
that it will be cost-effective, and it will be safe.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
McCain-Feingold amendment on independent review. I do so because of the 
investigation that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee recently completed into the preparation for and 
response to Hurricane Katrina. In that investigation, Senator Collins 
and I and the rest of the committee learned a great deal about the 
inadequacy of the levee system that was supposed to protect New 
Orleans. And we were greatly aided by the work of the three different 
independent forensic investigations carried out by the State of 
Louisiana, the National Science Foundation, and by the Army Corps' own 
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force or IPET.
  The results of these reviews were truly shocking. In the words of the 
Army Corps' own IPET report, ``The System did not perform as a system: 
the hurricane protection in New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana was a 
system in name only.'' IPET found that the system was only as strong as 
its weakest links, and that there were many weak links. IPET found:
  That the materials and designs used in the levees were inadequate and 
failed faster than expected in fending off Katrina.
  That project designs failed to incorporate redundancy and measures to 
respond to a hurricane that was larger than expected. For instance, 
there was no shielding on the back of the flood walls to prevent their 
collapse if they were overtopped by the storm surge.
  That some parts of the system were not prepared to handle a category 
3 storm even though the Army Corps had been telling the city and the 
Nation for years that the system offered comprehensive category 3 level 
protection.
  That the floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue Canals 
collapsed because of foundation failures caused by design and 
construction mistakes. Those walls collapsed well before the water 
reached the height the walls were designed to protect against, causing 
a major portion of the flooding in the city and the suffering at the 
Superdome and Convention Center. The Army Corps considered those 
floodwalls complete, ready to defend against a hurricane of Katrina's 
strength. Unfortunately, it took Katrina and the subsequent IPET report 
to learn that those floodwalls were not designed, built, or constructed 
to protect those who lived in nearby neighborhoods.
  And one of the most shocking discoveries, IPET found that, because of 
subsidence in the area, parts of the levee system were anywhere from 2 
to 3 feet below their design height. What was even more shocking was 
that the Army Corps was aware of the subsidence before Katrina but did 
nothing to address the obvious deficiency.
  Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor today because while it is 
enormously important that we have learned of these failures after 
Katrina, it is even more important that we learn of them before the 
next Katrina, before the next failure of a major flood control project. 
And that is what this amendment will do. It will require that major 
Corps projects, and especially flood control projects that protect 
people and property, be subject to the kind of independent oversight 
that has proven so beneficial in the aftermath of Katrina.
  Why did the citizens of Louisiana not know any of these problems 
before Katrina made landfall, and why did the Army Corps not feel 
compelled to fix the ones they knew about?
  How different the preparation for and response to the storm would 
have been had an independent review process like IPET been initiated 
before the Army Corps designed and constructed the levee system rather 
than after a storm like Katrina left it and the city it was supposed to 
protect in tatters.
  We have learned valuable lessons from Katrina, and one of those 
lessons is that we need an independent review process for our most 
critical projects before they are battle tested. We need assurances 
that what the Army Corps builds will function as planned. And 
unfortunately, we have also learned that we cannot count on the Army 
Corps of Engineers to do this themselves. These reviews need to be 
independent, conducted by 3 outside experts who can objectively 
evaluate what is being proposed, and in the case of major flood control 
projects, also how it is being designed and built.
  The Army Corps has already given us an effective model to do that--
IPET. This amendment, introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold, would 
create within the Army Corps a Director of Independent Review. The 
Director's job will be to establish a panel of distinguished experts to 
conduct a thorough review of the planning process for major projects, 
including engineering analyses, and to issue a report and make 
recommendations to the Army Corps. For major flood control projects, 
where lives are at stake, the Director would create an additional panel 
to review the detailed design and construction so that we do not find 
ourselves in another Katrina situation where we find, after the fact, 
that designs and construction were flawed.
  It is then up the Army Corps to implement those recommendations. The 
Army Corps will also be required to make the independent panel's report 
public so Congress and the American people will be aware of possible 
problems before the project is funded and before the public relies on 
the project for protection.
  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee learned a 
great deal in our investigation into Hurricane Katrina, and we made 
some recommendations in our report to address what we found. One of 
those recommendations was to create an independent review process like 
IPET and the one established in this amendment to oversee the design 
and construction of critical flood control projects. These were joint, 
bipartisan recommendations, and I am pleased that the chairman of our 
committee, Senator Collins, is also joining as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Catastrophes like Katrina will be repeated unless we learn from our 
mistake, and this amendment is a tremendous opportunity to do just 
that. We already have a model for the proposed solution in the 
independent forensic teams that were created after Katrina whose 
reports and recommendations have been applauded from all circles--the 
Army Corps, independent professional engineers, and local interests in 
New Orleans. But those efforts need to be in place before disaster 
strikes, and that is exactly what this amendment would do.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of 
arguments in the debate. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 31 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I heard the comment from some of my colleagues on the other side 
offering the alternative amendment that somehow this independent peer 
review will create a bureaucracy. I find that a little ironic because 
to me the definition of ``bureaucracy'' is an agency, such as the Army 
Corps of Engineers, that has $68 billion in authorized projects that 
apparently would take 35 years to build if everything was done in a 
sort of rational manner. That is how long it would take. It is sort of 
the definition of a bureaucracy that has gone awry, where there are not 
priorities, where there isn't clarity, where there really isn't any 
sense of what is more important than something else or what situation 
is more dangerous than another situation, what is more threatening to 
people's lives than another situation.
  The notion that an independent peer review would not be binding, to 
have experts give us guidance as to what is

[[Page 14915]]

more important as opposed to what is less important to fix or change, 
to me, is the opposite of bureaucracy. It is bringing rationality and a 
good government approach to what is currently a very troubled and in-
need-of-reform bureaucracy.
  I certainly expected the other side would try to raise the notion 
that somehow our amendment, our new system of independent review, would 
lead to more litigation. Of course, that is a standard argument against 
everything, and sometimes it is true, but here it is not.
  The judicial deference provision makes it clear that the Corps must 
give serious consideration and review to an independent panel's 
findings. Unless that happens, independent review will just be another 
box to be checked off in project planning and will not result in better 
and safer projects.
  The Corps, unfortunately, has a history of ignoring independent panel 
recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the 
Corps, and that is unacceptable.
  To ensure the independent review process is meaningful and produces 
real improvements for project planning, the amendment gives the 
recommendations of a panel equal deference with the Corps's 
recommendation in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in 
question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's finding without good 
cause.
  That is what it does, and that is all it does. It provides an 
alternative view that the Corps can consider, but there is the key 
point. The judicial deference provision clearly does not--does not--
create any new cause of action. It does not create a new basis for 
somebody to litigate. So it is false that somehow this creates the 
opportunity for new litigation. It does not even anticipate that 
projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in 
litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review 
of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's 
findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court.
  The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the 
court that it has rejected an expert panel finding for a valid reason, 
good cause--not a difficult judicial standard to meet.
  If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to 
both the panel and the Corps's recommendations.
  So just as the argument that we are creating somehow a new 
bureaucracy is just the opposite of the fact, there is no basis, no 
validity whatsoever to the notion that this creates some new legal 
cause of action that didn't exist before.
  I have two more points with regard to independence. I have heard the 
manager of the bill and the Senator from Missouri indicate that they 
are for some kind of independent review and that their alternative 
provides for it. But, of course, it is only in the most narrow of 
circumstances, only in projects that are over $100 million. That is 
essentially wiping out independent review on almost every single 
project.
  Our view is this probably involves, maybe on average of less than one 
project a year that would receive that kind of independent review. We 
compromised to make sure that our figure would be acceptable to the 
body. We started with $25 million and went up as high as $41 million. 
But $100 million essentially makes a mockery of the whole idea of 
independent review because it would only apply in the most rare cases.
  Finally, of course, the argument is, apart from the notion that 
somehow this creates new litigation, which is not the case, somehow 
this will cause things to take longer in terms of approving projects 
and reviewing projects.
  That also is incorrect. The Senator from Missouri is incorrect about 
our amendment and the timing of review. To quote from page 8:

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

  So this whole idea that he indicated of somehow waiting until the 
eighth grade for somebody who needs help in the first grade--I heard 
that analogy--is not true. The Director has the power to do this 
whenever he deems this appropriate. He has that discretion. He has that 
flexibility, so it is not some kind of a locked-in delay at the end of 
the process review.
  I encourage my colleagues to read the text of the bill on each of 
these points which I think will bear out the validity of the arguments 
I made.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself some additional time.
  When you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps 
reform, sometimes people don't always understand your intentions and 
maybe, in some cases, mischaracterize them.
  But I am astonished at the extent to which my opponents, those who 
like the status quo, those who benefit from the status quo, are saying 
about the Feingold-McCain-Lieberman-Carper-Jeffords-Collins Independent 
Peer Review Amendment. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity 
to clarify some of the myths I have heard and set the record straight.
  Myth No. 1: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment 
will delay project construction.
  This just is not true. Our amendment will not delay projects. We 
agree, projects do take some time. That's why we were very sensitive to 
ensure that independent peer review of Army Corps feasibility studies 
overlays with the existing process. Furthermore, our amendment includes 
strict deadlines for the panel to report and, if they fail to report in 
the allotted time, the Chief of Engineers is directed to proceed with 
planning. In fact, the Inhofe-Bond amendment uses some of the same 
timing criteria.
  Independent review will ensure that communities will actually get the 
projects they are being told they will get. The independent review can 
start as early in the process as deemed appropriate, and for projects 
costing more than $40 million, must end within 90 days after the close 
of the public comment period.
  Under the most ideal circumstances the Corps takes 11 to 12 months 
from the close of the public comment period to the time it issues a 
Chief's report for a project. And under current law, the Corps must 
take into account all the public and agency comment submitted during 
the public comment period. For large and controversial projects the 
time from draft feasibility study to final Chief's report takes much 
longer. So the independent review of feasibility studies in our 
amendment, which balances the absolute need to allow for a thorough 
review with the need to move forward in a timely fashion, fits well 
within the current timelines and will not delay project planning. The 
Nation will get better projects under this amendment.
  Myth No. 2: The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too 
many projects.
  Mr. President, the $40 million review trigger in our amendment will, 
on average, subject about five projects a year to independent review. 
This is a highly valuable use of resources. And, I believe it will 
promote better and more efficient studies for Corps projects throughout 
all of the Corps' 38 domestic districts.
  Just this March, the GAO testified to the House Committee on 
Government Reform that:

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

  GAO went on to note that the planning studies:


[[Page 14916]]

       did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making.

  Later in its report, GAO even says:

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

  This is simply unacceptable for a Federal agency and it should get 
the attention of every Member of this body.
  Given the Corps' track record, we really should be requiring reviews 
of all studies until the agency improves its record. The $40 million 
trigger, however, is a reasonable and appropriate compromise that will 
sweep in the largest and costliest Corps projects. The other triggers 
will ensure that any less costly projects that could be very 
problematic do not fall through the cracks in the study process. We 
must be able to rely on the integrity of Corps project studies and 
their recommendations to Congress. And unfortunately, right now we 
cannot.
  Myth No. 3: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project 
costs.
  Independenter peer review is a critical taxpayer investment. The 
country cannot afford to have costly mistakes like the levee failures 
in the aftermath of Katrina. The Corps, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences have all said that faulty 
design and construction by the Corps resulted in the levee failures. We 
cannot afford any more examples like what we saw in New Orleans. We 
also cannot afford to build projects based on economic or engineering 
errors. We have tight water resource budgets, thus we must spend every 
dime wisely and judiciously. I believe, and my cosponsors agree, 
independent peer review will help us do that.
  Myth No. 4: The Feingold-McCain amendment will open the door to more 
litigation.
  The Corps must give serious consideration and review to an 
independent peer review panel's findings. Without that hook, the 
concept is useless. We do not want independent review to be just 
another box to be checked off in project planning, for I think we can 
all agree that doing so will not yield better or safer projects. The 
Corps unfortunately has a history of ignoring independent panel 
recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the 
Corps. This can happen no longer.
  To ensure that the independent review process is meaningful and 
produces real improvements to project planning, the amendment gives the 
recommendations of an independent peer review panel equal deference 
with the Corps' recommendations in any judicial proceeding regarding 
the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's 
findings without good cause.
  The judicial deference provision clearly does not create any new 
cause of action, and it does not even anticipate that projects subject 
to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It 
simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the 
Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will 
need to explain that decision to the court. The Corps would then be 
given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has 
rejected an expert panel's findings for a valid reason. If the Corps 
cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the 
panel's and the Corps' recommendations.
  Myth No. 5: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to 
all projects, even those that are already authorized.
  The independent peer review of Corps studies applies to projects as 
they enter the feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which 
point the Chief's report is already complete. However, my amendment 
will ensure that flood control projects whose failure could endanger 
people and communities will be properly designed and constructed with 
adequate review. If such a project is in the post authorization design 
phase or construction phase it will receive the benefit of the safety 
assurance review required by the amendment. This comes directly from 
the recommendations of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Katrina 
report, and I am sure my colleagues will agree that we need to make 
sure key flood control projects are designed and built properly.
  Myth No. 6: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new 
layer of bureaucracy.
  The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a 
workable system to address a very real problem--poorly planned and 
designed projects that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the 
environment and waste taxpayer dollars.
  I would like to address one final myth, and that is that the Inhofe-
Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project 
review.
  Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of 
whether an independent review will happen at all. This is like puttingy 
the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Corps gets to select the 
reviewers, and there are no criteria at all for ensuring independence 
of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control 
over whether, how, and who will review projects.
  As you can see, the naysayers want to keep saying no, but we need to 
move beyond this game and start implementing policy that has a real 
chance of improving a broken system, protecting lives and property, and 
restoring integrity to a Federal agency charged with providing the 
first line of defense against storms, charged with protecting and 
restoring some of our most precious natural resources and charged with 
providing efficient commerce.
  Let me say a bit about what editorials from across the country have 
said. It has been just an overwhelming response. They are from 
communities large and small, but they all have the same message: 
Congress must reform the Corps. I don't have every editorial ever 
written about a need for a change in the Corps. I do have a good 
number.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me ask again, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In the Northeast, the New York Times and the Washington 
Post have been leaders in calling for reform. While some Members will 
jokingly say they don't read the New York Times or the Washington Post, 
maybe they have heard of some of the others--the Concord Monitor in New 
Hampshire, the Delaware News Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer.
  Moving to the South, in Florida alone, a State with numerous Corps 
projects, including projects to help restore the Everglades, five 
papers have called for enactment of the reforms the Senator from 
Arizona and I are offering today. In addition, the Winston-Salem 
Journal, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Most importantly, in my 
regard, the New Orleans Times-Picayune has called not only for passage 
of our reform amendments but flatout rejection of the competing 
amendments that will be offered today.
  In the Midwest, where I hail from, the editorial boards for the 
Wisconsin State Journal, the Star Tribune in Minnesota, the Chicago 
Tribune, the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Let me repeat that: the St. Louis 
Post Dispatch has editorialized on the need for modernization of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  Those of us familiar with the players on this issue in the Senate 
will be interested to note that in fact the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran 
an editorial today, supporting the Feingold-McCain amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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

                           Course Correction

       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a force nearly as 
     inexorable as the mighty rivers it dams and dredges.
       From the moment it accepts an assignment, the Corps moves 
     slowly and relentlessly forward in its course. In many 
     circumstances, that can-do attitude is a positive attribute. 
     But when questions arise

[[Page 14917]]

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

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Winston-Salem Journal:

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

  The Miami Herald:

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

  San Francisco Chronicle:

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

  The Commercial Appeal--Tennessee:

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

  The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

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

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

                               Exhibit 1

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

                        Counting on Corps Reform

       Louisiana urgently needs hurricane protection and coastal 
     restoration projects contained in the Water Resources 
     Development Act, and for that reason alone it's critical for 
     Congress to move on this long-delayed measure.
       But Louisiana's fortunes are also tied, for better or 
     worse, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Efforts to reform 
     the agency are critical for this state, which--after the 
     levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the 
     poster child for the corps' shortcomings.
       Congress is four years overdue in adopting a new water 
     resources bill, in part because of disagreements over corps 
     reform. But the Senate is expected to vote on the measure 
     this week, and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter need to 
     do more than push for crucial Louisiana projects. They need 
     to push for changes that will make the corps a better, more 
     responsible agency in the future.
       The best chance for changing the way the corps operates is 
     through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ 
     Feingold. They're offering two amendments to the water 
     resources bill. One would establish independent review of 
     corps projects from planning and design to construction. The 
     other would require corps projects to be ranked in importance 
     based on three national priorities: flood and storm damage 
     reduction, navigation and environmental restoration.
       While the McCain-Feingold amendments won't fix everything 
     that's wrong with the corps, Louisiana stands to benefit from 
     both proposed changes.
       The catastrophic failure during Katrina of canal floodwalls 
     built by the corps is Exhibit A in the case for independent 
     review. If such a process had been in place, surely 
     subsidence wouldn't have been discounted when New Orleans' 
     levee system was being built, and research on soil strength 
     wouldn't have been ignored.
       Louisiana also should fare better under a system that uses 
     criteria other than political clout to decide which projects 
     should be done. The corps already has a $58 billion project 
     backlog--an amount that will grow by another $10 billion if 
     the water resources bill is adopted. That means competition 
     for the $2 billion per year that the corps gets for projects 
     is intense.
       Without a rational system for prioritizing that work, 
     there's no guarantee that Louisiana's critically needed flood 
     control project will prevail even over less-needed or 
     justified projects. While there's a danger that a Louisiana 
     project could be pushed aside in a priority-based system, 
     this state is helped by the fact that the McCain-Feingold 
     approach favors projects that reduce flood damage and restore 
     the environment.
       The effectiveness of the proposed changes will depend on 
     details. If an independent review panel isn't given adequate 
     time to evaluate a project, for example, the benefit of 
     oversight could be lost. Conversely, a cumbersome review 
     process could end up further delaying badly needed projects.
       But an independent review process that works, combined with 
     a ranking policy that makes sense, should result in a better-
     performing agency.
       Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in 
     changing the way the corps does business. The McCain-Feingold 
     amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the 
     main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe 
     and Kit Bond.
       What those senators offer as reform is meaningless, 
     however. The Inhofe-Bond review process would be controlled 
     by the corps and would only apply to projects that exceed 
     $100 million, compared to a $40 million threshold in the 
     McCain-Feingold measures. The Inhofe-Bond amendments also 
     call for prioritization, but their system would simply 
     measure projects against a set of national priorities without 
     actually ranking them.
       Sham reform won't do anything to restore confidence in the 
     corps, and Congress must do better. The public should be able 
     to rely on the agency that builds levees and dams to do work 
     that will stand up to independent scrutiny. Taxpayers 
     shouldn't have to wonder if there's a rational basis for 
     spending billions of dollars.
       And Louisianians should be able to believe that the corps, 
     which is rebuilding our levee system and restoring our 
     coastline, is a wiser, better managed and more reliable 
     agency than the one that failed us when Hurricane Katrina 
     came to town.
                                  ____


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

                      A Chance To Reform the Corps

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

[[Page 14918]]

     Congressional neglect. Another would jump-start a major 
     effort to reverse the erosion of coastal wetlands that has 
     left Louisiana vulnerable to flooding.
       A bill this size inevitably has the usual ration of local 
     pork. But some of this would now be subject to outside review 
     and possible rejection if the McCain-Feingold amendments 
     stick. As they should. These reforms made sense when first 
     offered in 2002. Post-Katrina, they are essential.
                                  ____


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

           Amendment Would Reform Army Corps Project Funding

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


                [From the Washington Post, June 7, 2006]

                      Katrinia's Unlearned Lessons

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


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

                   Protect Taxpayers From Boondoggles

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


             [From the Tallahassee Democrat, July 9, 2006]

         Get to the Corps--Florida Senators Should Back Reforms

       Sometimes great, unexpected tragedies such as Hurricane 
     Katrina are sobering enough to lead to badly needed 
     improvements in the way things are done.
       With luck and some wise voting by Florida's U.S. Sens. Bill 
     Nelson and Mel Martinez, this might be the case with an 
     urgently needed reformation of the Army Corps of Engineers 
     via the Water Resources Development Act now under 
     consideration.
       The Corps has long been famous for, above all, fulfilling 
     the aspirations of unenlightened politicians who are dying to 
     bring home the bacon to their districts, usually not for the 
     good of the taxpayers but for well-focused special interests. 
     The Corps is the nation's construction company for big water-
     management projects, but it has regrettably become known for 
     building wasteful, unnecessary, even destructive projects.
       Florida's long-ago Cross Florida Barge Canal, which was to 
     cut a 150-foot-wide swath across the upper neck of our 
     peninsula (from Palatka to Yankeetown), is a great example.
       It would have furthered the shipping industry's interests, 
     cutting off some 600 miles on

[[Page 14919]]

     a voyage around the state's southern tip. But it would have 
     destroyed so many vital aspects of Florida's precious 
     environment--groundwater resources, wildlife areas and other 
     ecosystems--that President Richard Nixon suspended work on it 
     in 1971, after millions had been invested and 25 ugly miles 
     of excavation (later filled in) had been completed.
       Less dramatic, but more current, has been the Corps' 
     dredging of the Apalachicola River, which had been listed as 
     the nation's ``most endangered'' rivers and one that feeds 
     directly into our Big Bend coastline.
       Last year, the Corps was forced to stop years of dredging 
     when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
     denied a request to continue operations for the sake of a few 
     commercial interests and even though there has been a sharp 
     decline in barge traffic in recent years. The river's no 
     longer on that endangered list, but it's so damaged that 
     restoring it--while considering the water needs of Florida, 
     Alabama and Georgia--is an almost untenable undertaking. The 
     dredging kept water out of thousands of acres of flood 
     plains, changing everything--largely for the worse--by 
     destroying natural habitats, allowing construction in areas 
     that never should have been built on, and restricting the 
     flow of that necessity of life, fresh water.


                       Put a lock on boondoggling

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


                 [From the Buffalo News, July 17, 2006]

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

                          (By Larry Schweiger)

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


               [From the Concord Monitor, July 17, 2006]

              Put a Stop to Corps of Engineers Boondoggles

       The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to replace 
     FEMA, a federal agency whose name became inextricably linked 
     to failure in the days and months after Hurricane Katrina, 
     with a new agency. The Emergency Management Authority will 
     remain under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, but unlike FEMA, it will report to both Homeland 
     Security and to the president.
       The reshuffling may or may not solve the agency's many 
     problems, but it's a start. This week, however, the Senate 
     will turn its attention to the agency that bears the most 
     responsibility for the needless loss of life and property in 
     New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers.
       It was the Corps whose faulty design of the city's levee 
     system, whose refusal to heed decades-old warnings that the 
     levees would not hold and whose shoddy construction practices 
     caused the levees to collapse and drown the city.
       The disaster was a symptom of a much larger, longstanding 
     problem with the Corps. It is one of the biggest barrels of 
     pork in Washington, and no outside agency has oversight over 
     its planning and projects. It is answerable not to presidents 
     or secretaries of defense, but only to the members of 
     Congress who use the Corps to funnel money to their home 
     states.
       Tomorrow the Senate will take up the Water Resources and 
     Development Act passed earlier by the House. The measure 
     contains $12 billion worth of alleged flood control, water 
     resources and environmental protection projects. If it passes 
     in its current form, that sum will be added to the $58 
     billion list of previously approved Corps projects.
       That backlog is big enough, if nothing is ever added to it, 
     to keep the Corps digging and dredging for the next 40 years;
       Some Corps projects work beautifully, as the elaborate 
     flood control system it built in central New Hampshire a 
     half-century ago proved again this spring. But many are a 
     waste of money, and some do far more harm than good.
       The bad projects get built--often while worthy ones wait--
     because the priorities of the Corps are based not on need but 
     politics.
       To justify a project, the Corps need only show that its 
     public or private economic benefit will be more than its cost 
     to taxpayers. When, to please a congressional benefactor, the 
     Corps can't make the numbers add up, it cooks the books, 
     according to audits by the General Accounting Office and 
     others, The agency's priorities are so wrong that ``beach 
     rebuilding'' has become its fastest-growing activity. Many of 
     the beaches it spends million re-sanding are off limits to 
     the public.
       Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin 
     and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut are trying to reform the 
     Corps by creating an independent agency to assess its 
     projects and rank them in the order of their priority. The 
     rankings would not be binding on the Corps, but they would be 
     made public so that taxpayers who pay for the projects would 
     know which are boondoggles and which are justified.
       To counter the attempt to bring some fiscal responsibility 
     to the process, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe has introduced a 
     rival amendment to keep the pork barrel open.
       New Hampshire benefits from Corps projects, and perhaps a 
     dozen are in the works. But Sens. Judd Gregg arid John Sununu 
     enjoy a reputation for frugality, fiscal responsibility and 
     abhorrence of waste. Their vote on the attempt to reform the 
     Corps will say a lot about whether that reputation is 
     deserved.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent the stacked votes now occur at 
2:45 and all other provisions of the agreement remain in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 14920]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple of comments. I appreciate that there 
is some division of editorial policy around the country. Different 
positions are taken. I would say this, though. Probably the most 
impressive thing we have added to the Record is from the National 
Waterways Alliance, which has been a very strong supporter, of course, 
of the bill, as are, I believe, most of us on both sides of this issue 
who do agree we want to have the WRDA bill. We haven't had a 
reauthorization since the year 2000.
  This organization says they want to accept the Inhofe-Bond amendment 
and reject the Feingold amendments. It is interesting. As the Senator 
mentioned some of the editorials, perhaps the St. Louis Dispatch would 
be of interest to my colleague, Senator Bond.
  This also has a number of groups from Wisconsin who are strongly in 
opposition to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Wisconsin Corn 
Growers, the Wisconsin AgriServices of Brunswick, the Farm Bureau, and 
others.
  Sometimes you can evaluate something, an amendment, by who is in 
support of it. I think if you look at this, there are 288 groups. 
Virtually everyone who has any interest in using a waterway has said 
they strongly support the Inhofe-Bond amendment. It is such a varied 
and diverse group. All the Chambers of Commerce, the labor unions, they 
are all in there, including, of course, the U.S. Chamber, the Wisconsin 
groups, Agribusiness Association of Iowa, as I mentioned before, 
American Association of Port authorities, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Arkansas 
Basin Development Association.
  That is an interesting one because as I sometimes remind my 
colleagues, people are not aware, maybe one of the best kept secrets 
having to do with this subject matter is that my home State of Oklahoma 
is a navigable State. Much of that is due to activities of my father-
in-law, who is deceased now. Glade R. Kirkpatrick is the one who 
introduced legislation to provide for the Arkansas Development 
Association, working with Senator McClellan from Arkansas, Senator 
Kerr, at that time from Oklahoma.
  I can remember 47 years ago, when I married my wife, the first thing 
my father-in-law did was take me with him for the dedication of the 
Port of Catoosa. Lyndon B. Johnson came out. I believe that was who 
came out to dedicate it.
  I remember also--I think my friend from Wisconsin will enjoy this--
many years ago when I was in the State senate, I was trying to draw 
attention to the fact that we have barge traffic coming into Oklahoma. 
I approached a group called the Submarine Veterans of World War II. 
They decided what they would like to do. I said we have to do something 
to show the people of America that we can take barge traffic up and 
down here. It was all done through the private sector. We went to 
Orange, TX, got a 300-foot-long submarine, the USS Batfish, and the 
idea was to bring it all the way up to my home town of Tulsa, OK. This 
was quite an undertaking. We had to put floatation on it to raise it 
up, then bring it down to get it under the bridges. Nobody thought it 
could be done. All of my political adversaries in the State of Oklahoma 
were saying we will sink Inhofe with this submarine. It is there, one 
of the most attractive tourist sites in the State of Oklahoma. Some 
publications had it coming across the Arkansas line into Oklahoma.
  I mention that, that is one of the many groups supporting this, the 
Arkansas Basin Development Association. Also the California Coastal 
Coalition, California Marine Affairs Navigation System, the Grain and 
Feed Associations of Illinois.
  There is a long list from Illinois; almost every agricultural 
organization up there is in support of the Inhofe-Bond amendment--the 
Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Corn Growers Association, the 
International Union of Operating Engineers. Everybody in Iowa is for 
this, too. The list goes on and on. It gets into some of the labor 
unions; in fact, almost all of them are in support of our amendment and 
opposed to the Feingold-McCain amendment, such as the Laborers' 
International Union of North America, the International Union of 
Operating Engineers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and 
Reinforcing Iron Works of America, Operative Plasterers & Cement Mason 
International Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 
International Brotherhood of Brickyard Layers and Allied Craftworkers. 
The list goes on. As I say, the total number is 288 organizations. I 
can't think of any user--even recreational groups--who are in support 
of this.
  I have to repeat this. I don't want it to be implied by the Senator 
from Wisconsin or the Senator from Arizona that I do not believe reform 
is necessary. I talked at earlier times on this floor about the 
problems we have had with the Corps of Engineers. Sometimes they have 
done good work. Sometimes the work has not been so good. They need to 
have more oversight. They need to have some kind of a system, which is 
built into the underlying amendment or the underlying legislation. It 
means, to enhance that, either the Inhofe-Bond amendment or the 
Feingold-McCain amendment would do that. I think that is a recognition 
that the main thing we want here is to pass the WRDA bill. It is long 
overdue. We have to do it.
  It is funny for me to stand up here as a conservative, having been 
the author of the transportation reauthorization bill, which was 
perhaps the largest nondefense spending bill in the history of this 
body, and now come along with this one, yet I still have my 100 percent 
rating with the American Conservative Union, I remind my friends.
  Nonetheless, this is important. As I say, we are now down to less 
than 50 minutes until we have a chance to vote.
  Several times they have talked about the Hurricane Katrina situation 
as the ultimate example for the Feingold-McCain amendment. As outlined 
in the draft final report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation 
Task Force issued on June 1, the Corps has made mistakes. We do not 
know why certain decisions were made during the design of the New 
Orleans levees, but in retrospect we know that they were the wrong 
decisions. Some or all of these mistakes may have been noticed by an 
independent peer review panel.
  It could have been a panel that would either be adopted under the 
Feingold-McCain amendment or the Inhofe-Bond amendment.
  I agree this unfortunate disaster is an example of the potential 
usefulness of peer review, but it is not a mandate for their particular 
amendment. At the time the New Orleans levees were being designed, 
independent peer review was not a requirement.
  I recall one case in particular. In 1976, the Corps had actually done 
a review of the levee problems that might arise in the future. So they 
were talking about enhancing the strength of the levee. However, there 
was an environmentalist group called Save The Wetlands that came along 
and enjoined them in court and kept them from doing this.
  Either review is something that would take care of problems like this 
that might come up in the future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, continuing the debate, I appreciate the 
Senator mentioning my home State of Wisconsin. I think that is an 
opportunity to quote from one of the leading newspapers in our State, 
the Wisconsin State Journal. It in the past has not always agreed with 
me on this issue. But they have come down strongly this year, and I 
would like to read what they said.
  The title of the editorial is ``Protect taxpayers from boondoggles,'' 
and I am going to read it in its entirety.

       If the United States is to rein in the billions of dollars 
     misspent on pork-barrel projects each year, a top priority 
     should be reforming the way the Army Corps of Engineers does 
     business.

[[Page 14921]]

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

  I could go on.
  There are more editorials coming online every day. These editorials 
are coming from States that have projects in this bill, projects that 
would be subject to the prioritization amendment, projects that would 
be subject to the independent peer review amendment. These editorials 
are coming from small States and large cities. Yet they still support 
reform. And I believe that is because any State that might be the non-
Federal cosponsor of a project should want these reforms to ensure that 
their investment is a wise one.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned some of the groups that 
support his position, let me also briefly touch on the amazing support 
for our independent review amendment. There are letters of support from 
all of the following groups and individuals: League of Conservation 
Voters; Taxpayers for Common Sense; American Rivers; National Taxpayers 
Union; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense; the 
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Association of State Floodplain 
Managers; Republicans for Environmental Protection; Defenders of 
Wildlife; Louisiana Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense 
Council; Sierra Club; the Garden Club of America; Council for Citizens 
Against Government Waste; Earthjustice; the Tennessee Wildlife 
Resources Agency; the Isaak Walton League of America; World Wildlife 
Fund; Friends of the Earth; The John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club; 
U.S. Public Interest Research Group; a letter from G. Paul Kemp, a 
professor at Louisiana State University and a member of the Louisiana 
Forensics Team investigating the Corps' engineering failures; more 
Great Lakes groups than I can describe here, including Great Lakes 
United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Lake Erie Region Conservancy, the 
Ohio Environmental Council, Environment Michigan, and the Michigan 
Wildlife Conservancy; Columbia River Fisherman's Protective Union and 
Columbia Riverkeeper; Environment Maine; National Audubon Society; and 
finally, a letter that is signed by over 120 grassroots groups from 
across the country that supports our stand-alone bill, from which 
today's Feingold and McCain amendments come. The States represented on 
the letter are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, 
New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 
Vermont, Washington, and, of course, Wisconsin.
  I ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                League of Conservation Voters,

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

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the independent political voice for the environment. Each 
     year, LCV publishes the National Environmental Scorecard, 
     which details the voting records of Members of Congress on 
     environmental legislation. The Scorecard is distributed to 
     LCV members, concerned voters nationwide, and the press.
       LCV urges you to support amendments to S. 728, the Water 
     Resources Development Act, offered by Senators Feingold, 
     McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords, and oppose 
     amendments offered by Senators Inhofe and Bond. The Feingold-
     McCain-Carper-Lieberman amendments will provide additional 
     transparency and accountability for the Army Corps of 
     Engineers, while the Inhofe-Bond amendments do little more 
     than codify current practices, which have failed to protect 
     the public and the environment. Hurricane Katrina offered a 
     stark example of these failures.
       Corps of Engineers projects have all too often been plagued 
     with inadequate or erroneous environmental or economic 
     studies. Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
     called for mandatory independent peer review at all phases of 
     major Corps projects. The Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-
     Jeffords amendment ensures that studies for significant 
     projects receive an independent, peer-reviewed assessment. 
     This independent review is empowered to examine all aspects 
     of the Corps analysis it believes are flawed. By contrast, an 
     Inhofe-Bond amendment sharply limits which projects must 
     receive this review, fails to ensure independence, and 
     narrows the scope of that review.
       The Corps of Engineers has a multi-decade backlog of 
     authorized projects. In an era of limited resources, it is 
     more important than ever that funds are focused on those 
     projects that are most important to protecting public health 
     and the environment. The McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment 
     establishes an independent body that will determine criteria 
     for setting priorities, and then issue a prioritization 
     report to Congress. In contrast, the competing Inhofe-Bond 
     amendment skews the prioritization process toward particular 
     types of Corps projects, leaves the Corps to determine, in 
     vague terms, what the priorities should be, and provides 
     Congress with minimal information for decision-making.
       We urge you to support the amendments to WRDA which 
     increase accountability within the Corps of Engineers and to 
     oppose those amendments which do not provide real reform. The 
     LCV Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     these votes in compiling LCV's 2006 Scorecard. If you need 
     more information, please call Tiernan Sittenfeld or Nat Mund 
     at my office at (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____

         American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
           Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National 
           Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental 
           Protection, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research 
           Group,
                                                    July 17, 2006.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our organizations and our 
     millions of members and supporters, we request your support 
     for the true Army Corps of Engineers modernization amendments 
     that will be offered to the Water Resources Development Act 
     when it comes to the floor. These amendments, offered by 
     Senators Feingold, McCain. Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords, 
     pose our only meaningful chance of reforming this embattled 
     federal agency.
       Hurricane Katrina confirmed the high cost of the Corps' 
     flawed process for developing water projects. As such, our 
     organizations have made addressing the flaws exposed by 
     Katrina a top priority for the 109th Congress. Poorly 
     conceived and engineered flood control, and navigation 
     projects led to the destruction of coastal wetlands and 
     caused

[[Page 14922]]

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

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

                                           The Izaak Walton League


                                                   of America,

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

         Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Ellington 
           Agricultural Center,
                                     Nashville, TN, July 17, 2006.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: We are writing this letter in 
     support of the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords 
     sponsored amendment to the Water Resources Development Act 
     (WRDA) which is scheduled to be on the floor of the Senate 
     sometime the week of July 17, 2006. The proposed amendment 
     allows for the formation of a Water Resources Coordinating 
     Committee (WRCC) which will provide review and oversight to 
     water resources projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
     This interagency task force will prioritize Corps 'projects; 
     establish a transparent system of ongoing review; and issue 
     recommendations set upon strict timelines that will not delay 
     the planning process. The amendment provides WRCC review for 
     all projects exceeding $40 million; when a state Governor 
     requests it; when a federal agency finds the project will 
     have a significant adverse impact, or when the Secretary of 
     the Army determines that the project is controversial. We 
     urge you to support the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-
     Jeffords amendment to the WRDA which ensures a meaningful, 
     independent review mechanism to review Corps projects.
       A competing amendment to the WRDA is being sponsored by 
     Senators Inhofe and Bond that imposes little change on how 
     the Corps does business. It continues to foster a system 
     without clear water resource priorities and allows the Corps 
     to ignore requests from federal agencies and state Governors. 
     Furthermore, reviews will only cover scientific, engineering 
     or technical bases of the decision or recommendation, but not 
     recommendations resulting from the data. Environmental 
     reviews accompanying a feasibility study would not be subject 
     to the overall review. Review will be one-time instead of 
     ongoing during the life of each Corps project, and will not 
     be independent; allowing the Corps Chief of Engineers to 
     select the review panel. Only projects exceeding $100 million 
     will be subject to mandatory review, allowing the Corps 
     discretion to avoid review for

[[Page 14923]]

     most projects. We urge you to vote to defeat the Inhofe-Bond 
     amendment which allows the Corps to continue to ignore 
     priorities for politics.
       The current lack of clear water resources priorities is 
     damaging the nation's economic development, transportation 
     systems, and ability to protect its citizens and property 
     from flooding and natural disasters. The Feingold-McCain-
     Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords amendment moves the nation toward a 
     transparent system that establishes water resource priorities 
     through independent, external peer review. The review system 
     proposed by this amendment ensures that Congress has the 
     information it needs to direct limited federal resources to 
     meet the nation's most urgent needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Tim Churchill,
                              Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

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

[[Page 14924]]

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

[[Page 14925]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--46

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4682

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 4682) was rejected.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
McCain be recognized to offer an amendment regarding prioritization 
report; further, that following the reporting of that amendment, 
Senator Inhofe be recognized to offer an amendment on fiscal 
transparency; provided further that there be 1 hour total for both 
amendments, to be divided equally between Senators Inhofe and McCain; 
further, that following the use or yielding of time, the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to the McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed 
by a vote in relation to the Inhofe-Bond amendment, with no intervening 
time or extra debate; and that following the votes, there will be 30 
minutes equally divided, followed by a vote on final passage.
  Mr. President, let me restate this. We have too many things going on, 
so let me be sure we get it right.
  The unanimous consent request is that Senator McCain be recognized to 
offer an amendment regarding prioritization report; further, that 
following the reporting of that amendment, Senator Inhofe be recognized 
to offer an amendment on fiscal transparency; provided further that 
there be 1 hour total for both amendments to be divided between 
Senators Inhofe and McCain; further, that there be 30 minutes equally 
divided for general debate on the bill, and that following the use or 
yielding of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
McCain-Feingold amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the 
Inhofe amendment, to be followed by a vote on final passage, all with 
no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I ask 
my friend if I could have just a few minutes? It sounds like the 
unanimous consent takes up all the time, and I just wanted to speak for 
4 or 5 minutes on the bill, which I would want to do before we got into 
that.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my friend from Missouri that we do 
have in this unanimous consent request 30 minutes equally divided 
before final passage, and I would be glad to yield to the Senator at 
that time.
  Mr. TALENT. That will be fine.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to ask the Chair if there is any possible way we could take the 
opportunity to give myself and my colleague from Arkansas and Senator 
Rockefeller just a few moments to speak in morning business in behalf 
of paying tribute to our Lieutenant Governor from Arkansas.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. Let me respond to the Senators from Arkansas. I have 
talked to Senator Rockefeller and we have agreed that as soon as this 
UC goes through, we will recognize him and the Senator from Arkansas 
for up to 15 minutes for that purpose.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. We are so grateful. We appreciate that from our 
colleague from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 14926]]

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


                           Amendment No. 4684

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2007. WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 
                   PRIORITIZATION REPORT.

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

[[Page 14927]]

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

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I may ask the distinguished chairman, 
have we entered into a time agreement on this amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, we have. In fact, I will be bringing up mine, and we 
will consider them jointly. There will be 1 hour equally divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be 
recognized for however much time he may take in support of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to second the remarks of 
Senator Inhofe about Senator Jeffords. I have had an opportunity to 
work with Senator Jeffords now for 8 years. We have had our good days 
and bad days, but we never had good days and bad days between us. I 
consider him to be an outstanding Senator and a gentleman. I appreciate 
the courtesies which he has extended me over the years of his 
distinguished career.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. It has been a 
privilege to work with him. We got some things done.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2006.
  I commend Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond--and their staffs--for 
their hard work and strong leadership in putting together a bipartisan 
bill. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am 
pleased to have been a part of this effort. But I want to make it clear 
that Senator Inhofe is the driving force and Senator Bond kept pushing 
us. If it wasn't for their unbelievable commitment to this, we wouldn't 
be here today.
  It has been 6 years since the Congress last passed a Water Resources 
and Development reauthorization bill. I remember it because I was 
chairman of the subcommittee that handled the bill. The time has come 
to finally pass this legislation.
  America's infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of 
our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure, 
but Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us. In the wake of this 
disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating impact of a weak 
infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to 
fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our 
Nation's competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace.
  It has a new dimension to it because if we are going to compete in 
the global marketplace, we need to build the infrastructure for 
competitiveness, and we have had our heads in the sand in terms of the 
condition of that infrastructure. It is a critical piece of America's 
competitiveness.
  Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being squeezed. We should be 
rebuilding an infrastructure so that the new generation has at least 
the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of 
life.
  Right now, our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient 
funding. Congress desperately needs to provide increased funding for 
the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees and funding 
for additional engineers.
  I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects 
since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in 1999. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the 
backlog of unfunded Corps operation and maintenance projects was $250 
million. Today, it is $1.2 billion. At that time, there was a backlog 
of $38 billion active water resource projects waiting for Federal 
funding. I want to emphasize that.
  Today, according to the administration, there are about $50 billion 
in Army Corps construction projects that are in need of Federal 
funding.
  Despite these needs, the Corps is currently able to function only at 
50-percent capacity at the rate of funding proposed by the budget. It 
is hard to believe when you consider what we have had with Katrina.
  Annual appropriations for the Corps' construction accounts has fallen 
from a $4 billion average in the mid-1960s to a $1.5 billion average 
for 1996 through 2005.
  The stark reality is at the current levels of construction 
appropriations, the Corps' water resource projects, we already have 
more water resource projects authorized for construction than we can 
complete. At the current low levels of construction, it would take 25 
years to complete the active projects in the backlog without even 
considering additional project authorizations that are in this bill.
  That is why I am supporting the prioritization amendment offered by 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.
  I tried to get this kind of amendment back 5 or 6 years ago, but it 
was rebuffed. We don't want to do that. We don't want to prioritize 
anything. It might be someone's special project, and it may not get on 
the list where they would like it to be. So let's not do that.
  Unfortunately, appropriations for the Corps program have not been 
adequate to meet the needs that have been identified in our Nation. We 
have also been asking the Corps to do more with less. I am all for 
trimming fat from the Federal budget and practicing fiscal discipline, 
but the Corps of Engineers budget is not fat--it is the bread and 
butter of our economy and our infrastructure.
  I believe this amendment will reduce this backlog. This amendment 
would allow the Water Resources Coordinating Committee, an interagency 
task force that has been established in the underlying bill, to 
establish transparent, project-specific national priority criteria, 
classify projects either currently under construction or authorized 
into a tier system based on that criteria, and then issue a nonbinding 
prioritization report to the authorizing and appropriations committees.
  I will bet you that a lot of what they have against this is because 
they do not want anyone to tinker with what they do. The fact is, I 
think we owe it to them to make sure they have some priority list as to 
the importance of these projects as well as the Office of Management 
and Budget to help guild them in their funding decisions. This report 
would also be made available to the public.
  I believe this report would ensure that the most critical projects in 
the Nation are receiving adequate funding. Katrina showed us the 
importance of prioritization.
  We need a comprehensive prioriti- zation system to ensure that 
Congress has the information it needs to direct limited Federal 
resources to the most urgent projects.
  When I was Governor of the State of Ohio, the State had hundreds of 
highway projects that every preceding Governor had promised each 
municipality would be built. It is whatever you want, you got it. The 
list was unbelievable. The projects would have cost the State of Ohio 
between $5 billion and $6 billion to build, whereas the State

[[Page 14928]]

typically only received between $100 million and $300 million a year. 
At the time, it would have taken decades to build all the projects my 
constituents asked for, even if another new project was not added to 
the list for years.
  In order to deal with the imbalance between demand and available 
revenue, I created an objective, criteria-driven project selection 
process called the Transportation Review Advisory Council, or TRAC. 
This process gives paramount consideration to effective management of 
the backlog to assure that it only includes needed projects that are 
economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and supported by 
willing and financially capable, nonfederal sponsors. The State is 
required to balance this project list with the State's revenue 
projections.
  The TRAC also is required to issue a 4-year fiscal forecast after 
Congress passes each highway bill to get an idea of how much money we 
are going to get. It made no sense for the State of Ohio to continue 
project development on projects worth millions of dollars that had no 
realistic hope of ever being built. I think my constituents are much 
better served by this system because the State is investing its 
resources in projects that will become a reality in the near future.
  I am sure the President would understand this. When you have a 
highway bill, a lot of the Congressmen would put in earmarks on 
projects. And today when they are earmarking, they earmark it for 
projects that are on that list because they know that the money will be 
spent for the project.
  We need to take similar steps in the Senate in addressing our water 
resource needs. It is long overdue with the limited resources that we 
have. Hopefully, one day we will face up to those limited resources in 
terms of our infrastructure. We need a prioritization.
  I think Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have put together a very 
good amendment.
  Again, I know it may be controversial for some of the authorizers, 
but it is time that we do this.
  The passage of another WRDA bill cannot be delayed any further. It is 
simply too important to our Nation in terms of its benefits to our 
economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for the areas 
affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  I call on President Bush and my colleagues in both the House and the 
Senate to work expeditiously to get this bill enacted into law as soon 
as possible.
  Really from the bottom of my heart, I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill and this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 4683

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

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

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

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

       Strike section 2004 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND PRIORITIZATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each 
     year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
     describing--
       (1) the expenditures of the Corps of Engineers for the 
     preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the 
     current fiscal year; and
       (2) the extent to which each authorized project of the 
     Corps of Engineers meets the national priorities described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) National Priorities.--
       (1) In general.--The national priorities referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2) are--
       (A) to reduce the risk of loss of human life and risk to 
     public safety;
       (B) to benefit the national economy;
       (C) to protect and enhance the environment; and
       (D) to promote the national defense.
       (2) Evaluation of projects.--
       (A) In general.--In evaluating the extent to which a 
     project of the Corps of Engineers meets the national 
     priorities under paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers--
       (i) shall develop a relative rating system that is 
     appropriate for--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (c) Contents.--In addition to the information described in 
     subsections (a) and (b), the report shall contain a detailed 
     accounting of the following information:
       (1) With respect to general construction, information on--
       (A) projects currently under construction, including--
       (i) allocations to date;
       (ii) the number of years remaining to complete 
     construction;
       (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule; and
       (iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to 
     complete during the current fiscal year; and
       (B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing 
     agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, 
     including--
       (i) the number of years the project is expected to require 
     for completion; and
       (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule.
       (2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 
     and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 
     95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
       (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for 
     the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
       (B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance 
     of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
       (3) With respect to general investigations and 
     reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
       (A) the number of active studies;
       (B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for 
     construction;

[[Page 14929]]

       (C) the number of initiated studies; and
       (D) the number of studies expected to be completed during 
     the fiscal year.
       (4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 
     for interagency and international support activities under 
     section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
       (5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
       (6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
       (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
       (8) Other revenues and fees collected.
       (9) With respect to permit applications and notifications, 
     a list of individual permit applications and nationwide 
     permit notifications, including--
       (A) the date on which each permit application is filed;
       (B) the date on which each permit application is determined 
     to be complete; and
       (C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants, 
     withdraws, or denies each permit.
       (10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of 
     authorized projects for which no funds have been allocated 
     for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each 
     project--
       (A) the authorization date;
       (B) the last allocation date;
       (C) the percentage of construction completed;
       (D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the 
     project; and
       (E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, Chairman Inhofe, for 
granting me this time.
  I feel so strongly against this amendment. I really need the time to 
explain to my good colleagues why I think it ought to be voted down.
  We have amendments before us from time to time and they come to us as 
reform. I totally understand that we need reform in this whole area of 
the way we prioritize projects that come before us. But I don't believe 
this is reform at all. In my view, I think this is a delegation of the 
responsibility of the Senate and the House over to the executive 
branch. I believe it is going to be put into the hands of people who 
won't know a thing about this subject matter, and it is going to bring 
politics right into this Chamber. We were elected by the people. The 
cities and counties count on us to do our homework, to do our due 
diligence and understand what the needs are of our people, what our 
flood control needs are in our States, what our other needs are in our 
States, the studies that need to be performed, and all of that. That is 
our job.
  The McCain amendment just simply wraps it all up and tosses it over 
to the executive branch. It sets up a whole new bureaucracy that I 
think is absolutely unnecessary and, frankly, I think it is disastrous 
for this WRDA bill. Unlike the other amendment which we supported, 
which is peer review, that looked forward, this amendment looks back 
into this bill where we have sat for years and years.
  Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Baucus and the 
leaders of this committee who have worked with us to ferret out the 
projects that didn't have merit. I can attest to the fact that I had an 
amendment that I wanted to move forward.
  I was persuaded by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that 
there was a better way to move forward.
  We have done our work. This amendment is well intended. I know that. 
I know the people who have put it forward to us have good intentions. 
But I think it is going to make it more difficult for worthy projects 
to get needed funding. That includes projects that have an impact on 
public health and safety.
  I may have a debate with Senator Bond over which project I think is 
the more worthy and we will sit and talk about it and we will argue 
about it. At the end of the day, there will be a decision. Why should 
the two of us toss that all over to the executive branch, no matter who 
is President? What does it have to do with them? It is our bill. The 
President has the right to veto it if he doesn't like it or sign it. 
But thrashing out what ought to be in it and what is good, we have done 
that. That is part of our job.
  There is another problem with this amendment. It sets up a nightmare 
of a tier system. You have to fight your way into a tier in order to be 
funded. The administration--this one and the next one and the one 
thereafter--will be able to recommend which tier your State projects 
ought to be in. When the first tier reaches $5 billion, or when there 
are 100 projects in it, that tier is finished. So if you have a very 
important project, a large project, but let's say we all know we have 
to move to help the folks who are impacted by Hurricane Katrina, and 
they have priority--we all agree that it has a very high priority--if 
you represent a large State, you have a large project, you will never 
make it into the first tier. It is bad for my State.
  Frankly, it is bad for any project that is large enough and can't get 
into the first tier--it gets knocked down. You get stuck in a lower 
tier simply because the project may protect more people. How does that 
make any sense whatsoever? It is an arbitrary system. It can label a 
project as second tier despite critical local public safety needs. It 
will undermine a project's chances of receiving appropriations.
  We already know what a fight we have to convince our colleagues in 
the Committee on Appropriations that the projects in our State have 
merit. We subject these projects to tremendous scrutiny, first in this 
particular WRDA bill. As we struggle to get appropriations funds, we 
have to make the case. Then we have to go to conference and continue to 
make the case.
  Under this amendment, I am sorry to say this is no reform. I ask 
rhetorically if this makes any sense. There is a very important 
committee that has been set up in the underlying bill. The committee 
has some very important functions, but now the McCain amendment adds 
this next function on to this committee, this coordinating committee 
which, by the way, is going to hire an executive director.
  If anyone wants to learn how projects and laws get bogged down, here 
is an example. This committee that is going to be set up includes the 
following people: The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary 
of Housing and Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the 
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of 
the EPA, the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality, and 
here is my favorite, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  We all know about their priority list. We just took a look at their 
priority list. Petting zoos should be protected before bridges and 
highways. They have included Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a bourbon 
festival, a bean festival, the Kangaroo Conservation Center. This is 
what the Department of Homeland Security said ought to be prioritized.
  Do we want to invite them into a new prioritization game for the WRDA 
projects? I hope not. What could come out of this is not good.
  In discussing this with my colleagues, they say: But, Senator Boxer, 
they are just going to recommend. We have the ability to sit down among 
ourselves--Democrats and Republicans--as we have done in this bill, and 
come to some decisions on what the priorities are. I believe the 
Committee on Appropriations, working with all of us, has a second bite 
at that apple.
  I don't believe we need to ask this President or any future President 
to get into this issue and convene meetings, have studies, and waste 
money just to put together a list that they say is their priorities. 
What makes their priorities better than our priorities? They are not 
even elected. This is not even their job. How do you come forward--I 
ask my friend from Arizona, rhetorically, because he is not here--
giving people who have no idea what this is about the power over the 
projects? They say it is just a recommendation, but we know they will 
take that seriously.
  We remember the whole tizzy when they said they thought it was fine 
for the country of Dubai to run our ports. There was a big debate in 
the Senate.

[[Page 14930]]

Most Members believed that was a mistake. That also came out of some 
committee.
  We all fight to get here. We all work hard to get here. At a minimum, 
we are in touch with our States and we know the needs of our States. 
The Congress, not a political appointee, not some bureaucrat, but 
Members of the Senate should retain the central responsibility for 
establishing the border resource priorities for their States. Instead, 
this amendment leaves the recommendation of priorities up to a 
committee made up of Cabinet and other political appointees.
  We are inviting politics into this debate. As Senator Inhofe said, 
this is one of those rare moments in history, this bill, where politics 
is left at the committee door. We worked together. We worked hard 
together. Now, with this McCain amendment, we are injecting partisan 
politics. In this case it is a Republican President. In future years it 
could be a Democratic President. It does not make any difference.
  We should do our job. We should not punt the ball elsewhere. What are 
we here for? Anyone who votes for this, and I am sure there will be a 
few--I hope not too many--the message they are basically sending is 
that they do not feel comfortable enough, they do not feel 
knowledgeable enough, they do not feel strong enough to stand up for 
what needs to be done in their States.
  Again, I ask, do we really want to have the Department of Homeland 
Security deciding the critical water resource projects? They have 
enough to do to get their own priorities in order.
  With all due respect to members of the Cabinet, we as individual 
Senators know our States' needs. We know our States' priorities. This 
is not reform; this is injecting, in my view, partisanship into a very 
bipartisan approach.
  I trust my colleagues, whether Republican or Democrat, in this bill 
because they have to explain why their projects are worthy. This is not 
like an earmark where something is stuck in the bill in the middle of 
the night. This is a major reauthorization bill where every project is 
looked at very carefully. I don't believe any Cabinet is going to be 
more effective at telling us what projects should be funded.
  As Members of Congress, let us not surrender our responsibility to an 
executive branch that, in my view, will not reflect the real needs of 
our people. I urge my colleagues to vote no, a very sound no, on this 
amendment. Let's send a message today that this Senate knows what it is 
doing in this bill.
  I feel very comfortable with the leadership of Senators Inhofe and 
Jeffords, that we do know what we are doing in this bill. If you are 
for this bill, I hope you will vote no on the McCain amendment.
  I give the remainder of my time to the good Senator, Mr. Inhofe. I 
thank him so much for the chance to speak against this amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from California for bringing up some 
very good points.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The total time remaining is 17 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry because there is some confusion, 
without using our time to make the parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that while we have an hour equally divided on the two 
amendments that are going to be voted back to back, there is also 30 
minutes equally divided on final passage. All of this time would be 
used prior to the three votes that come consecutively; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. If that is the case, there would be more like 30 minutes 
remaining because each side would have 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement contemplated that the final 30 
minutes would be used after the initial hour so that the Senator's 
assumption is correct that he will have 15 minutes after the 17 minutes 
and 35 minutes is expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent on our side, and I suggest they 
probably want to do the same thing, that our time not be segregated as 
to the amendments versus final passage so we could have 45 minutes for 
either as we desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. With that, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri who has been very helpful and constructive in this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the time and also 
for the kind remarks. I appreciate the excellent leadership he has 
provided and the bipartisan nature with which he and Senator Jeffords 
brought this bill to the Senate.
  It is important to take a look at the substance of what is going on 
in these prioritization amendments now before the Senate which deal 
with fiscal deadlines and requirements and, in turn, how projects 
should be prioritized. I hope our colleagues will listen carefully to 
the context of the WRDA legislation and the Corps reform.
  Worthwhile projects of the Corps of Engineers should be funded. The 
inadequate funding of the levees in New Orleans was a bad mistake. We 
need to fund worthwhile levees, but the best route is not the total 
overhaul of the Corps and passage of the Feingold-McCain amendments, in 
this case, specifically, the prioritization amendment.
  The Feingold-McCain amendment proposes a complete overhaul by 
establishing a new bureaucracy, the Water Resources Planning 
Coordinating Committee. We need another bureaucracy in the Federal 
Government like a bear needs tennis shoes. This idea is essentially a 
reprise of the Water Resources Council that existed during the Carter 
administration which was discredited due to its inability to get 
anything done. That is not surprising when you have members ranging 
from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Homeland Security. 
These are just a few of the Cabinet members, along with others, 
proposed to provide review under the Feingold-McCain amendment. The 
Secretary of the Army is on there, not even a Cabinet position. I look 
forward to the Secretary of the Army, for example, providing input and 
review to the Department of Education on No Child Left Behind. That is 
essentially the same thing as having the proposed Feingold-McCain 
council consisting of noninterested, nontrained Cabinet members with 
other heavy responsibilities involved in the Corps of Engineers' very 
complicated 103-step process to come up with priorities and approval of 
projects.
  Beyond a lack of interest in expertise, this council is structured 
for projects to fail. A meeting of the minds is very difficult. This is 
probably the reason such a council does not exist in any other forum. 
In the rare event a consensus would emerge, the 50 percent local cost 
share would increase to the point where communities could no longer 
afford to make their contributions for essential projects.
  It sounds like a time-consuming, expensive, headache-producing 
bureaucracy to me, and I have seen them before. I can tell one when I 
see it. This is one area where trained experts who understand the 
process, from planning to construction, should be running our water 
project formulation process. There is a reason we rely upon those with 
appropriate training and expertise to develop and construct our 
infrastructure and safety needs. These decisions should be based on 
sound science, not on political judgment of people with no expertise in 
the area.
  With thousands of projects and costs that change annually, 
prioritization of the projects and the process directed by Feingold-
McCain would be extremely cumbersome. Achieving stability and 
prioritization would be nearly impossible.
  The amendment Senator Inhofe and I have proposed would categorize and 
prioritize projects on scientifically sustainable reports. These 
reports will provide Congress with the necessary information to make 
tough values-related decisions. Our proposed approach supports and 
encourages a holistic approach to water resource management

[[Page 14931]]

by considering a wide range of important factors.
  Feingold-McCain fails to address multipurpose projects and thus 
results in inadequate cost-benefit ratios. Modernizing our locks and 
dams and improving our levees contribute to the entire way of American 
life: enhancing flood control, transportation, hydropower, water 
supply, and recreation. Each purpose of the project served determines 
demands prioritization, weighing all benefits in the analysis. And even 
then, how do you truly value safety and the health of human life?
  Media reports and editorials have criticized and played the blame 
game. As a result, the Corps has received more than its share of public 
ridicule. What is not well publicized is the good work that the Civil 
Works Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers has already 
done in its exhaustive inhouse budget prioritization. The Civil Works 
Program has the only infrastructure project analysis that is required 
to have cost-benefit ratios grounded in economic theory and extensive 
ongoing economic analysis.
  From its inception, each economic water resource infrastructure 
project goes through multiple ``winnowing'' processes. In recent years, 
only 16 percent of the proposed projects generally pass on a ``national 
benefit,'' a positive benefit to cost ratio. Unless a project meets 
this threshold, the process will not allow for a favorable report of 
the chief of engineers.
  The second winnowing is cost-share requirements where both studies 
and construction require percentages of local moneys to match the 
amounts from the Federal Government as well as other contributions such 
as lands, easements, and rights-of-way.
  Unless exempted by Congress, if a local cost-sharing agreement does 
not come forward, a project is not eligible for Federal funds.
  Next is the actual budget appropriations process, which begins at the 
38 districts of the Corps of Engineers 18 months before a President's 
budget is delivered.
  Performance-based budgeting requires a highly detailed process, 
sorting the projects by benefits and costs and rated in a variety of 
categories, including risk factors for the environment, safety, 
security, and operations.
  Each of the ``economic'' Corps projects is then subject to 
``diminishing returns'' analysis that defines specific measurable 
performance benefits that may be gained through a number of levels of 
incremental funding.
  In addition, unique elements or circumstances, such as judicial 
findings and orders, are taken into account. The recommendation is then 
sent to the Corps Division office that merges all district inputs into 
a division recommendation which goes to the Corps headquarters in 
Washington.
  Once at headquarters, they are reviewed, merged, cross-walked, 
racked, stacked, jacked, and tacked, and finally nationally ranked on a 
benefit scale, to deliver a list to OMB.
  I am exhausted--and I know my listeners are exhausted, those who are 
still listening--merely summarizing the current standards and the 
process that has to be followed--and we did not go into the 103 steps 
currently existing before the request even reaches Congress for 
appropriations.
  But the Bond-Inhofe amendment goes further and categorizes and 
prioritizes projects scientifically and makes a supportable report to 
make it easier for us to make the important judgments. It is a time-
consuming and extensive process already. The last thing the process 
needs is additional bureaucratic steps and redtape from those who have 
already skewed priorities and lack the expertise to make decisions.
  OMB has its own criteria and priorities, with recent trend analysis 
showing they favor environmental restoration projects. For example, 
within the fiscal year 2007 construction account, only 90 out of the 
approximately 655 projects were accorded ``priority status'' that would 
allow for some level of funding.
  The Feingold-McCain amendment would only add additional steps, 
lengthen the timetable, with fewer funded projects, the loss of jobs, 
and the inability to provide safety and the transportation we need.
  Finally, of course, there is a congressional process where we must 
authorize and fund the projects. We establish our priorities, and they 
are contained in the amendment, the Bond-Inhofe amendment.
  The Feingold-McCain amendment proposes a council that lacks the 
necessary expertise and adds redtape. We believe the Bond-Inhofe 
amendment makes sense, and it will add to what the WRDA legislation 
already includes: reasonable Corps reform amendments that would strike 
a balance, that disciplines new projects to criteria fairly applied, 
while addressing a greater number of water resources multipurpose 
priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Inhofe-Bond amendment and to 
oppose the Feingold-McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friends from 
Oklahoma and Missouri for their courtesy in the way we have been 
addressing these two amendments.
  Mr. President, I begin by asking unanimous consent that the Statement 
of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Statement of Administration Policy, July 18, 2006


            S. 728--Water Resources Development Act of 2006

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


                       The Need for Basic Reforms

       The civil works program has played an important role in 
     developing the Nation's water resources; however, it faces 
     several interrelated problems: (1) the Corps has a large 
     backlog of unfinished construction work, resulting in more 
     projects facing delays and a $50 billion cost to complete the 
     backlog of already-authorized projects; (2) the Corps is 
     providing funding to construct projects outside of its three 
     main missions, which reduces the funding available for higher 
     priority needs; and (3) the Federal government pays a 
     substantial share of project costs, which can lead to an 
     over-allocation of resources to build new projects and 
     upgrade existing ones. The bill does not address, and in some 
     cases would exacerbate, these problems.
       The President's last four Budgets have outlined the 
     direction of the reforms needed to address these and other 
     concerns. The Administration has proposed five principles to 
     guide Corps authorizations and appropriations, which focus 
     on: (1) improving how the

[[Page 14932]]

     Corps formulates its water resources projects, such as 
     through changes to the 1983 principles and guidelines for 
     proposed Federal water resources projects; (2) limiting new 
     construction starts to projects with a very high net economic 
     or environmental return per dollar invested; (3) setting 
     priorities for allocating funding among the projects with 
     ongoing construction work in the three main Corps mission 
     areas; (4) de-authorizing commercial navigation projects with 
     extremely low levels of commercial use, and projects whose 
     main purpose falls outside the three main mission areas; and 
     (5) addressing cost-sharing.
       The FY 2007 Budget proposes specific economic, 
     environmental, and public safety performance criteria for use 
     in establishing priorities among ongoing construction 
     projects. The Administration supports efforts to prioritize 
     water resources construction projects consistent with this 
     approach, and looks forward to working with Congress to 
     accomplish this objective.


                        Planning Future Proiects

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


             Restricting the Powers of the Executive Branch

       The Administration strongly objects to section 
     2006(f)(1)(C), which would limit the ability of the Executive 
     Branch to properly supervise the civil works program by 
     prohibiting anyone from giving direction to the Chief of 
     Engineers, including Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees 
     in the Department of Defense, regarding any Corps report on a 
     proposed project or any related recommendations for changes 
     in law or policy. Such a provision would hinder the 
     President's ability to fulfill his Constitutional duties. The 
     bill would also require the Secretary to provide his 
     recommendations to Congress on a proposed project within 90 
     days of the Chiefs report, which is not adequate time for a 
     proper review and a determination of the Administration's 
     position. In addition, this language should be revised to 
     request rather than require the recommendation, in keeping 
     with the President's constitutional authority to make 
     recommendations he determines to be necessary and expedient.
       The Administration strongly objects to Section 1003(o) 
     which conditionally preauthorizes the construction of all 
     projects identified in a future Corps report on options for 
     improving storm damage reduction along the Louisiana coast. 
     Congress should not preauthorize these yet-to-be-identified 
     projects, whose total cost is likely to be measured in the 
     tens of billions of dollars and is not included in 
     Congressional Budget Office estimate, before the Executive 
     Branch, Congress, and the public have had a full opportunity 
     to review them.
       The Administration objects to Section 1003(n) which creates 
     a new agency--the Louisiana Water Resources Council--to 
     manage and oversee a system-wide comprehensive plan of 
     unspecified future projects in Louisiana. This provision 
     would circumvent the normal chain of command within the 
     Executive Branch and thereby reduce accountability for the 
     costs to build these projects. The provision also raises 
     constitutional concerns with regard to the Appointments 
     Clause.


                 Adequate and Appropriate Cost-sharing

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


        Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation

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


                           COASTAL LOUISIANA

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


                             Other Concerns

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

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

       The Administration has strong concerns with the significant 
     overall cost of S. 728. The Congressional Budget Office has 
     estimated that the bill as reported by the Committee would 
     authorize nearly $12 billion in discretionary spending, and a 
     preliminary Administration review indicates that the cost of 
     the manager's amendment would be greater. The Administration 
     believes the bill should establish priorities--

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

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

  The first paragraph of the administration's Statement of 
Administration Policy emphasizes their belief that this legislation 
should establish priorities amongst these activities. That is what this 
amendment is about. It is exactly that. The amendment is designed to 
help Congress make clear and educated decisions on which Army Corps 
projects should be funded based on our Nation's priorities.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Lieberman, and 
Feinstein in offering this important amendment to the Water Resources 
Development Act.
  Last August, this Nation witnessed a devastating national disaster. 
When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy 
beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Almost a 
year later, the gulf coast region is still trying to rebuild and there 
is a long road ahead. We learned many lessons from this tragedy, and, 
as our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the 
reconstruction effort, we must ensure that those resources are being 
used in the most effective and efficient manner as possible. It is time 
the Congress takes a hard look at how our scarce Army Corps dollars are 
being spent overall and whether they are actually going to the most 
necessary projects.
  Our current system for funding Corps projects is not working. 
Currently, projects are submitted by Members of

[[Page 14933]]

Congress for funding without having a clear picture of how that project 
affects the overall infrastructure of our Nation's waterways or where 
it fits within our national waterways priorities.
  Too often, it is a Member's seniority and party position that 
dictates which projects are funded and which ones will join the $58 
billion backlog. Mr. President, I repeat, we have a $58 billion backlog 
of projects. And the bill before us is going to add another $12 billion 
in projects to the backlog. Do you know how much funding the Corps 
receives annually? Two billion dollars. So if you have $70 billion, and 
we are annually allocating $2 billion, that is 35 years. It is 35 years 
before any project that is on this list is funded.
  Clearly, without a prioritization, that opens itself up to no way 
that we would have a way of determining which project is most important 
and which is not. There is no way to know which projects warrant these 
limited resources because the Corps refuses to give Congress its views 
on which projects are necessary. In fact, even when Congress 
specifically requests a list of the Corps' top priorities, it is unable 
to provide it. Remarkable. Remarkable. Unfortunately, the underlying 
bill does not address this problem.
  To help my colleagues fully understand the extent of this problem, 
let me quote Representative Hobson, chairman of the House Energy and 
Water Appropriations Committee, from his statement on the House floor 
on May 24, 2006:

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

  This amendment is designed to address this problem and shed light on 
the funding process. It allows both Congress and the American people to 
have a clear understanding of where our limited resources should be 
spent. The amendment will tap a multiagency committee created in the 
underlying bill. It will direct that committee to review Corps projects 
that are currently under construction or have been authorized during 
the last 10 years.
  These projects would be evaluated by several commonsense, transparent 
criteria. They would also be divided and judged within their own 
project category, such as navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 
and environmental restoration. Each project category would be broken 
into broad, roughly equal-sized tiers, with the highest tiers including 
the highest priority projects, and on down the ladder. This advisory 
report would then be sent to Congress and be made available to the 
public.
  Some have said this amendment relinquishes congressional authority to 
the executive branch. That is a false allegation. The prioritization 
report is an effort to inform Congress, but it does not dictate 
spending decisions--just as the Department of Defense sends our 
authorizing committee, the Armed Services Committee, their priorities. 
Without knowing their priorities, how in the world can we know how to 
spend the dollars?
  To more fully understand the need for a prioritization system, let's 
consider funding for Louisiana in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The 
administration's budget request included 41 line items or projects 
solely for Louisiana that totaled $268 million. That works out to $6.5 
million per project, on average. The House Energy and Water 
appropriations bill included 39 line items or projects totaling $254 
million--again, in the neighborhood of $6.5 million per project. The 
Senate bill included 71 line items or projects, to the tune of $375 
million--averaging out to $5.3 million per project.
  So while even more money was proposed for Louisiana under the Senate 
version, individual projects would receive less money, and, inevitably, 
this would result in delays in completing larger projects. So this 
really does come down, once again, to real-world consequences of 
earmarking. Communities actually lose under this earmarking practice.
  Can we really afford long, drawn-out delays on flood control projects 
that people's lives depend on simply because too many Members are 
fighting for a small pool of money with no real direction? We need some 
kind of direction, clear understanding and guidance for funding Corps 
projects. While more money may ultimately be going to a State, if it is 
being parsed via earmarking in an appropriations bill, we will not be 
able to make significant progress on any project.
  Ultimately, without guidance, Congress is able to cram as many 
projects as possible into appropriations bills while contending that 
each project is as important as the next. Drawing out completion on all 
of these projects puts people's lives in danger and is unacceptable.
  Some may believe that under this amendment smaller projects will lose 
out. However, the size of the project has no impact on the 
prioritization system. In fact, this objective system will help find 
the hidden gems in the Corps project list and highlight their strengths 
to Congress.
  It is time we end this process of blind spending, throwing money at 
projects that may or may not benefit the larger good. It is time for us 
to take a post-Katrina look at the world and decide whether we will 
learn from our experiences over the last year or whether we are content 
to continue business as usual.
  Shouldn't we be doing all we can to reform the Corps and ensure that 
most urgent projects are being funded and constructed or are we more 
content with needless earmarks--too often at the expense of projects 
that are of most need?
  As stated in a letter signed by the heads of the Taxpayers for Common 
Sense Action, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, in support of our amendment:

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

  The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as 
the congressional system for funding projects, are broken. But they can 
be fixed. The reforms in this amendment are based on thorough program 
analysis and common sense. And let me be clear: A vote against this 
amendment is a vote against Government transparency and accountability. 
This amendment is a step toward a more informed public and a more 
informed Congress. We owe the American public accountability in how 
their tax dollars are spent.
  I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build and improve upon 
the Corps reforms we have explained before. Corps modernization has 
been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years, but 
never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent 
need to move forward.
  I also thank Senators Inhofe and Bond for working with us throughout 
this process and helping us to incorporate many commonsense changes 
into the larger bill. While I still have concerns with the underlying 
bill, and particularly the number of projects that would be authorized, 
I hope that by adopting this amendment we can move this bill in a 
direction that will truly benefit the Nation.
  I want to share with my colleagues not only the administration's 
support for this important prioritization amendment, it also has been 
endorsed by many outside groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense 
Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, 
Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra 
Club, and the World Wildlife Fund. And it has been positively commented 
on by the Heritage Foundation. The vote on this amendment will

[[Page 14934]]

be key voted by the Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National 
Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the 
League of Conservation Voters.
  We are also considering side by side the Inhofe-Bond amendment. As I 
have mentioned before, their version would be prepared by the Corps, 
controlled by the Corps, evaluated by the Corps, and reported by the 
Corps, locking out input from other relevant water resources agencies 
such as the Department of Homeland Security. That amendment, unlike my 
amendment, only looks at likely construction projects, forces the Corps 
to review every single project in its $58 billion backlog, soon to be 
$70 billion with the passing of this bill. It would also create a vague 
need to fund a relative rating system that does not require any final 
analysis or ranking. This would lead to an argument over semantics 
rather than quality of a project. Members would come to the floor to 
argue that the criteria that their project scored well in is the most 
important criteria, whereas another Member would be arguing for another 
criteria because their project scored well in that area. This system 
would only lead to further confusion over the worth of individual 
projects and distract Congress from the job at hand. Further, this 
system would use criteria clearly devised to skew ratings toward 
particular types of Corps projects. How would an environmental 
restoration project ever score well on a criteria designed to weigh a 
project's ability to lessen our dependence on foreign oil? How would a 
flood and storm damage reduction project do being judged by this 
criteria that is in the amendment, pollution reduction benefits 
associated with using water as a method of transportation of goods?
  Additionally, the Inhofe-Bond amendment would require the rating 
report to be delivered only to the authorizing committee, thus sending 
the signal that this information is not intended to help set funding 
priorities and not intended to be transparent for the public. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I point out again the problem we have here: $70 billion, $2 billion 
spent every year. That makes for $70 billion worth of authorized 
projects, $2 billion can be spent each year. That makes for some pretty 
ferocious competition. I think it is very important that we put some 
kind of prioritization into this kind of process; otherwise, it will be 
very hard for us to understand what is being done. But more 
importantly, it is certainly not clear that the projects that need the 
priority will receive them.
  I ask unanimous consent that a memo published by the Heritage 
Foundation on this issue be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2006]

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

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

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

  Mr. McCAIN. The Heritage Foundation memo says:

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

  I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle who almost always pay 
close attention to the Heritage Foundation and their findings will pay 
attention to this one as well.
  I again thank my friend from Oklahoma for his courtesy in 
consideration of this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it further demonstrates that people can 
have honest disagreements. I look forward to responding to some of the 
comments that were made by the Senator from Arizona.
  I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman for yielding and compliment him and 
Senator Bond for their work in getting the Water Resources Development 
Act on the Senate floor finally. It has been literally years getting it 
here. I think it is a very important measure. Transportation 
infrastructure is very important. If we are going to maintain our 
global competitiveness, our economic growth, we have to be able to get 
goods from one place to another. We have to be able to protect people 
from natural disasters. We have to control and use the water resources 
this Nation is blessed with, and we cannot do it without this bill.
  I want to address specifically the provisions in the bill that 
authorize the modernization of locks and dams on the upper Mississippi 
River--locks and dams which, if they were people, would be old enough 
to collect Social Security; locks and dams which are so small relative 
to the needs of modern transportation that barges must routinely be 
broken down into two halfs, in essence, before they can go through the 
locks and dams; locks and dams which are in such need of maintenance 
that you can take a picture of one and then come back and take a 
picture of the same lock a month later and you will find that concrete 
has literally fallen off it.
  The case for river transportation is so strong, it is a matter of 
common sense. It is a cheap, environmentally sound method of moving 
goods. I say inexpensive because it costs roughly a third of the cost 
of shipping by rail; environmentally friendly because one medium barge 
tow can carry the same freight as 870 traffic trail trucks. So 
obviously, by fixing locks and dams, we can relieve highway congestion, 
reduce

[[Page 14935]]

shipping costs, reduce fuel consumption, and we can reduce air 
emissions. We will also create jobs.
  The construction of new 1200-foot locks and lock extensions will 
provide more than 48 million man-hours of employment over the next 10 
to 15 years. We can also move the country's goods more efficiently. 
Sixty percent of the country's corn exports, 45 percent of soybean 
exports go on the Mississippi River to their destination. It is 
absolutely important to the transportation of coal, steel, and 
concrete. We have a new concrete facility going into Sainte Genevieve, 
MO. It was a number of years before they were able to begin building 
it, but they have. The reason that plant is going in there is because 
the river is there, because they can bring products in and they can 
move products out. It is vitally important that we do this. We have 
been waiting a number of years. We are at least going to be able to 
authorize doing it in this bill. We then have to fund it.
  I want to say a few words about what I think is the most important 
issue regarding our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and that is 
less about how we prioritize than whether we are going to build it at 
all. Transportation infrastructure is absolutely crucial to the 
competitiveness and future of any economy. Other nations know that. 
That is why they are building it. Brazil, for example, which is 
certainly not a country with an economy as prosperous as ours, is 
building water transportation infrastructure. I know people are 
concerned about the revenues of the Federal Government and about the 
deficit. I certainly am as well. But that is not a reason to avoid 
investments in capital infrastructure. If you are a homeowner and you 
have a hole in your roof, you have to fix the hole in the roof. You 
have to fix it somehow because it doesn't go away if you don't fix it. 
It gets worse. Then it costs more when you finally do decide to fix it.
  We have been talking about priorities. It is certainly reasonable to 
discuss how we are going to prioritize the projects that we have 
backlogged. But I note with interest that both sides seem to agree that 
after this bill passes, if it passes, we will have $70 billion in 
backlogged projects and evidently $2 billion a year to spend on them. I 
wonder if anybody else noted the irony of that. We are arguing about 
how to prioritize $2 billion, when we have $70 billion in backlog. 
Perhaps we ought to be arguing about how we can reduce the backlogs 
faster by finding more money. Unless somebody is aware of some 
technology that is going to allow us to transport goods across the 
country other than through rivers or rail or trucks, we had better 
figure out how we are going to fix this, and we had better figure it 
out fast.
  A lot of people who are concerned--I don't mean here in the Senate so 
much but over in the Office of Management and Budget--about passing 
trade agreements will reassure us that it is OK to have trade 
agreements with other countries, even though they have lower wage 
levels, because they say we are competitive anyway because we have a 
better financial system, a better telecommunications systems, and we 
have a better transportation system. Then the same people begrudge 
every attempt to invest in the transportation system. The reality is 
that however we prioritize the money, we are falling behind every year. 
In 10 or 15 years from now, maybe sooner, we are going to have fallen 
so far behind, we will never be able to catch up. When the next 
generation does not have the transportation infrastructure they need to 
be competitive, as we had because the earlier generation gave it to us, 
I don't think we will be able to explain it away by saying we were 
arguing over how to prioritize it. I think they will want to know how 
we are going to build it. Because right now, however you prioritize it, 
we have a heck of a lot more priorities than we have money to spend. I 
hope we can put a little bit of the energy that we are now putting into 
prioritization--and I don't begrudge anybody the debate over this--into 
how we are going to fund the transportation infrastructure that this 
generation and the next generation needs before the Chinese fund theirs 
and the Third World countries fund theirs, and our people are out in 
the cold.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his efforts and for yielding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, under Senate rules, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be allowed to show a prompt on the Senate 
floor, a bottle of water.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the bottle. This is a 
glass of clean water that is put on our desk to drink. This is the 
bottle of water that I scooped up out of the Saint Lucie River which is 
one of the estuaries that will be dealt with in this Water Resources 
Development Act that we are now considering. You can see the dramatic 
difference between the two. This one is laden with algae and with all 
kinds of particulates. This is the kind of clean water that we would 
like our rivers and estuaries to be.
  Thank goodness we have this bill and we are going to pass it. It is 
going to address these kinds of problems. Specifically in this bill is 
the Everglades restoration and two important projects, the Indian River 
Lagoon, from which this water came. It is the Saint Lucie River estuary 
that leads into the Indian River. You can see why that estuary is 
messed up. When I went out there and scooped up this bottle of water, 
it was a dead river. That river, the Saint Lucie, flows into the Indian 
River, which is not a river, it is a lagoon. It is a bay. This Senator 
grew up on the banks of the Indian River.
  Where I grew up, there are the pelicans diving for fish because there 
are plenty of fish. There is Mr. Osprey up there swooping down and 
getting his dinner. You look up in that dead pine tree and there is old 
Mr. Eagle. He is up there waiting for Mr. Osprey to go down and scoop 
up and get his dinner. Then Mr. Eagle is going to take off after Mr. 
Osprey, and Mr. Osprey is going to drop that fish and Mr. Eagle is 
going to swoop it up. That is going to be his dinner. Yet there is 
nothing out there in a river that has water like this--no pelicans, no 
bird life. You cannot even see it. You can see the density of this 
water. You cannot even see below the surface of the water. Thank 
goodness we have up this WRDA bill. This bill also is going to 
authorize the Fakahatchee Strand and the waters that dump into the St. 
Lucie, like this to the east of Lake Okeechobee, dumped into the 
Caloosahatchee River to the west, and a similar kind of water goes out 
to tidewater in the Gulf of Mexico to the Caloosahatchee River. This is 
what we are going to correct with this WRDA bill.
  And, also, we are going to--in the managers' package they have 
accepted an amendment that the two Senators from Florida have offered, 
which is to get an examination of this report that came out about a 70-
year-old dike that rings Lake Okeechobee; 40,000 people live in the 
vicinity of the perimeter of Lake Okeechobee, and the report predicts 
there is a one-in-six chance of dike failure with each year that 
passes. So we are getting an emergency examination and report in this 
bill of the sanctity and security of that dike, with all of those lives 
that are at stake.
  Overall, all of this is so important for us. This is the greater part 
of a 20-year project of the restoration of the Everglades, the river of 
grass, which for over a half century we have messed up by diking and 
draining and sending this water of Mother Nature out to tidewater, 
instead of preserving it for what it was intended by Mother Nature--to 
keep flowing south through the Everglades and ultimately out into the 
Florida Bay.
  I am so grateful that the leadership on both sides of the aisle has 
brought this bill to the floor. It is with great joy that I will be 
voting for this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 14936]]


  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act is critically 
important for our nation because it provides our States and local 
jurisdictions with the support they need to manage their water 
resources, and improve flood and storm control damage protection.
  The Senate's passage of this legislation maintains our commitment to 
the protection of our rivers, streams and lakes.
  And it also maintains our commitment to protect our aquatic 
ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.
  I am proud that the Senate will pass a good, comprehensive bill that 
also includes key coastal restoration and hurricane projects to further 
assist the rebuilding efforts in the State of Louisiana following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  I am also very proud that my State of Vermont will receive important 
project authorizations, including restoration programs for the upper 
Connecticut River; the repair, remediation and removal of small dams 
throughout the State; and the construction of a dispersal barrier to 
protect Lake Champlain from invasive species.
  As we stand on the verge of passing the Water Resources Development 
Act, I would once again like to thank Chairman Inhofe for his 
leadership. We would not be at this point without his persistence and 
hard work.
  I would also like to thank Senators Baucus and Bond for their hard 
work in advancing this bill.
  Mr. President, it may have taken us six long years to get here, but 
the impact of this bill will be felt for decades to come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through 
conference.
  Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I had to come to the floor and speak 
briefly and thank the ranking member and the chairman for their 
extraordinary help in crafting this bill to help meet the needs of 
Louisiana's vanishing coast. This coastline just doesn't belong to 
Louisiana, it belongs to the Nation. It is America's last coastal zone, 
with millions of acres of wetlands that serve as hosts of the oil and 
gas industry and that cradle, if you will, the great Mississippi River, 
which is the greatest river system on the North American Continent. It 
provides for the extensive fisheries industry.
  This is a picture of southeast Louisiana. But if you head southwest, 
it is also host to major river systems, the Calcasieu Ship Channel, et 
cetera. This coast is threatened. This is a pretty extraordinary graph 
that we found recently, which shows the track of every major hurricane 
since 1955. The blue line is the track of Hurricane Rita, a category 4 
to 5 hurricane. Katrina is the yellow line that went through the 
eastern part of our State, and then, of course, Rita on the western 
part on the Texas-Louisiana line.
  This gulf coast is America's only energy coast. All of the oil and 
gas offshore is produced right here. Most of the refineries, platforms, 
et cetera, are beside these great wetlands. This bill is going to make 
substantial investments along this coastline to keep our river open, to 
keep our ports operating, to protect these wetlands, and to help create 
a stronger barrier.
  Obviously, we need to be doing this all over the country, this 
Atlantic coast. There is money for that as well. Of course, I am not as 
familiar with those projects. I can tell you that this WRDA bill--of 
course, my partner and colleague, Senator Vitter, is on the authorizing 
committee, and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his work.
  I wanted to say that the ecosystem project of Louisiana's coastal 
area is funded, as well as significant navigation and hurricane 
protection and wetlands restoration projects. In addition, there are 
some innovations important to America. There are some new technologies 
that will allow us to protect these areas, to build stronger levees, to 
protect this coast with better materials that cost less--way less--and 
we can stretch the dollars in this bill far more than we have been able 
to do in the past because although this is a very large bill with a $10 
billion authorization, it is not enough, as some of our colleagues have 
said.
  Mr. President, the technology--and we will soon send to the Record an 
example of the technologies--will help us to make these projects 
stretch. I thank the ranking member for his courtesy and the chairman 
for all of his help.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator 
from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise, too, in strong support of this 
WRDA bill with my Louisiana colleague and many others because of the 
enormously important work it will do for the country, including the 
State of Louisiana, particularly after the devastating hurricanes of 
Katrina and Rita.
  I, too, thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Chairman Inhofe, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, 
and Senators Bond and Baucus, and everybody who has made this very 
important bill possible, including our great staff, including Angie 
Johncarlo, Ruth VanMark, Letmon Lee, Stephen Aaron, Catharine Ransom, 
and Jo-Ellen Darcy. I thank them all for their hard and, in so many 
cases, their ongoing work.
  This bill is vitally important to the country and is vitally 
important to Louisiana, and it was before 2005. It was important before 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is 10 times more important after 
those devastating storms and in light of our continuing and increasing 
needs following those storms.
  I want to highlight some very important aspects. One is fundamental 
Corps reform, which is important, which will get done one way or 
another in this bill. Now, in terms of Corps reform, I favor the model 
of Chairman Inhofe. I also point out that I have been working, with his 
help and the help of many others, on a Louisiana water resources 
council to ensure proper oversight, vetting, review, and ongoing 
outside independent expert review of all of the projects in the 
Louisiana hurricane area.
  That concept was first embodied in a separate stand-alone bill that I 
introduced on March 15 as S. 2421. I am happy to say that through a 
managers' amendment it will be included in all substantial and major 
ways in this WRDA bill. It is very important to bring outside expertise 
to bear to review on an ongoing basis, to do that peer review for those 
projects and to integrate those projects into an overall plan for our 
Louisiana coast.
  There are other important needs that the bill meets. The 
comprehensive hurricane, flood, and coastal protection program is fully 
authorized in this bill. Immediately, it authorizes 5-year near-term 
coastal restoration projects and will exceed $1.2 billion, establishes 
a science and technology program of at least $500 million, requires 
consistency and integration in all of the programs, and makes sure they 
work together.
  Other crucial Louisiana needs addressed in the bill are hurricane 
protection for Terrebonne and Lafourche. The bill authorizes the 
Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project that has been ready 
for 3 years now. This is long overdue and it finally comes in this 
important WRDA bill, addressing the travesty of the Mississippi River 
Gulf Outlet, MRGO, fixing that environmental disaster and making sure 
that the negative impacts of it, as we saw through Katrina, never 
happen again. And other crucial needs are addressed, such as the Port 
of Iberia, Vermillion hurricane protection, east Baton Rouge, Red-
Ouachita River Basin, Atchafalaya Basin, Calcasieu River and Pass, 
Larose to Golden Meadow, Vidalia Port, and St. Charles. They are all 
directly met in this bill.
  Again, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and others on the 
committee for their leadership to meet these crucial Louisiana needs 
and certainly these crucial national needs. I strongly and fully 
support the bill.

[[Page 14937]]

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself time off of the McCain-Feingold 
prioritization amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the McCain-Feingold prioritization 
amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. As Senator McCain points 
out, it recognizes we must respond to the tragedy of Katrina and to our 
current flawed planning process by making sure that limited taxpayer 
dollars go to the most worthy water resources projects.
  That doesn't sound like a lot to ask. As we all know, our Nation is 
staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. We 
have a backlog of $58 billion in projects that are authorized but not 
built, and that number will be closer to $70 billion when this bill 
passes. Clearly, we need some way of identifying projects that are most 
needed.
  Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative 
priority of the current massive backlog of unauthorized projects, and 
we don't have any way of evaluating the relative priority of the new 
projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in 
their States or districts but no information about which projects are 
most important to the country's economic development or transportation 
systems or our ability to protect our citizens and our property from 
natural disasters.
  Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. 
The McCain amendment would make sure Congress has the tools to more 
wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public 
transparency in decisionmaking. It does so by utilizing an interagency 
task force set up in the underlying bill, the Water Resources 
Coordinating Committee, to evaluate likely Corps projects in three 
different categories: flood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem 
restoration. The committee will establish broad national priorities to 
apply to those projects.
  The amendment sets out minimum requirements that projects in each 
category have to meet, so that, for example, flood reduction projects 
must be evaluated in part whether they reduce the risk of loss of life. 
But the committee is free to consider other factors as long as it is 
clear about which factors it is considering.
  Projects in each of these project types will be placed in tiers based 
on how great a priority they represent, and this information will be 
provided to Congress and the public in a nonbinding annual report. That 
is it. Congress and the public get information to help them make 
decisions involving millions--or even billions--of dollars. Surely that 
isn't too much to ask.
  Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help 
restore credibility to a Federal agency that is plagued by public 
skepticism in the wake of Katrina. The Corps has admitted serious 
design flaws in the levees it built in New Orleans, and it is clear 
that the Corps' mistakes contributed significantly to the damage New 
Orleans suffered.
  I can tell you, when I was down in New Orleans just last week, even 
more than complaints about FEMA, I heard complaints about the Corps. 
And just as we have worked as a body to improve FEMA, we need to work 
to improve the Corps. Our constituents and the people of New Orleans 
deserve no less.
  The Corps does important work. The real problem, as the senior 
Senator from Arizona points out, that this amendment seeks to get at is 
us in Congress. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to 
facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing 
a desire to change its ways. If we want to change our ways, we can 
start by passing the McCain prioritization amendment which will help us 
make sure the Corps continues to contribute to our safety, environment, 
and economy, without wasting taxpayer dollars.
  The Inhofe-Bond so-called prioritization amendment does not 
accomplish that. In fact, that competing amendment would do nothing 
more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It would require every 
project in the $58 billion backlog to be rated. Even the Corps admits 
there are many projects in the backlog that will never be built. Some 
of the projects being deauthorized in this WRDA bill were first 
authorized in the 19th century. So why would we expend such time and 
resources evaluating projects that have no chance of being built? We 
can prioritize in a smarter, more manageable way.
  Their amendment creates an ill-defined relative rating system for 
criteria but doesn't require any final analysis or ranking. How is that 
going to help us decide where to allocate taxpayer dollars? It won't. 
The relative rating system is nothing more than a throwaway single line 
with no substance.
  What is most telling is that there is no provision to allow for the 
information to be made available to the public so they can look over 
our shoulders and make sense of whether our decisions about national 
water resource priorities make sense.
  Furthermore, their amendment, rather than using impartial criteria on 
which to weigh projects, would use criteria which would be applied 
across project types and which appear to be reverse-engineered to 
elevate inland navigation projects: for example, criteria such as 
``availability cost alternate transportation methods relating to the 
project''; ``[R]eduction of dependence on foreign oil associated with 
using water as a method of transportation of goods''; ``pollution 
reduction benefits associated with using water as a method of 
transportation of goods.''
  These criteria serve to elevate generically inland navigation 
projects at the expense of flood and storm damage reduction projects 
and environmental restoration projects.
  Obviously, I do not have an issue with inland navigation projects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment has now expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
continue under the remaining time on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I inquire as to how much 
time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amount of time combined is 10 minutes 58 
seconds under the control of Senator Inhofe and 2 minutes 41 seconds 
under the control of the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. INHOFE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Does the Senator from Vermont 
or the Senator from Oklahoma yield? Does the Senator from Vermont yield 
time?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct, I do not yield time. I just don't object 
to his using some of the time on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yields time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues.
  The Mississippi River is a critical artery for Wisconsin and national 
commerce, and many other rivers serve the same role. However, I do take 
issue with the process that uses broadly applied criteria that will 
obviously only be met by a small subset of projects at the expense of 
other valuable project types that fall within the mission area of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  Lastly, if any of my colleagues are tempted to vote for the Inhofe-
Bond alternative, I encourage them to take a close look at it. It is 
clearly designed to look more substantial than it really is because in 
a nine-page amendment, four pages are dedicated to simply reinserting 
the same language on a fiscal transparency report that the amendment 
initially deleted.
  Unfortunately, the existing inadequate, opaque funding process is 
better than the prioritization process created by the Inhofe-Bond 
amendment. A deliberately flawed and skewed prioritization system would 
be more harmful than the current ineffective one. As such, whatever 
one's position may be on the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-Feinstein 
amendment, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the Inhofe-Bond 
prioritization amendment.

[[Page 14938]]

  I certainly thank my colleagues for the additional time, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
It is my intention to yield back some time. We have some colleagues we 
want to accommodate. I think if I do that, time will also be yielded 
back from the other side.
  While I don't agree with those who tried to argue that there are 
currently no prioritization projects, I do acknowledge that we can do a 
better job. That is exactly what the Inhofe-Bond amendment will do.
  The administration has priorities right now. They can set priorities. 
It is called the budget. The administration sets its funding priorities 
through the President's budget request. For the last couple of fiscal 
years, President Bush has relied on a measure called the remaining 
benefit-remaining cost ratio.
  The Inhofe-Bond amendment requires the Corps of Engineers to provide 
critical and easy-to-understand information to Congress that can then 
be used to make tough budgetary decisions that we have to make when the 
funds are so limited.
  The amendment sets out four national priorities--I mention this 
because this contradicts something said by the Senator from Wisconsin: 
No. 1, to reduce the risk of loss of human life and risk to public 
safety; No. 2, to benefit the national economy; No. 3, to protect and 
enhance the environment; and No. 4, to promote the national defense.
  Let me just say in closing that no one can vote either for their 
amendment or against our amendment saying that one of them is going to 
be spending more money or there is pork. It is a wash. They are both 
the same. Voting for the Inhofe-Bond amendment is not going to reduce 
the amount of money that is going to be spent on projects or voting for 
the other amendment is not going to do that, either. Not one of these 
is a large spending bill or a small spending bill. I would like to get 
that out of the way.
  Our amendment sets out our national goals. The Corps is directed to 
develop a relative ranking system to report how well each project meets 
these four priorities.
  I really think enough has been said on this issue. I am prepared at 
this point, if the other side is, to yield back and accommodate some of 
our colleagues. I do so at this time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I commend my partner for the 
cooperation we have had on this bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4684, the McCain 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 19, nays 80, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--19

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

                                NAYS--80

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4683

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                        Removal of Marine Camels

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a colloquy 
with the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Inhofe, and the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, pertaining to a 
provision that would clarify that funds from the Department of Defense 
account for environmental remediation at formerly used Defense sites 
may be used for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly 
used Defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
  First, perhaps for those who are not familiar with marine and naval 
terminology, it would be useful to point out that a ``marine camel'' is 
nothing more

[[Page 14939]]

than a large timber fender. These wooden fenders, or bumpers, are of 
the type that have been used since the days of sail to cushion a ship 
as it lays alongside a pier, or to act as a buffer between two or more 
ships when they are tied up alongside each other, either at a pier, a 
mooring, or at anchor. The purpose of the camel is to prevent damage to 
a ship or a pier that would otherwise occur when a ship rocks against a 
pier or against another ship due to shifting tides, currents, wakes 
from passing ships, and so forth.
  The problem this provision seeks to solve is that over the many years 
these marine camels have been in use at naval facilities, marine 
terminals, and moorings controlled and operated by the Department of 
Defense, they have been lost, sunk, or otherwise have become hazardous 
debris, often containing hazardous substances, in the waters and on the 
shores of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay.
  The purpose of this colloquy is to establish that the provision that 
has been included in the Water Resources Development Act is not an 
expansion of existing authority. This provision is clear that use of 
Department of Defense funds is linked to formerly used Defense sites 
that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. 
Therefore, this provision clarifies but does not expand the authority 
or responsibility of the Department of Defense to undertake 
environmental restoration.
  Mr. INHOFE. My colleague on both the Armed Services and Environment 
and Public Works Committees is correct. This Water Resources 
Development Act provision is simply to clarify existing authority. The 
other bill managers and I were informed that there was some confusion 
as to whether funds from the Department of Defense environmental 
remediation account for formerly used Defense sites could be used to 
remove abandoned marine camels located in the waters of formerly used 
Defense sites in Narragansett Bay. It was our intent to clarify that 
the Department could in fact use these funds to remove debris linked to 
a formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land 
and into the water. Of course, any debris in the water not linked to a 
formerly used Defense site could not be cleaned up using funds from 
this account, and I believe the language in the bill reflects that 
distinction.
  Mr. WARNER. Further, it is also my understanding and I wish to make 
clear as part of our discussion that this provision is not intended to 
give a priority to clean up sites in Narragansett Bay over other 
formerly used Defense sites that present a greater risk to public 
health and safety.
  The Department of Defense establishes the priority for cleanup of 
formerly used Defense sites on the basis of risk to the public. The 
Senate Armed Services Committee has long supported the Department's 
policy of prioritizing environmental cleanup based on risk. We stand 
committed to that principle today. I ask my distinguished colleague to 
confirm that he shares my understanding on these fundamental points.
  Mr. INHOFE. Again, I agree completely with my colleague. There is 
absolutely no intent to change the Department's current policy of 
prioritization through this provision. Those sites presenting the 
greatest risk to the public should be cleaned up first. This provision 
is silent with regard to where on that priority list sites in 
Narragansett Bay may fall.
  Mr. WARNER. With that understanding, I support this provision and I 
believe it may be helpful in ensuring that this cleanup in the 
Narragansett Bay takes place, as it should.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for including this 
provision in the Water Resources Development Act. More than 100 
abandoned camels litter Narragansett Bay, creating a safety hazard for 
boaters and divers and contaminating the bay's water with creosote, 
which has been listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as a 
probable human carcinogen. Camels were commonly used as fendering 
systems at the Newport Navy Base, the Quonset Point Naval Air Station 
carrier pier, Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center, and the 
Melville Fuel Depot. As my colleagues from Virginia and Oklahoma 
pointed out, this language clarifies that funding from the formerly 
used Defense sites' account could be used to remove abandoned marine 
camels located in the waters of formerly used Defense sites in 
Narragansett Bay, including removal of debris that is linked to a 
formerly used Defense site even if that debris has drifted off land and 
into the water. The ecological health and water quality of Narragansett 
Bay is vital to the economy of Rhode Island, and I believe that this 
language will aid in the cleanup of this precious natural resource.


                        Aquatic Nuisance Species

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


               Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

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


                              Section 2019

  Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that section 2019 of the WRDA bill before us 
has some problems with how we have attempted to deal with balancing the 
needs of municipal water suppliers and hydroelectric power generation. 
Complicating the issue is how CBO has scored our proposals to achieve 
balance. I fully intend to resolve this issue and do not intend to 
preempt existing statutory authorities that govern the Corps' ability 
to reallocate storage and provide municipal and industrial water 
supply. I ask my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, to 
accept my assurances that I will work towards a compromise that treats 
all parties fairly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague for his efforts on these difficult 
issues

[[Page 14940]]

and appreciate his consideration of the importance of hydroelectric 
generation to the nation's power supply. I also appreciate his working 
with me to ensure that this has no unintended impact on existing 
authorities that govern the Corps' ability to reallocate storage. I 
look forward to working with the senior Senator from Oklahoma on these 
issues.


               Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Senator Feingold, as you know, the legislation 
establishing the Everglades Restoration Comprehensive Plan creates a 
permanent, independent peer review panel with extensive 
responsibilities for reviewing the Everglades restoration plan in 
detail. The Corps of Engineers has contracted with the National Academy 
of Sciences to establish that panel, and it has been working 
productively for years, issuing a number of major reports. Would this 
legislation create duplication with that panel?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Senator Nelson, I am familiar with the excellent peer 
review system that has been established for the comprehensive 
Everglades project. In many ways, that peer review system is a model 
for this amendment. There is nothing in this amendment that would keep 
the Director of Independent Peer Review from determining that the 
Everglades peer review is the functional equivalent of the peer review 
or substitute for the peer review required by this amendment and 
satisfies this requirement. In many ways, the Everglades peer review 
goes beyond that required by this amendment, and works smoothly with 
the requirements of this amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I appreciate and agree with your understanding 
of this amendment. I fully support the view that expensive 
controversial Corps of Engineers projects should be subject to 
independent peer review. In case there is any possible need for 
clarification of this issue, would the Senator from Wisconsin be 
willing to work with me during the conference on this bill?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Absolutely.


                        POPLAR ISLAND EXPANSION

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman in a colloquy with respect to the provisions in section 
1001(a)(20), authorizing the Poplar Island Expansion, Maryland.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I would simply like to clarify that it is the intent of 
the committee that this provision authorizes construction of a 575-acre 
addition to the existing 1,140-acre Poplar Island, MD, beneficial use 
of dredged material project which is presently under construction and 
authorizes an additional $256.1 million for that expansion.
  Mr. INHOFE. The Senator from Maryland is correct. Section 1001(a)(20) 
authorizes the Secretary to construct the expansion of the Poplar 
Island, MD, project in accordance with the Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at an additional total cost of 
$256,100,000. This will increase the overall environmental restoration 
project at Poplar Island from 1,140 acres to approximately 1,715 acres 
and bring the total cost of the existing project and the expansion 
project to $643.4 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $482.4 
million and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161 million.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I concur that this is the committee's intent.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman and ranking member for this 
clarification and for including this provision which is vitally 
important for the Port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 728, 
the bill to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA.
  I want to join my colleagues in expressing my sincere appreciation to 
Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking 
Member Jeffords, and to Senator Bond, who chairs the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Baucus, who serves as 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee. I also want to commend their 
dedicated staff for their hard work and consideration on this important 
legislation. The leaders in our committee and their staff have 
literally worked for years to bring this bill to the floor for 
consideration, and they deserve credit for their patience and 
perseverance.
  I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond for the New 
Jersey project authorizations they have included in this bill. As do 
other States, New Jersey depends on the Army Corps to carry out 
projects that are vital to our economy. This bill contains 
authorizations for three important projects in New Jersey. The first is 
a South River storm damage and ecosystem restoration project. The 
second is a Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project at Union Beach which 
will address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach 
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. The third is a 
Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets project to address hurricane and storm 
damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
project.
  The bill also contains a contingent authorization for a Great Egg 
Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project for hurricane and storm damage 
reduction and periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
project. I also appreciate the bill managers' willingness to accept my 
language on the shore protection demonstration program. This program 
will help us learn how to nourish our shore in smarter and cheaper 
ways.
  While I supported the Feingold-McCain amendment regarding independent 
peer review, I hope this won't be construed to take anything away from 
the underlying bill or the hard work of its managers. The underlying 
bill is one that I am pleased to support, and I will vote for its final 
passage.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I want to express my support of S. 728, the 
Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2006. S. 728 authorizes the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study water resource problems, 
undertake construction projects, and make major modifications to 
existing projects. It has been 5 years since the last WRDA was enacted 
into law and I thank my colleague, the Senior Senator from Missouri, 
for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that must be passed to address our 
Nation's critical navigation, flood control, and environmental 
restoration needs.
  I am a cosponsor of S. 728 because I recognize the need to authorize 
essential flood control, shore protection, dam safety, storm damage 
reduction, and environmental restoration projects. These projects 
carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protect communities 
across the country from destruction caused by severe weather and 
flooding, and also promote protection and restoration of our Nation's 
ecosystems. In addition, the legislation establishes standards that 
balance the safety and interest of the public with the economic and 
environmental feasibility of projects.
  I am pleased that provisions from S. 2735, the Dam Safety Act of 
2006, which I introduced with Senator Bond, are included in the 
managers' amendment to S. 728. This will advance dam safety in the 
United States and prevent loss of life and property damage from dam 
failures at both the Federal and State programmatic levels. 
Specifically, the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program 
Act will provide much needed assistance to State dam safety programs 
that regulate 95 percent of the 80,000 dams in the United States. Of 
the approximately $13 million authorized annually through 2011, $8 
million will be divided among the States to improve safety programs and 
$2 million will be dedicated for research to identify more effective 
techniques to assess, construct, and monitor dams. In addition, 
$700,000 will be available for training assistance for State engineers, 
$1 million for the employment of new staff and personnel for Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and $1 million for the National Inventory 
of Dams.
  An additional provision that mirrors S. 2444, the National Dam Safety 
Program Act, which I introduced with Senator Inouye, is included in S. 
728. This authorizes appropriations of $25 million for small dam 
removals and dam rehabilitation projects. Although the

[[Page 14941]]

amount included in S. 728 is not as large as in S. 2444, this is still 
an important first step in ensuring the safety of the public. I will 
continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that both public and 
private dams receive the maintenance they need.
  The cost of failing to maintain our Nation's dam infrastructure is 
extremely high. There have been at least 29 dam failures in the United 
States during the past 2 years causing more than $200 million in 
property damage. In my home State in March, the Ka Loko Dam, a 116-year 
earthen dam, on the island of Kauai breached during heavy rains killing 
seven people. This tragic event serves as an important reminder of the 
responsibility held by the State and local governments, but also of the 
leadership role of the Federal Government in supplementing State 
resources and developing national guidelines for dam safety.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 728. Again, I 
express my appreciation to my colleagues Senators Bond, Inhofe, 
Jeffords, Feingold, Boxer, Specter and McCain for their leadership in 
bringing this bill to the floor. This bill is essential in improving 
economic growth, safety, and the quality of life of all Americans.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act. First, let me commend my colleague from 
across the Mississippi River, Senator Bond, for his efforts in bringing 
this bill to the floor. I was pleased to support his efforts in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and to be an original cosponsor 
of this bill.
  Last year, Senator Bond and I worked together on a letter, signed by 
40 of our colleagues, saying it was time for this bill to be considered 
on the floor of the Senate. When we were told that 40 was not enough, 
that we needed 60 signatures, we came back and got 81.
  That was 7 months ago, and I am pleased that the Senate is now on the 
verge of passing this bill because this is an important bill both to my 
State of Illinois and to the entire country. It authorizes and revises 
the policies and practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 
waterway navigation, including the construction of locks and dams, the 
construction of levees and wetlands restoration to promote flood 
control, and other ecosystem and environmental mitigation activities.
  For two decades, Congress has enacted revisions and updates to WRDA 
roughly every 2 years. It is now been 6 years since the last WRDA bill 
and, in light of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
last year, this bill is long overdue.
  Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a report 
card of the Nation's infrastructure and gave a D-minus to our navigable 
waterways. More than 50 percent of our lock and dam systems in the 
United States are functionally obsolete, and that figure will rise to 
80 percent in the next 10 years.
  Now, if you are not from a farm State, you might not understand why 
navigable waterways are important to all of us. But a major component 
of the cost of farm commodities is the cost of transportation. That 
affects both the price of food that we buy in grocery stores and the 
price of homegrown fuels that fuel our cars. If U.S. agriculture is to 
remain competitive in the worldwide market during the 21st century, we 
need to improve our transportation infrastructure.
  Countries such as Brazil and China understand the importance of 
efficient commerce for their farmers and have made significant 
investments in improvements. Unfortunately, American farmers still rely 
on pre-World War II-era infrastructure when transporting their goods to 
market. When we talk about the responsibility of Congress and the U.S. 
Government to create jobs and economic development, upgrading these 
locks and dams is part of that responsibility.
  This bill provides $1.8 billion for lock and dam upgrades along these 
waterways to replace transportation infrastructure almost 70 years old. 
This is an important provision to Illinois farmers and to everyone 
around the world who uses the products that we grow in Illinois.
  The bill also provides an unprecedented $1.6 billion in Federal funds 
for ecosystem restoration along the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers to 
improve fish and wildlife habitat as well as land and water management.
  Finally, there is a small, but important, provision to authorize 
continued funding for the electric barriers that prevent the Asian carp 
from entering into the Great Lakes. The Asian carp is an invasive 
species with a voracious appetite that, if left unchecked, would 
disrupt the natural ecosystem in the Great Lakes and crowd out the 
native fish. Senator Voinovich and I were able to get a temporary fix 
put into the supplemental appropriations bill, but we need a more 
permanent guarantee of funding, and WRDA will provide just that.
  I will also take a minute to discuss the subject of reforming the 
Army Corps of Engineers. Serious questions have been raised as to how 
the Corps develops its calculations and analyses for projects. I 
believe that subjecting some projects to an independent review process 
is necessary to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the most 
effective manner.
  In closing, I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for 
their leadership, and I thank the EPW Committee staff for their fine 
efforts in preparing this bill. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill and 
urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, our Nation's waterways, harbors, and 
ports are vital to our economic prosperity, the safety of those who 
navigate our waters, and to our quality of life. It is estimated that 
one out of every five jobs in the United States is dependent, to some 
extent, on commercial activities handled by our ports and harbors. In 
many instances, ship and barge transport is the safest, cheapest, and 
cleanest transportation mode. Likewise, our waterways provide critical 
habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities for boaters, 
and contribute to the health and well-being of millions of people 
through their diversity, beauty, history, and natural environment. This 
legislation authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake 
water resource projects of great importance to our Nation's and our 
states' economy and maritime industry, public safety and to our 
environment.
  I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of 
provisions for which I have fought to help ensure the future health of 
the Port of Baltimore, the Chesapeake Bay, and Maryland's waterfront 
communities. With more than 4,000 miles of shoreline around the 
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, 126 miles of deepwater shipping 
channels leading to the Port of Baltimore, some 70 small navigation 
projects critical to commercial and recreational fisherman and to local 
and regional economies, Maryland is a State which relies heavily on the 
navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration programs of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years, I and other members 
of the Maryland congressional delegation have worked hard to maintain 
and improve the Federal channel system--serving the Port of Baltimore 
and other communities throughout Maryland, to address the severe 
shoreline erosion problems on Maryland's Atlantic Coast, and to bring 
the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise to bear in the restoration of 
the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's rivers and streams. While other ports 
are just now beginning to deepen their channels to 45 or 50 feet, we 
succeeded in deepening the port's main shipping channel to 50 feet 16 
years ago making navigation safer, easier, and cheaper for ships using 
the channel and assuring that the route can handle the deep draft bulk 
cargo carriers in use today.
  We recently completed two critical safety improvements to the Port's 
channel system--the straightening of the Tolchester ``S'' turn and the 
widening and deepening of the Brewerton channel eastern extension--as 
well as some long-needed improvements to Baltimore harbor's anchorages 
and branch channels. We constructed a hurricane protection project at 
Ocean City, MD to help protect the citizens

[[Page 14942]]

and the billions of dollars in public and private infrastructure in the 
area and restored the beach at the north end of Assateague Island 
National Seashore. We also completed numerous environmental restoration 
projects throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed from Jennings Randolph 
Lake in western Maryland to the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration 
Project--the largest and most environmentally significant island 
habitat restoration project ever undertaken in the Chesapeake Bay. 
These projects would not have taken place without the authorities and 
funding provided in previous Water Resources Development Acts. The 
measure before us will enable several, much-needed water resource 
infrastructure projects in Maryland to move forward.
  First, the bill authorizes a 50-percent expansion of the Poplar 
Island environmental restoration project, to provide additional dredged 
material capacity for the Port of Baltimore and additional habitat for 
the Chesapeake Bay's wildlife. Initially authorized by section 537 of 
the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 1996, the Poplar Island 
project has proved to be a tremendous success and a model for the 
Nation on how to dispose of dredged material.
  Instead of the traditional practice of treating the dredged material 
as a waste and dumping it overboard, we are putting approximately 40 
million cubic yards of clean dredged material from the shipping 
channels leading to the Port of Baltimore into a productive use, 
restoring 1,140 acres of remote island habitat in the Chesapeake Bay, 
creating a haven for fish and wildlife, and helping reduce sediment 
degradation of the Bay's water quality. This represents a win-win 
situation for two of Maryland's most important assets--the Port of 
Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay.
  Last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed two studies--a 
Baltimore Harbor and Channels Dredged Material Plan, DMMP, and an 
integrated General Reevaluation Report, GRR/Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement, SEIS, on the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration 
Project--which identified a critical need for new dredged material 
placement capacity for the Port of Baltimore by 2009 in order to meet 
Federal and State of Maryland requirements and recommended the 
expansion of Poplar Island as a preferred alternatives for addressing 
the dredged material capacity gap in an economically and 
environmentally sound manner. A subsequent Chief's Report submitted to 
Congress on March 31, 2006, recommended a 575-acre expansion of the 
existing Poplar Island and the raising of the island's existing upland 
cells to add approximately 28 million cubic yards of dredged material 
placement capacity and extend the project life by approximately 7 
years. This measure authorizes the expansion of the existing Poplar 
Island project as recommended in the Chief's Report. It authorizes 
$256.1 million for the expansion project, bringing the total cost of 
the existing project and the expansion project to $643.4 million, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $482.4 million and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $161 million. The Poplar Island environmental 
restoration project has been a top priority of mine, of the Maryland 
Port Administration and of the shipping and environmental communities 
for many years, and I am delighted that this legislation will enable us 
to move forward with the expansion of this project.
  Second, the bill contains three additional provisions authorizing a 
total of nearly $100 million which are critical to our continuing 
efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. It reauthorizes and expands a 
program that we established in section 510 of WRDA 1996 known as the 
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program, 
raising the authorized funding from the current level of $10 million to 
$30 million. It increases the funding for Chesapeake Bay native oyster 
restoration to $50 million--a $20 million increase over current levels. 
And it authorizes the Smith Island ecosystem restoration project to 
reverse the tremendous loss of wetlands and submerged aquatic 
vegetation around Smith Island, MD.
  In 1984, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a comprehensive 
study--the first such study ever undertaken--of the present and future 
uses and problems of Chesapeake Bay's water and related land resources. 
Since then the Corps has undertaken or participated in a variety of 
projects to help restore the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and living 
resources, including sewage treatment plant upgrades, making beneficial 
use of dredged materials, removing impediments to fish passage, 
mitigating the impacts of shoreline erosion, and restoring wetlands, 
habitat and oyster reefs. But despite these efforts, the Chesapeake 
Bay's health continues to languish.
  To restore the integrity of the ecosystem and to meet the goals 
established in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, nutrient and sediment 
loads must be significantly reduced, oyster populations must be 
increased, SAV and wetlands must be protected and restored, and 
remaining blockages to fish passage must be removed, among other 
actions. As the lead Federal agency in water resource management, the 
Corps has a vital role to play in this endeavor, and the programs 
authorized in this measure will enable the Corps to continue to 
participate in this effort. The funding increase provided for the 
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program will 
allow the Corps to expand design and construction assistance to State 
and local authorities for a variety of environmental restoration 
projects in the bay. The additional funds provided for native oyster 
restoration will help support the Chesapeake 2000's goal of increasing 
oyster populations by tenfold by the year 2010. And the new authority 
to construct the Smith Island environmental restoration projects will 
help stem the alarming loss of SAV and wetlands along the coastline of 
Martin National Wildlife Refuge and Smith Island, protecting 
approximately 720 acres and restoring about 1,400 acres of valuable 
habitat.
  Third, the measure provides the funding necessary to complete the C&O 
Canal rewatering project in Cumberland, MD. In 1952 a 1.2-mile section 
of the historic C&O Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland terminus 
was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of the 
Cumberland, MD, and Ridgely, WV, flood protection project. The National 
Park Service and State and local authorities have long sought to 
rebuild and rewater the C&O Canal in this area to restore the integrity 
of the historic canal and assist in revitalizing the area as a major 
hub for tourism and environmentally sound economic development. The 
Corps investigated the feasibility of reconstructing and rewatering the 
turning basin and canal near its terminus and determined that it is 
feasible to rewater the canal successfully without compromising the 
flood protection for the city of Cumberland.
  Subsequently, Senator Mikulski and I secured a provision in WRDA 1999 
authorizing the Corps to construct this project at a then-estimated 
total project cost of $15 million. Those estimates were based on a 50-
percent design document completed in 1998. Since that time, the 
estimated cost of the project has increased due, in large part, to the 
finding of archeological objects and petroleum in the canal turning 
basin and prism as well as design refinements. The provisions included 
in this bill increase the authorized funding level for the project from 
$15 million to $25.75 million and will ensure that the full 1.2-mile 
section of canal and turning basin are completed.
  Fourth, the bill contains provisions to facilitate the restoration of 
the Anacostia River, one of the most degraded rivers in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed and in the Nation.
  Through a cooperative and coordinated Federal, State, local, and 
private effort, significant progress has been made over the past decade 
to restore the Anacostia watershed. Today there are more than 60 local, 
State, and Federal agencies involved in Anacostia watershed restoration 
efforts, and more than $100 million in Federal, State, and local funds 
have been invested in this

[[Page 14943]]

endeavor. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has played a key role in 
improving tidal waterflow through the marsh, reducing the concentration 
of nitrogen and phosphorus, and restoring wetlands, but the job of 
restoring the Anacostia watershed is far from complete. The provisions 
in this legislation require the Secretary of the Army, in coordination 
with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, 
the county executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, 
MD, and other stakeholders, to develop and make available to the public 
a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and 
protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its 
tributaries.
  I wish to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the committee and 
the subcommittee, Senators Inhofe and Bond, and the ranking members, 
Senators Jeffords and Baucus, for including these provisions and for 
their work on this legislation. This legislation is long overdue, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are finally 
going to conclude the Water Resources Development Act. My hope is that 
the conference with the House can be completed before the Congress 
recesses in early October. This is a good bill, providing for flood 
control, improvements to navigation, and considerable improvements to 
the environment. The bill also provides some real improvements to the 
way the Corps works.
  I am very pleased that the bill includes improvements for navigation 
and environmental improvements for the Upper Mississippi River. It 
includes five expanded locks, a number of long-overdue efficiency 
improvements, and a major boost to the Corps of Engineers' 
environmental programs. I was pleased to work with Senator Bond to 
develop this important and very balanced proposal. The unfortunate 
thing is that our Upper Mississippi lock and dam measure was first 
introduced in 2004 and then made a part of the Senate WRDA bill that 
year. But we are only now getting a chance to move it to the Senate 
floor.
  I have been deeply involved with navigation because of its importance 
to farmers in Iowa and across the upper Midwest. River transportation 
is critical to keeping commodity costs low enough to remain 
competitive.
  When shipping on the river is constrained, costs rise. When that 
happens, prices for moving bulk farm commodities by alternative means, 
mainly rail, go up as well. These price differentials seem relatively 
small compared to the total price, but they make a huge difference in 
farm income.
  Clearly, river traffic on the Mississippi is incredibly important to 
producers in my State and elsewhere in the upper Midwest. As a result 
of traffic congestion on the Mississippi, producers face longer 
shipping times, which are very costly. Clearly, traffic management and 
helper boats to push long barges through crowded locks will be very 
helpful, and this bill will help that happen. In the long run, though, 
that won't be enough. It is incredibly important that we address ways 
to modernize a number of the locks on the upper Mississippi.
  And we face substantial improvements from our competitors in their 
transportation capabilities, particularly in Brazil. I visited there a 
few years ago and saw firsthand how Brazil was rapidly moving to 
improve its Amazon River facilities. In contrast, we are sitting with 
60-year-old locks that raise our costs.
  I would also note that moving goods like corn down to the Gulf by 
river instead of by rail, and building material up from the Gulf in the 
same manner means considerable saving in fuel both lowering costs and 
air pollution.
  Existing law requires exhaustive analysis of future river use levels 
decades into the future. The studies required for such predictions are, 
by their nature, highly speculative at best. While many have been 
critical of the methods of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps 
is essential to our ability to compete, to ensure that we keep the 
arteries and veins of America's river transportation system in smooth 
running order. We must remain competitive. We cannot wait any longer to 
authorize construction for 1,200-foot locks so barge tows can move 
through the upper Mississippi and Illinois without being split.
  Of course, navigation needs cannot be our sole concern. Over the 
years, I have heard time and time again from constituents and national 
leaders concerned about the environment, about the need to maintain a 
balance among navigation, flood control and the environment. Habitat 
for many species--indeed, the Mississippi River ecosystem as a whole--
has deteriorated since the construction of the original lock system in 
the 1930's.
  The Mississippi River is home to a wide variety of fish and birds, as 
well as other wildlife. These animals and abundant plant life are 
important to the character and life of the Mississippi River. 
Approximately, 40 percent of North America's waterfowl and shorebirds 
use the Mississippi Flyway.
  Parts of the Upper Mississippi River may serve as the most important 
area for migrating diving ducks in the United States. And the 
Mississippi River serves as habitat for breeding and wintering birds, 
including the bald eagle.
  We are all aware of the problems that have plagued the Corps' actions 
on the Mississippi River. However, the Corps has pledged and is putting 
a much stronger emphasis on environmental protection. We need to work 
with the Corps to ensure that all updates and renovations of the locks 
and dams are done with the utmost care for the environment and the 
wildlife that depends on the Mississippi River habitat.
  In addition to that mitigation, we need to give the Corps the 
authorization and the funding it needs to accomplish real ecosystem 
restoration, and not just make up for the lost habitat of specific 
identified species. The legislation we are proposing does just that.
  This is going to be a challenge in these difficult budget times, but 
not to do so would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. We need to be 
thinking both of the long-term economic health of our agricultural 
producers and shippers, in tandem with the long-term health of the 
diverse ecosystems on the river.
  I would like to note that I am pleased that bill authorizes 
improvements to the Des Moines flood control system. Des Moines 
suffered major flooding in 1993 and clearly needs the improvements to 
reduce the chance of flooding in the future.
  I believe the legislation we are proposing strikes the correct 
balance. I urge our colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Presient, I thank Chairman Inhofe and Senator 
Jeffords and both of their staffs for their tireless effort writing 
this bill. It has not been an easy bill to write due to the many 
competing demands on water resources as well as interests regarding 
Corps reform.
  Traditionally, Congress passes WRDA every 2 years, ensuring that the 
Corps of Engineers can stay current in studying the most pressing water 
resource problems, constructing projects, and modifying existing 
projects to meet various needs across the country.
  We have been waiting 6 long years for a bill to reauthorize 
navigation, ecosystem restoration, fish and wildlife conservation, and 
flood and storm damage reduction projects all over the country.
  Today, I am pleased to see this bill on the floor of the Senate, a 
measure that is the product of bipartisan negotiations and has the 
support of 80 Senators.
  I strongly support this legislation.
  Most significant to my home State of Illinois is the bill's 
authorization of navigation improvements and restoration of the 
ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. 
This project will increase lock capacity and improve the ecosystem of 
both the Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois River.
  Specifically, this bill authorizes improvements to Locks 12, 14, 18, 
20, 22, and 24 on the Mississippi River. It also authorizes the 
construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24,

[[Page 14944]]

and 25 on the Mississippi River and at the LaGrange and Peoria Locks on 
the Illinois River. Many of the locks on the rivers were built nearly 
70 years ago and are in desperate need of an overhaul. Inland waterway 
shipping relies on the successful operation of these locks. Frequent 
delays caused by the antiquated lock system increase shipping costs, 
which hurts American farmers.
  Updating these locks is critical for industry and agriculture in the 
Midwest and in my home State of Illinois. Every year, the river moves 
$12 billion worth of products. It moves 1 billion bushels of grain--
about 60 percent of all grain exports--to ports around the world. More 
than half of Illinois' annual corn crop and 75 percent of all U.S. 
soybean exports travel via the Upper Mississippi/Illinois River system. 
Shipping via barge keeps exports competitive and reduces transportation 
costs. That is good for producers and consumers. In addition, increased 
barge shipping displaces shipments by rail and truck, which lowers 
transportation costs for all businesses nationwide.
  There are significant cost savings and environmental benefits to 
updating these locks as well. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost 
of trucks and 40 percent of the cost of rail traffic. They also emit 
much less carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, and use 
less fuel to transport the equivalent tonnage of products.
  It is estimated that the construction of the 7 locks will create 48 
million man-hours of jobs and provide 3,000 to 6,000 jobs per year, 
including many high-paying manufacturing jobs. Currently, in the Upper 
Mississippi River Basin alone, more than 400,000 jobs are connected to 
the river. This includes 90,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs.
  In addition, this project manages to balance the navigation needs of 
commercial shippers on our inland waterways with ecosystem restoration. 
Quite simply, this project authorizes the most ambitious ecosystem 
restoration project in the history of the Corps of Engineers. At a time 
when many believe this waterway is losing its habitats and eco-
diversity, this $1.65 billion ecosystem restoration project is an 
important step toward fostering wildlife and natural habitats along the 
inland waterway system.
  This restoration project will restore over 100,000 acres of habitat 
and create new recreational opportunities and additional jobs in the 
area.
  Ecosystem restoration projects that are authorized in this bill 
include flood plain restoration, island building, construction of fish 
passages, island and shoreline protection and tributary confluence 
restoration, among others. When this project was developed, I worked 
diligently to ensure that the natural ecosystem of the Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers received the same attention as the navigational needs 
of the area.
  I also thank the managers of this bill for the inclusion of a project 
that is critically important to Illinois as well as the entire Great 
Lakes region--the authorization to make permanent the Chicago Sanitary 
and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier system. This project is critical to 
protecting the Great Lakes from the Asian Carp, an invasive species now 
found in the Mississippi River. Asian carp can grow to 4 feet, weigh 60 
pounds, and are capable of consuming up to 40 percent of their body 
weight in plankton per day. While the Mississippi River and the Great 
Lakes were once separate water systems, the construction of the Chicago 
Sanitary and Ship Canal connected these two water bodies. Today, the 
Asian carp threatens a $4.1 billion sport and commercial fishing 
industry in the Great Lakes. Permanent operation of the barrier system 
to prevent the Asian carp from entering the waters of the Great Lakes 
is critical to the protection of this valuable ecosystem. I appreciate 
the inclusion of language in this bill that recognizes the threat of 
the Asian carp and the need to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem from 
this invasive species.
  Finally, we must recognize that Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call; 
one that requires us in Congress to take those steps that ensure we 
don't witness another Katrina-type disaster caused by a failure of 
engineering, analysis or any other failure of oversight. We must ensure 
that projects meant to protect the public wellbeing do just that. This 
bill is critically important to the agricultural interests in my State. 
I will encourage the advancement of this bill through Congress and am 
committed to seeing that it is sent to the President.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when a bill like this one comes to the 
floor, especially after 6 years, there are so many people to thank. 
First, I want to thank the support of my principal cosponsor, the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who has worked with me since the 
108th Congress.
  I know he shares my view that future Corps projects should no longer 
fail to produce predicted benefits, should stop costing the taxpayers 
more than the Corps estimated, should not have unanticipated 
environmental impacts, and should be built in an environmentally 
compatible way.
  He saw the importance of ensuring that the Corps does a better job, 
which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. He and his 
staffer, Becky Jensen, deserve commendation.
  I am particularly grateful for the help and support of the chairman 
of the committee, Mr. Inhofe. He directed his staff to work closely 
with mine, and Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Steven Aaron did so 
ably, and I thank them, and the majority staff director, Andy Wheeler.
  I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support of 
another former EPW chairman, the former Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. 
Smith. It was he who brought conservative groups and taxpayer groups to 
the table on these issues, honored my request for a hearing in 2002 
along with then-Ranking Member Baucus, and I am deeply grateful.
  I want to thank our current esteemed and retiring ranking member, the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. This may be the committee's last 
major bill this Congress, and he is to be commended for his leadership.
  He and I have spoken personally about my interests in improving the 
Corps, and I am grateful for his support.
  Several of the minority staff of the committee have been working on 
the issues I am raising in my amendments since my first independent 
review amendment on the 2000 WRDA bill. At the time, Jo-Ellen Darcy 
worked on the committee for the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who 
was then the ranking member, and she has followed my interest in these 
issues for Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and now Senator Jeffords.
  I also want to acknowledge the help and support of several others on 
the minority staff, Catharine Ransom, Alison Taylor, Ken Connolly, and 
Mary Frances Repko, who worked for me until 2003, and provided 
invaluable help to me with my first Corps reform bill in the 107th 
Congress and the WRDA amendment that preceded it.
  I also have a long history working with the Senator from Missouri, 
Mr. Bond, on Corps issues. I appreciate the effort that he, and his 
staffers, Brian Klippenstein and Letmon Lee, have made to improve the 
Corps' performance.
  Our work together goes back to 1999. The reauthorization of the 
Environmental Management Program in the Upper Mississippi was the only 
permanent authorization in WRDA 99. Included in the final EMP 
provisions was a requirement that Senator Bond and I developed to have 
the Corps create an independent technical advisory committee to review 
EMP projects, monitoring plans, and habitat and natural resource needs 
assessments. Our work helped to cement the Environment Committee's 
commitment to secure outside technical advice in Corps habitat 
restoration programs, like the EMP.
  The amendments I offered to the WRDA bill are widely supported in the 
environmental and taxpayer community, and several individuals have 
worked hard for this day, including Chelsea Maxwell, former staffer to 
the retired Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and now with 
National Wildlife Federation, Adam Kolton, David Conrad and Tim Eder 
with National Wildlife Federation, Joan

[[Page 14945]]

Mulhern with Earth Justice, Melissa Samet with American Rivers, Steve 
Ellis and Jill Lancelot with Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tim 
Searchinger with Environmental Defense, and Pete Sepp and Kristina 
Rasmussen with the National Taxpayers Union.
  Finally, I want to thank my own staff. My staffer, Jessica Maher, has 
worked tirelessly on this legislation. She has talked to countless 
offices and constituents, and has worked to address their concerns and 
questions with grace and good humor, as has Mike Schmidt, another 
member of my staff. I am deeply grateful to Jess and to her 
predecessor, Heather White.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, while we are nearing completion of this 
bill, I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the 
projects in the bill for my State of Vermont.
  Throughout our work on this bill, I have worked to find a way to use 
the Army Corps of Engineers' expertise in a series of ``Vermont style'' 
projects. I believe we have succeeded.
  This bill would provide $67 million in new authorities for the State 
of Vermont. Vermonters identified four major priorities for the Corps 
during my discussions with them: keep Vermont projects in the Vermont 
style, continue ongoing Lake Champlain efforts, address Connecticut 
River issues, and find a way to repair or eliminate the thousands of 
small dams throughout the State creating flood hazards and causing 
ecosystem damage. This bill addresses each of these areas.
  First, during our discussion on the WRDA bill, I advocated strongly 
for an increase in the authorization for small ecosystem restoration 
projects like those in Vermont. In this bill, we increase that program 
from $25 million to $50 million, allowing smaller, Vermont-scale 
projects to move forward.
  Second, we have continued our ongoing support of the Lake Champlain 
program, authorized in WRDA 2000, by adding $2 million in authority for 
geographic mapping and $10 million for streambank stabilization 
projects to protect water quality. We also authorize a study of the 
Lake Champlain Canal dispersal barrier to help prevent invasive species 
from entering the lake.
  Third, this bill includes major changes for the Connecticut River. We 
authorize $30 million for modifications to existing Corps dams on the 
Connecticut River to regulate flow and temperature to mitigate impacts 
on aquatic habitat and fisheries. The bill also includes a $20 million 
authorization for ecosystem restoration on the Upper Connecticut River 
and $5 million for a wetlands restoration partnership.
  Finally, the WRDA bill includes both nationwide and Vermont-specific 
programs for small dam remediation, removal, and rehabilitation. I 
authored a continuing authority for small dams that allows $25 million 
to be used for small dam removal or rehabilitation. I joined my 
colleagues, Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as a cosponsor of this 
provision as a stand-alone bill, S. 1887. In addition, the existing 
Vermont dams remediation authority is expanded to allow for measures to 
restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by one of the dams 
included in the program.
  When I first took over as chairman of this Committee in 2001, I 
started working with the State of Vermont to identify how we could get 
the Corps more involved in Vermont. At first blush, this seemed 
counterintuitive to me, and to many Vermonters. After all, early on in 
my career as the States attorney general, I led efforts to derail 
several major flood control dams proposed by the Corps for the Moose 
River, White River, and Saxtons River.
  Did we really want to open the door again? At the time, my answer 
was, and still remains, a guarded yes.
  In my opening statement when WRDA reached the Senate floor on 
Tuesday, I referenced some of the reforms contained in the underlying 
bill as well as some of the amendments proposed by Senator Feingold 
that will further improve the Corps. However, over the last 30 years, 
the Corps has made much progress. Ecosystem restoration is a defined 
mission area. Continuing authorities programs allow small-scale 
projects, like the ones usually found in Vermont, to proceed without 
the excessive bureaucracy that smallest States tend to dread.
  Beginning in 2003, I held a series of annual workshops with the New 
England and the New York districts, the State of Vermont, and local 
stakeholders at multiple locations in Vermont. The first year we were 
in Bennington, Norwich, and Barrer, and the second year we were in 
Norwich and Burlington.
  The projects included in this bill for Vermont are a direct result of 
those workshops, and I thank everyone who helped make them possible. 
Specifically, I thank LTC Brian Green, Acting New England District 
Commander; John Kennelly, Chief of Planning, and Bobby Byrne, Chief of 
Programs and Civil Project Management with the New England District.
  With the New York District, I thank COL John O'Dowd, the former 
District Commander; COL Richard Polo, the current District Commander; 
Gene Brickman, Deputy Chief of the Planning Division; Paul Tumminello, 
the Waterbury Dam Project Manager; and Jason Shea, the Lake Champlain 
Basin Program Coordinator.
  In addition, from the North Atlantic Division, BG Bo Temple, the 
former Division Commander; Joseph Vietri, the Planning Director; and 
Stuart Piken, the former Project Management Chief at Division and the 
current New York District Deputy District Engineer for Project 
Management.
  Finally, I thank Rob Vining, formerly with Army Corps Headquarters.
  Mr. President, I especially thank my colleagues on the EPW Committee, 
particularly Senators Baucus, Bond, and Inhofe, for working with me on 
these critical priorities, and I look forward to the enactment of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2006.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank you for having this important 
debate regarding our Nation's aging infrastructure and for allowing 
this body to discuss the merits of Corps of Engineers reform.
  As you know, I supported allowing this bill to come to the Senate 
floor for consideration. Congress has not passed a water resources 
authorization bill since 2000, and particularly in the wake of 
Hurricane Katrina, this debate is long overdue. While many attempted to 
derail consideration of this debate, I did not because I believed that 
we must have this discussion in the open.
  That being said, I have deep concerns regarding the legislation that 
is before us today. Specifically, I am concerned that we are missing a 
historic opportunity to incorporate the many lessons learned since the 
last WRDA bill passed in 2000. Consider the following developments that 
highlight the critical need for reform of the Corps of Engineers:

       The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 
     March 2006 that ``the cost benefit analyses performed by the 
     Corps to support decisions on Civil Works projects . . . were 
     generally inadequate to provide a reasonable basis for 
     deciding whether to proceed with the project . . .'' GAO-06-
     529T--Corps of Engineers: Observations on Planning and 
     Project Management Processes for the Civil Works Program 
     (March 15, 2006)
       In remarking on the fact that the Corps reprogrammed over 
     $2.1 billion through 7,000 reprogramming actions in fiscal 
     years 2003 and 2004, the GAO noted that the Corps' practice 
     was often ``not necessary'' and is ``reflect[ive] of poor 
     planning and an absence of Corps-wide priorities for its 
     Civil Works priorities.'' GAO-06-529T--Corps of Engineers: 
     Observations on Planning and Project Management Processes for 
     the Civil Works Program (March 15, 2006)
       In a report to Congress in 2003 regarding the Sacramento 
     flood protection project, the GAO found that the Corps used 
     ``an inappropriate methodology to calculate the value of 
     protected properties'' and failed to properly report expected 
     cost increases. Consider the projected costs for the three 
     primary Sacramento projects: the Common Features Project 
     increased from $57 million in 1996 to $370 million in 2002; 
     the American Features project increased from $44 million in 
     1996 to $143 million in 2002; and the Natomis Basin component 
     has ballooned from an early estimated cost of $13 million, to 
     $212 million in 2002. GAO-04-30--Corps of Engineers: Improved 
     Analysis of Costs & Benefits Needed for the Sacramento Flood 
     Control Project.
       Thanks to a Corps whistleblower and a subsequent 
     investigation by the Army inspector

[[Page 14946]]

     general, we know that the Corps: ``manipulated the economic 
     analyses of the feasibility study being conducted on the 
     Upper Mississippi lock expansion project in order to steer 
     the study to a specific outcome.'' Furthermore, the 
     investigation revealed that a Corps official knowingly 
     directed that ``mathematically flawed'' data be used to 
     justify the project. High-ranking Corps officials also were 
     criticized for giving ``preferential treatment to the barge 
     industry . . .'' by allowing industry representatives to 
     become direct participants in the economic analysis.'' U.S. 
     Office of Special Counsel: Statement of Elaine Kaplan. 
     Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (December 
     2000).

  I could add several more examples, including the many lessons we have 
learned in the wake of Katrina, but my point is clear: the processes 
used for project justification, for long-term planning, for cost 
containment, and for project accountability are fundamentally flawed 
and do not serve the best interests of American taxpayers. For too 
long, we have allowed project costs to soar, routinely accepted 
inaccurate studies to justify large projects, and rarely, if ever, 
asked the tough questions of Corps officials.
  Congress plays a central role in the oversight of all Federal 
agencies, and with respect to the Corps, we have failed taxpayers 
miserably. Why? Perhaps a better question would be to ask who benefits 
most from lax congressional oversight. I would argue that Members 
themselves are the real winners. We get the projects we want, 
regardless of the cost or the overall impact on critical national 
infrastructure, and the Corps is allowed to operate as it pleases. This 
environment--with every incentive for construction and little or no 
incentive for accountability--is a recipe for disasters of all sorts.
  The only way to fix this problem in the long term is to bring fiscal 
transparency and oversight to this process.
  First and foremost, we have to develop our ability to prioritize 
authorized Corps projects. The Corps currently faces a $58 billion 
dollar project backlog that will take many decades to resolve, and this 
bill will add over $10 billion more to that backlog. Many worthwhile 
projects, already debated and authorized by previous Congresses, 
languish in the annual competition for appropriations. Taking their 
place in line are politically popular projects that rarely address 
vital national infrastructure needs. Again, we are failing taxpayers.
  I am pleased to see the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators 
Feingold and McCain, that will squarely address this lack of 
prioritization. The tools that will be provided by this amendment will 
strengthen the ability of Members of Congress to analyze the hundreds 
of authorized Corps projects and determine which are in the best 
interests of our Nation. Congress maintains its discretion to fund 
whichever projects it deems most appropriate, but we will do so with an 
abundance of new data that will highlight critical national 
infrastructural needs. Funds are increasingly limited, and we have a 
responsibility to prioritize projects based on their impact.
  Second, in our efforts to improve this important process, Congress 
must consider ways to bring greater oversight to the Corps. The many 
instances of wrongdoing in the Corps project justification process make 
clear that we must do better. With billions of dollars at stake and 
often thousands of lives hanging in the balance, we simply cannot allow 
for manipulation and undue influence in the justification study 
process.
  Again, I am pleased to see the efforts of Senators McCain and 
Feingold in addressing this void. The Corps has proven itself incapable 
of mending these problems on its own, and nowhere is this more apparent 
than in the project justification process. It is imperative that 
outside experts, with no stake in large-scale construction proposals, 
be allowed to review these types of Corps studies. While I may have 
designed the amendment in a slightly different manner, I look forward 
to supporting the McCain-Feingold approach that will allow for a truly 
independent and time-sensitive review by a panel of experts. At the end 
of the day, Congress still makes the final decision on which projects 
to fund, and in no way will this amendment impact our constitutional 
obligations or slow project construction. We can still fund wasteful 
and inefficient spending if we so desire. If we pass this amendment, at 
least we will ensure that the studies we cite are accurate. We owe that 
to the American public.
  I am grateful to my colleagues for the countless hours they have 
spent in putting this bill together. I know the road that led to this 
debate today was not an easy one, and it has been a long and difficult 
journey. As we embark on this debate and in our legitimate desire to 
pass this legislation, however, we must not overlook the critical need 
for Corps reform. The many lessons we have learned since WRDA 2000 are 
as numerous as they are pressing. The Corps of Engineers is staffed by 
many dedicated and hard-working Americans, many of whom are in my 
State. The agency itself, however, is ailing and demands our attention. 
If the Corps is to continue to meet the mandate it has been given and 
serve the needs of the American taxpayer, we must not move forward 
without the incorporation of new oversight and transparency.
  America's waterways and flood control projects have played an 
important role in protecting our communities and in spurring 
agricultural and industrial commerce. Unless we can reform the Corps, 
though, their impact will increasingly diminish. As it stands today, 
the Corps is not accountable to Congress, and ultimately, it is not 
accountable to the American taxpayer. We have a historic opportunity to 
change this environment, and we must seize it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment 
No. 4684, the McCain-Feingold-Prioritization amendment, to the Water 
Resources Development Act.
  The city of New Orleans has been under a constant threat of flooding 
from the ``big one'' ever since it was founded in 1718. Though the city 
has survived, its flood control defenses have been tested and 
occasionally overwhelmed. There was the great flood of 1927 when the 
Mississippi River spilled into the city, and there was Hurricane Betsy 
in 1965, which, according to Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, 
``picked up ... [Lake Pontchartrain] and put it inside New Orleans and 
Jefferson Parish.''
  In the same year that Betsy inundated the city, Congress authorized a 
hurricane protection project to protect the city. That project was 
supposed to take 13 years, cost $85 million, and, according to the Army 
Corps, protect greater New Orleans from the equivalent of a fast-moving 
category 3 hurricane.
  In the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's 
investigation into the preparation for and response to Hurricane 
Katrina, our committee learned that that project was still a decade or 
more away from completion--close to 50 years after this body authorized 
its construction--and the total cost of the project had ballooned to 
more than $750 million. In addition, the project did not provide the 
level of protection for New Orleans and the region that it was expected 
to provide.
  There were many reasons for the delay, including natural ones such as 
the subsidence of the land in southeastern Louisiana. Building levees 
in this part of the country required the Army Corps to return time and 
time again to add additional layers to the levees, known as lifts, to 
accommodate for the sinking soils.
  But there were also manmade reasons for the delay, such as the 
absence of Federal funding. In recent years, local Army Corps officials 
have had to scramble to move these Louisiana hurricane protection 
projects forward. Local Army Corps officials had to urge local levee 
boards to contact their congressional delegation to ask for financial 
help to restore levees to their original design height, and on two 
recent occasions, the Army Corps had to rely on the local levee 
districts, which share in the cost of these projects, to advance them 
money so they could continue construction of segments of the hurricane 
protection system.

[[Page 14947]]

  As the Corps of Engineers' own Interagency Performance Evaluation 
Taskforce, or IPET, investigators observed, if one part of the levee 
system comes up short, it can compromise the entire protection system. 
Yet this levee system, which was supposed to be protecting one of 
America's most vulnerable cities, was never finished, and as a result, 
when Katrina hit last August, dire consequences ensued.
  We learned from Katrina that there is a need to focus limited Federal 
resources on finishing flood control projects that are critical to our 
Nation's health, safety, and welfare. The Army Corps' current process 
to do this is inadequate. As the GAO testified before the House in 
March, ``The Corps' planning and project management processes cannot 
ensure that national priorities are appropriately established across 
the hundreds of civil works projects that are competing for scarce 
federal resources.''
  The McCain-Feingold amendment on prioritization, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, will address this problem by requiring the Water Resources 
Planning Coordinating Committee, which the underlying WRDA Bill already 
establishes for other purposes to evaluate the importance of Corps 
projects in three different categories--storm damage reduction 
projects, navigation projects, and environmental restoration projects. 
The amendment also requires the committee to rank projects in each 
category so that Congress, and the Corps itself, can determine what 
projects are the most important to pursue and most worthy of funding. 
The Coordinating Committee will then submit its report to Congress and 
make the report available to the public.
  With that information, Congress can make better decisions about how 
to spend scarce Federal resources on critical infrastructure projects 
across the country. We have to learn from Katrina and we should never 
again allow a project that is so critical to the very livelihood of so 
many to languish because we did not give it the priority it deserved.
  I know many of my colleagues are concerned that this amendment will 
remove authority from individual Members about how to spend Army Corps 
dollars. I understand that concern, but the reality is that the Corps 
has more work to do than funding to do it. This WRDA bill will add 
another $10 to $12 billion in Army Corps projects on top of the 
estimated $58 billion in backlogged Army Corps projects that are 
authorized but not yet funded. Without some system of prioritizing 
projects, as this amendment would require, we run the risk of another 
Katrina-like situation where critical projects are not given the 
priority they deserve. On the other hand, by requiring the Corps to 
prioritize projects in each category--flood control, navigation, and 
environmental restoration--we can ensure that there is a balance among 
the types of projects that are funded and that the most important and 
cost-effective projects in each category get the attention they 
deserve.
  Water resources projects are important to each and every State, but 
we need to heed the lessons of Katrina and make sure that we spend our 
tax dollars where they are most needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have been advised by both sides a voice 
vote would suffice on this measure. Many Members want to be recorded, 
but if we all speak loudly we can do that without going through the 
time of a rollcall vote.
  I suggest to my colleague from Vermont, if his side is happy with it, 
we accept a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2864; all after the enacting 
clause is stricken, and the text of S. 728, as amended, is inserted in 
lieu thereof, and the bill is read the third time.
  The question is, Shall it pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2864), as amended, was passed as follows:

                               H.R. 2864

         Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 2864) entitled ``An Act to provide for the conservation 
     and development of water and related resources, to authorize 
     the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem 
              restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and 
              Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Provisions

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

              Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

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

               Subtitle C--National Levee Safety Program

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

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
Sec. 3004. Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 
              and Oklahoma.
Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 3011. CALFED Levee stability program, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.

[[Page 14948]]

Sec. 3013. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, 
              California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Sec. 3018. Redwood City navigation project, California.
Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San 
              Francisco, California.
Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.
Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, 
              Connecticut.
Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3028. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. 3029. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 3030. Designation of Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge, 
              Delaware.
Sec. 3031. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades 
              restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida 
              ecosystem restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, 
              comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3039. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3040. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 3041. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. 3042. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3043. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 3044. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 3046. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects 
              reconstruction pilot program.
Sec. 3047. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 3049. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas.
Sec. 3050. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
              and West Virginia.
Sec. 3051. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3053. Regional visitor center, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3054. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3055. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 3056. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3057. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3059. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3060. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
              program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 3061. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 3062. Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3063. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 3064. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3065. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3066. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3067. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project, Mississippi and 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3068. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 3069. L-15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3070. Union Lake, Missouri.
Sec. 3071. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 3072. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.
Sec. 3073. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
Sec. 3074. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.
Sec. 3075. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
Sec. 3076. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and 
              Connecticut.
Sec. 3077. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3078. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
Sec. 3079. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
Sec. 3080. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
Sec. 3081. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
Sec. 3082. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3083. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3084. Release of retained rights, interests, and reservations, 
              Oklahoma.
Sec. 3085. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3086. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3087. Lookout Point project, Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 3088. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 3089. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3090. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 3091. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
Sec. 3092. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal 
              at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Sec. 3093. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 3094. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 3095. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 3096. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Sec. 3097. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. 3098. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
Sec. 3099. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
Sec. 3100. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3101. Denison, Texas.
Sec. 3102. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.
Sec. 3105. Dam remediation, Vermont.
Sec. 3106. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other 
              nonnative plant control, Vermont.
Sec. 3107. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont 
              and New Hampshire.
Sec. 3108. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont 
              and New Hampshire.
Sec. 3109. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 3110. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.
Sec. 3114. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, 
              Washington and Idaho.
Sec. 3115. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
Sec. 3116. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington.
Sec. 3117. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 3118. McDowell County, West Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Green Bay Harbor project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3120. Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project, Milwaukee 
              County, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3121. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3122. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3123. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive 
              Site.
Sec. 3124. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
Sec. 3125. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management 
              program.
Sec. 3126. Upper basin of Missouri River.
Sec. 3127. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 3128. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 3129. Great Lakes tributary models.
Sec. 3130. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System new 
              technology pilot program.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

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

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, 
              Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

[[Page 14949]]

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

                   TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

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

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, the following projects for water 
     resources development and conservation and other purposes are 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
     in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     described in the respective reports designated in this 
     section:
       (1) Haines harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of $13,700,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $10,960,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $2,740,000.
       (2) Rillito river (el rio antiguo), pima county, arizona.--
     The project for ecosystem restoration, Rillito River (El Rio 
     Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $75,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $48,400,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $26,800,000.
       (3) Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona.--The 
     project for ecosystem restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima 
     County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 
     28, 2006, at a total cost of $94,400,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $61,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $33,200,000.
       (4) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $5,706,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,706,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.
       (5) Salt river (va shlyay akimel), maricopa county, 
     arizona.--
       (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $156,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,600,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $55,100,000.
       (B) Coordination with federal reclamation projects.--The 
     Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall 
     coordinate the development and construction of the project 
     described in subparagraph (A) with each Federal reclamation 
     project located in the Salt River Basin to address statutory 
     requirements and the operations of those projects.
       (6) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, 
     California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
     22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $17,600,000.
       (7) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm 
     damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $13,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,800,000, and at an 
     estimated total cost of $41,100,000 for periodic beach 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $20,550,000.
       (8) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River 
     Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $139,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $86,700,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $52,900,000.
       (9) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Middle 
     Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $43,630,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,460,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,170,000.
       (10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Napa River Salt Marsh, California, at a total cost of 
     $103,012,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,600,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,412,000, to be 
     carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
     the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the 
     final report signed by the Chief of Engineers on December 22, 
     2004.
       (B) Administration.--In carrying out the project authorized 
     by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
       (i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the 
     Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant to the project; and
       (ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
       (C) Transfer of ownership.--On completion of salinity 
     reduction in the project area, the Secretary shall transfer 
     ownership of the pipeline to the non-Federal interest at the 
     fully depreciated value of the pipeline, less--
       (i) the non-Federal cost-share contributed under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) the estimated value of the water to be provided as 
     needed for maintenance of habitat values in the project area 
     throughout the life of the project.
       (11) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte 
     River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $21,050,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,370,000.
       (12) Indian river lagoon, south florida.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the project 
     for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and 
     protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon, south 
     Florida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated 
     first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated first 
     non-Federal cost of $682,500,000, in accordance with section 
     601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated August 6, 2004.
       (B) Deauthorizations.--As of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the following projects are not authorized:

[[Page 14950]]

       (i) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, at a total 
     cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.
       (ii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
     483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida, modifications to 
     Central and South Florida Project, as contained in Senate 
     Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of 
     $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.
       (iii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
     483; 82 Stat. 740), East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin 
     County, Spillway Structure S-311 of the Central and South 
     Florida Project, as contained in House Document 369, 90th 
     Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $21,994,000.
       (13) Miami harbor, miami, florida.--The project for 
     navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,130,000.
       (14) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $362,260,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $181,130,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $181,130,000.
       (15) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and 
     Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $201,600,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $130,600,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $71,000,000.
       (16) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $17,760,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,540,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,220,000.
       (17) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon 
     Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,500,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $6,800,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,700,000.
       (18) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $9,500,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (19) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 
     2003, at a total cost of $841,100,000 with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $294,800,000.
       (B) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma 
     Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway floodgate features that provide for inland waterway 
     transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in 
     accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99-662).
       (20) Poplar island expansion, maryland.--The project for 
     the beneficial use of dredged material at Poplar Island, 
     Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776), and modified by 
     section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2678), is further modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a 
     total cost of $256,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $192,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $64,000,000.
       (21) Smith island, maryland.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of 
     $14,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000.
       (22) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at 
     a total cost of $16,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $10,990,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $5,910,000.
       (23) Manasquan to barnegat inlets, new jersey.--The project 
     for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to 
     Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $70,340,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $45,720,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $24,620,000, and at an estimated total 
     cost of $117,100,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $58,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $58,550,000.
       (24) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new 
     jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 
     Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 
     2006, at a total cost of $112,640,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $73,220,600 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $39,420,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,400,000 
     for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,300,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $4,100,000.
       (25) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, South 
     River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $120,810,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $78,530,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $42,280,000.
       (26) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, 
     Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $15,600,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $8,400,000.
       (27) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total 
     cost of $14,070,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $7,035,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.
       (28) Bloomsburg, pennsylvania.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of 
     $43,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,150,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,150,000.
       (29) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation and ecosystem 
     restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel 
     Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $100,300,000.
       (B) Navigational servitude.--In carrying out the project 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce 
     navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, 
     including, at the sole expense of the owner of the facility, 
     the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the 
     project.
       (30) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port 
     o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas.--The project for 
     navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 
     O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (31) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos 
     river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost 
     of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are 
     to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general 
     fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (32) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $27,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $11,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,010,000.
       (33) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep 
     Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.
       (34) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Washington, authorized 
     by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4126)--
       (A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost of 
     $121,100,000, with a Federal cost of $73,220,000, and a non-
     Federal cost of $47,880,000; and
       (B) shall be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
     accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated September 27, 2004.
       (b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of 
     the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is 
     completed not later than December 31, 2006:
       (1) Wood river levee system, illinois.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Wood River, Illinois, authorized by 
     the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is 
     modified to authorize construction of the project at a total 
     cost of $16,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,830,000.
       (2) Licking river, cynthiana, kentucky.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky, 
     at a total cost of $17,800,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $11,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $6,230,000.

[[Page 14951]]

       (3) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation, 
     Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total cost of $204,600,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $129,700,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $74,900,000, except that the 
     Secretary, in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia 
     Parishes, Louisiana, is directed to use available dredged 
     material and rock placement on the south bank of the Gulf 
     Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of the Freshwater 
     Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm surge protection.
       (4) Hudson-raritan estuary, liberty state park, new 
     jersey.--The project for ecosystem restoration, Hudson-
     Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey, at a total 
     cost of $33,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $21,480,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,570,000.
       (5) Jamaica bay, marine park and plumb beach, queens and 
     brooklyn, new york.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total 
     estimated cost of $204,159,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $132,703,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $71,456,000.
       (6) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, 
     Ohio, at a total cost of $18,730,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $12,170,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $6,560,000.
       (7) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South 
     Carolina, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $4,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,940,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 
     for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,632,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $13,568,000.
       (8) Craney island eastward expansion, virginia.--The 
     project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, 
     Virginia, at a total cost of $671,340,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $26,220,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $645,120,000.

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

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

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

       (iii) Savings clause.--Nothing in this paragraph affects 
     the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
       (iv) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding 
     section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5(b)), for any project carried out under this section, 
     a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with 
     the consent of the affected local government.
       (D) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an 
     interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 
     willing owner through conveyance of--
       (i) fee title to the land; or
       (ii) a flood plain conservation easement.
       (3) Ecosystem restoration preconstruction engineering and 
     design.--
       (A) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction 
     of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 
     specific performance measures designed to demonstrate 
     ecosystem restoration;
       (ii) establish the without-project condition or baseline 
     for each performance indicator; and
       (iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem 
     restoration, identify specific target goals for each 
     performance indicator.
       (B) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise specific measurable 
     environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, 
     hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the 
     population and distribution of which are representative of 
     the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic 
     and terrestrial species.
       (C) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as 
     part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 
     for the performance measures identified under subparagraph 
     (A)(i), including--
       (i) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
       (ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project 
     completion.
       (4) Specific projects authorization.--
       (A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $1,650,000,000, of which not more 
     than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described 
     in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more than $43,000,000 shall 
     be available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (B) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), not more than $35,000,000 
     for each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition 
     under paragraph (2)(D).
       (C) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects 
     described in clauses (ii) and (x) of paragraph (2)(B), the 
     total cost of any single project carried out under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (5) Implementation reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 5 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives an implementation report that--

[[Page 14952]]

       (i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 
     for ecosystem restoration projects; and
       (ii) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
       (B) Advisory panel.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an 
     advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the 
     development of each implementation report under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (ii) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for 
     ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
       (b) Priorities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
       (A) any portion of the program identified in the report 
     described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration 
     feature;
       (B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
       (i) protects a major population area of the Pontchartain, 
     Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and
       (ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area 
     of the State of Louisiana; and
       (C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project 
     that--
       (i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River 
     diversion project; and
       (ii) protects a major population area.
       (c) Modifications.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to make 
     modifications as necessary to the 5 near-term critical 
     ecosystem restoration features identified in the report 
     referred to in subsection (a), due to the impact of 
     Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the project areas.
       (2) Integration.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     modifications under paragraph (1) are fully integrated with 
     the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection 
     authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 
     2247).
       (3) Construction.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to construct 
     the projects modified under this subsection.
       (B) Reports.--
       (i) In general.--Before beginning construction of the 
     projects, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any 
     modifications to the 5 near-term projects, including cost 
     changes, to the Louisiana Water Resources Council established 
     by subsection (n)(1) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Council'') for approval.
       (ii) Submission to congress.--On approval of a report under 
     clause (i), the Council shall submit the report to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (4) Applicability of other provisions.--Section 902 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) 
     shall not apply to the 5 near-term projects authorized by 
     this section.
       (d) Demonstration Program.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to conduct a 
     demonstration program within the applicable project area to 
     evaluate new technologies and the applicability of the 
     technologies to the program.
       (2) Cost limitation.--The cost of an individual project 
     under this subsection shall be not more than $25,000,000.
       (e) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to use such sums 
     as are necessary to conduct a program for the beneficial use 
     of dredged material.
       (2) Consideration.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the beneficial 
     use of sediment from the Illinois River System for wetlands 
     restoration in wetlands-depleted watersheds.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress feasibility reports on the 
     features included in table 3 of the report referred to in 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Projects identified in reports.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit the reports 
     described in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) Construction.--The Secretary shall be authorized to 
     construct the projects identified in the reports at the time 
     the Committees referred to in subparagraph (A) each adopt a 
     resolution approving the project.
       (g) Nongovernmental Organizations.--A nongovernmental 
     organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion 
     of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this 
     section.
       (h) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Governor of the State of Louisiana, shall--
       (A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, and 
     restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
       (B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, submit to Congress 
     the plan, or an update of the plan; and
       (C) ensure that the plan is fully integrated with the 
     analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection 
     authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 
     2247).
       (2) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a 
     description of--
       (A) the framework of a long-term program that provides for 
     the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration 
     of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-
     Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related 
     land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, 
     including protection of a critical resource, habitat, or 
     infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a 
     hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;
       (B) the means by which a new technology, or an improved 
     technique, can be integrated into the program under 
     subsection (a);
       (C) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in 
     carrying out the program under subsection (a); and
       (D) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by 
     which success of the comprehensive plan shall be measured.
       (3) Consideration.--In developing the comprehensive plan, 
     the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating 
     into the program under subsection (a)--
       (A) a related Federal or State project carried out on the 
     date on which the plan is developed;
       (B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; or
       (C) any other project or activity identified in--
       (i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
       (ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
       (iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
       (iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast 
     2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
       (i) Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be 
     known as the ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and 
     Restoration Task Force'' (referred to in this subsection as 
     the ``Task Force'').
       (2) Membership.--The Task Force shall consist of the 
     following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal 
     agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an 
     equivalent level):
       (A) The Secretary.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (C) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (F) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (G) The Secretary of Energy.
       (H) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana appointed 
     by the Governor of that State.
       (3) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to 
     the Secretary regarding--
       (A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and 
     activities for addressing conservation, protection, 
     restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem;
       (B) financial participation by each agency represented on 
     the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and 
     maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including 
     recommendations--

[[Page 14953]]

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

     SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       The Secretary--
       (1) shall conduct a study for flood damage reduction, Cache 
     River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas; and
       (2) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

     SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

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

     SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may

[[Page 14954]]

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

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Provisions

     SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

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

     SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS.

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

     SEC. 2004. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

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

     SEC. 2005. PLANNING.

       (a) Matters To Be Addressed in Planning.--Section 904 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Enhancing'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Enhancing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed 
     after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
       ``(1) the water resource project and each separable element 
     is cost-effective; and

[[Page 14955]]

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

     SEC. 2006. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING COORDINATING COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a Water 
     Resources Planning Coordinating Committee (referred to in 
     this subsection as the ``Coordinating Committee'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Coordinating Committee shall be 
     composed of the following members (or a designee of the 
     member):
       (A) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (B) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (C) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (D) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (E) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (F) The Secretary of Energy.
       (G) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (H) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (I) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (J) The Chairperson of the Council on Environmental 
     Quality.
       (2) Chairperson and executive director.--The President 
     shall appoint--
       (A) 1 member of the Coordinating Committee to serve as 
     Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee for a term of 2 
     years; and
       (B) an Executive Director to supervise the activities of 
     the Coordinating Committee.
       (3) Function.--The function of the Coordinating Committee 
     shall be to carry out the duties and responsibilities set 
     forth under this section.
       (c) National Water Resources Planning and Modernization 
     Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that all water 
     resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers 
     shall--
       (1) reflect national priorities;
       (2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains;
       (3) minimize vulnerabilities in any case in which a 
     floodplain must be used;
       (4) protect and restore the functions of natural systems; 
     and
       (5) mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural systems.
       (d) Water Resource Priorities Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Coordinating Committee, in 
     collaboration with the Secretary, shall submit to the 
     President and Congress a report describing the vulnerability 
     of the United States to damage from flooding and related 
     storm damage, including--
       (A) the risk to human life;
       (B) the risk to property; and
       (C) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the 
     United States.
       (2) Inclusions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) an assessment of the extent to which programs in the 
     United States relating to flooding address flood risk 
     reduction priorities;
       (B) the extent to which those programs may be 
     unintentionally encouraging development and economic activity 
     in floodprone areas;
       (C) recommendations for improving those programs with 
     respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and
       (D) proposals for implementing the recommendations.
       (e) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary and the Coordinating Committee shall, in 
     collaboration with each other, review and propose updates and 
     revisions to modernize the planning principles and 
     guidelines, regulations, and circulars by which the Corps of 
     Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects. In carrying 
     out the review, the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary 
     shall consult with the National Academy of Sciences for 
     recommendations regarding updating planning documents.
       (2) Proposed revisions.--In conducting a review under 
     paragraph (1), the Coordinating Committee and the Secretary 
     shall consider revisions to improve water resources project 
     planning through, among other things--
       (A) requiring the use of modern economic principles and 
     analytical techniques, credible schedules for project 
     construction, and current discount rates as used by other 
     Federal agencies;
       (B) eliminating biases and disincentives to providing 
     projects to low-income communities, including fully 
     accounting for the prevention of loss of life under section 
     904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2281);
       (C) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage 
     the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources 
     development and management, and fully accounting for the 
     flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
       (D) promoting environmental restoration projects that 
     reestablish natural processes;
       (E) assessing and evaluating the impacts of a project in 
     the context of other projects within a region or watershed;
       (F) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent 
     studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters 
     such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of 
     1993;
       (G) encouraging wetlands conservation; and
       (H) ensuring the effective implementation of the policies 
     of this Act.
       (3) Public participation.--The Coordinating Committee and 
     the Secretary shall solicit public and expert comments 
     regarding any revision proposed under paragraph (2).
       (4) Revision of planning guidance.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which a review under paragraph (1) is completed, the 
     Secretary, after providing notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5, 
     and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the ``Administrative Procedure Act''), shall implement 
     such proposed updates and revisions to the planning

[[Page 14956]]

     principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the 
     Corps of Engineers under paragraph (2) as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (B) Effect.--Effective beginning on the date on which the 
     Secretary implements the first update or revision under 
     paragraph (1), subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17) 
     shall not apply to the Corps of Engineers.
       (5) Report.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations 
     of the Senate, and to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, a report describing any revision of planning 
     guidance under paragraph (4).
       (B) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the report 
     under subparagraph (A) in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

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

[[Page 14957]]

     on a publicly available schedule determined by the Director 
     of Independent Review for the purposes of assuring the public 
     safety. The Director of Independent Review shall ensure that 
     these reviews be carried out in a way to protect the public 
     health, safety, and welfare, while not causing unnecessary 
     delays in construction activities.
       (4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a 
     written report from an independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) take into consideration recommendations contained in 
     the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations 
     not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation 
     available to the public on the Internet; and
       (B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (e) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of 
     experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a 
     Federal expense and shall not exceed--
       (A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary, at the written request of the 
     Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost 
     limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the implementation of this section.
       (g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Secretary to cause 
     or conduct a peer review of the engineering, scientific, or 
     technical basis of any water resources project in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2008. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

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

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

       ``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions in 
     cases in which monitoring demonstrates that mitigation 
     measures are not achieving ecological success in accordance 
     with criteria under clause (ii).
       ``(4) Determination of success.--
       ``(A) In general.--A mitigation plan under this subsection 
     shall be considered to be successful at the time at which the 
     criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved under the 
     plan, as determined by monitoring under paragraph (3)(B)(i).
       ``(B) Consultation.--In determining whether a mitigation 
     plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall consult annually with appropriate Federal agencies and 
     each State in which the applicable project is located on at 
     least the following:
       ``(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as of the 
     date on which the report is submitted.
       ``(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 
     ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan.
       ``(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that success.
       ``(iv) Any recommendations for improving the likelihood of 
     success.
       ``(C) Reporting.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     completion of the annual consultation, the Federal agencies 
     consulted shall, and each State in which the project is 
     located may, submit to the Secretary a report that describes 
     the results of the consultation described in (B).
       ``(D) Action by secretary.--The Secretary shall respond in 
     writing to the substance and recommendations contained in 
     each report under subparagraph (C) by not later than 30 days 
     after the date of receipt of the report.
       ``(5) Monitoring.--Mitigation monitoring shall continue 
     until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met 
     the ecological success criteria.''.
       (d) Status Report.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the submission of the 
     President to Congress of the request of the President for 
     appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing the status of 
     construction of projects that require mitigation under 
     section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2283) and the status of that mitigation.
       (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
     status of--
       (A) all projects that are under construction as of the date 
     of the report;
       (B) all projects for which the President requests funding 
     for the next fiscal year; and
       (C) all projects that have completed construction, but have 
     not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
       (e) Mitigation Tracking System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources 
     project undertaken by the Secretary and for each permit 
     issued under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
       (A) the quantity and type of wetland and any other habitat 
     type affected by the project, project operation, or permitted 
     activity;
       (B) the quantity and type of mitigation measures required 
     with respect to the project, project operation, or permitted 
     activity;
       (C) the quantity and type of mitigation measures that have 
     been completed with respect to the project, project 
     operation, or permitted activity; and
       (D) the status of monitoring of the mitigation measures 
     carried out with respect to the project, project operation, 
     or permitted activity.
       (2) Requirements.--The recordkeeping system under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) include information relating to the impacts and 
     mitigation measures relating to projects described in 
     paragraph (1) that occur after November 17, 1986; and
       (B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application, 
     and zip code.
       (3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make 
     information contained in the recordkeeping system available 
     to the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 2009. STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     ``SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

       ``(a) Federal-State Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency 
     or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
     Federal expense, technical assistance to the agency or non-
     Federal interest in managing water resources.
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
     paragraph may include provision and integration of 
     hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';

[[Page 14958]]

       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``this section'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``up to \1/2\ of 
     the'' and inserting ``the'';
       (5) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``(c) There is'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A)), 
     by striking ``the provisions of this section except that not 
     more than $500,000 shall be expended in any one year in any 
     one State.'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1).''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and State 
     agencies to provide assistance to rural and small 
     communities.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on 
     performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall list in the annual civil works budget 
     submitted to Congress the individual activities proposed for 
     funding under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 2010. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 2012. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

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

     ``SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

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

     SEC. 2013. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

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

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

       ``(a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and 
     Protection Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out construction 
     of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects 
     not specifically

[[Page 14959]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2014. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

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

     SEC. 2015. COST SHARING FOR MONITORING.

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

     SEC. 2016. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 2018. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a 
     program to allow electronic submission of permit applications 
     for permits under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Limitations.--This section does not preclude the 
     submission of a hard copy, as required.

[[Page 14960]]

       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

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

       (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance, 
     by the Corps of Engineers, of reservoirs in operation as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry 
     out the measures described in subsection (c) to support the 
     water resource needs of project sponsors and any affected 
     State, local, or tribal government for authorized project 
     purposes.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     measures described in subsection (c) in cooperation and 
     coordination with project sponsors and any affected State, 
     local, or tribal government.
       (c) Measures.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) conduct a study to identify unused, underused, or 
     additional water storage capacity at reservoirs;
       (2) review an operational plan and identify any change to 
     maximize an authorized project purpose to improve water 
     storage capacity and enhance efficiency of releases and 
     withdrawal of water;
       (3) improve and update data, data collection, and 
     forecasting models to maximize an authorized project purpose 
     and improve water storage capacity and delivery to water 
     users; and
       (4) conduct a sediment study and implement any sediment 
     management or removal measure.
       (d) Revenues for Special Cases.--
       (1) Costs of water supply storage.--In the case of a 
     reservoir operated or maintained by the Corps of Engineers on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the storage charge for a 
     future contract or contract renewal for the first cost of 
     water supply storage at the reservoir shall be the lesser of 
     the estimated cost of purposes foregone, replacement costs, 
     or the updated cost of storage.
       (2) Reallocation.--In the case of a water supply that is 
     reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or 
     industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the 
     reservoir shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of 
     project purposes.
       (3) Credit for affected project purposes.--In the case of a 
     reallocation that adversely affects hydropower generation, 
     the Secretary shall defer to the Administrator of the 
     respective Power Marketing Administration to calculate the 
     impact of such a reallocation on the rates for hydroelectric 
     power.

     SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.

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

     SEC. 2021. EXTRAORDINARY RAINFALL EVENTS.

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

     SEC. 2022. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

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

     SEC. 2023. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS SPONSORS.

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

     SEC. 2024. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.

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

     SEC. 2025. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.

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

     SEC. 2026. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION.

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

     SEC. 2027. EXTENSION OF SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

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

              Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

     SEC. 2031. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out an estuary 
     habitat restoration project if the Secretary determines that 
     the project--
       (1) will improve the elements and features of an estuary 
     (as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters 
     Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902));
       (2) is in the public interest; and
       (3) is cost-effective.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     construction of any project under this section--
       (1) shall be 35 percent; and
       (2) shall include the costs of all land, easements, rights-
     of-way, and necessary relocations.
       (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this 
     section shall commence only after a non-Federal interest has 
     entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay--
       (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction 
     required under subsection (b); and
       (2) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary, 100 percent of the costs

[[Page 14961]]

     of any operation, maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation 
     of the project.
       (d) Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds 
     may be allocated under this section for a project at any 1 
     location.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 2036. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES.

       Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (33 U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (e) as 
     subsections (b) through (f), respectively;
       (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section, 
     the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of 
     the affected local government, nonprofit entities, 
     notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).'';
       (4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
       (A) by inserting ``, and construction'' before 
     ``assistance''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, including, with the consent of the 
     affected local government, nonprofit entities,'' after ``non-
     Federal interests'';
       (5) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2))--
       (A) by inserting ``physical hazards and'' after 
     ``adverse''; and
       (B) by striking ``drainage from'';
       (6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``50'' and inserting ``25''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried 
     out under this section shall be 100 percent.
       ``(h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance 
     under this section shall not relieve from liability any 
     person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State 
     law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages, 
     restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal 
     year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.

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

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

     SEC. 2038. REMOTE, MARITIME-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES.

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

     SEC. 2039. AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS.

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

     SEC. 2040. PROGRAM NAMES.

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

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

       ``The''.

               Subtitle C--National Levee Safety Program

     SEC. 2051. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2052. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 2053. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a National 
     Levee Safety Committee, consisting of representatives of 
     Federal agencies and State, tribal, and local governments, in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency and the 
     head of the International Boundary Waters Commission may 
     designate a representative to serve on the Committee.

[[Page 14962]]

       (B) Action by secretary.--The Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that--
       (i) each Federal agency that designs, owns, operates, or 
     maintains a levee is represented on the Committee; and
       (ii) each Federal agency that has responsibility for 
     emergency preparedness or response activities is represented 
     on the Committee.
       (3) Tribal, state, and local governments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint 8 members to 
     the Committee--
       (i) 3 of whom shall represent tribal governments affected 
     by levees, based on recommendations of tribal governments;
       (ii) 3 of whom shall represent State levee safety agencies, 
     based on recommendations of Governors of the States; and
       (iii) 2 of whom shall represent local governments, based on 
     recommendations of Governors of the States.
       (B) Requirement.--In appointing members under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall ensure broad geographic 
     representation, to the maximum extent practicable.
       (4) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as Chairperson 
     of the Committee.
       (5) Other members.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Committee, may invite to participate in meetings of the 
     Committee, as appropriate, 1 or more of the following:
       (A) Representatives of the National Laboratories.
       (B) Levee safety experts.
       (C) Environmental organizations.
       (D) Members of private industry.
       (E) Any other individual or entity, as the Committee 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Committee shall--
       (A) advise the Secretary in implementing the national levee 
     safety program under section 2054;
       (B) support the establishment and maintenance of effective 
     programs, policies, and guidelines to enhance levee safety 
     for the protection of human life and property throughout the 
     United States; and
       (C) support coordination and information exchange between 
     Federal agencies and State levee safety agencies that share 
     common problems and responsibilities relating to levee 
     safety, including planning, design, construction, operation, 
     emergency action planning, inspections, maintenance, 
     regulation or licensing, technical or financial assistance, 
     research, and data management.
       (c) Powers.--
       (1) Information from federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The Committee may secure directly from a 
     Federal agency such information as the Committee considers to 
     be necessary to carry out this section.
       (B) Provision of information.--On request of the Committee, 
     the head of a Federal agency shall provide the information to 
     the Committee.
       (2) Contracts.--The Committee may enter into any contract 
     the Committee determines to be necessary to carry out a duty 
     of the Committee.
       (d) Working Groups.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may establish working groups 
     to assist the Committee in carrying out this section.
       (2) Membership.--A working group under paragraph (1) shall 
     be composed of--
       (A) members of the Committee; and
       (B) any other individual, as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (e) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Federal employees.--A member of the Committee who is an 
     officer or employee of the United States shall serve without 
     compensation in addition to compensation received for the 
     services of the member as an officer or employee of the 
     United States.
       (2) Other members.--A member of the Committee who is not an 
     officer or employee of the United States shall serve without 
     compensation.
       (f) Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Representatives of federal agencies.--To the extent 
     amounts are made available in advance in appropriations Acts, 
     a member of the Committee who represents a Federal agency 
     shall be reimbursed with appropriations for travel expenses 
     by the agency of the member, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from home or regular place of business of 
     the member in the performance of services for the Committee.
       (2) Other individuals.--To the extent amounts are made 
     available in advance in appropriations Acts, a member of the 
     Committee who represents a State levee safety agency, a 
     member of the Committee who represents the private sector, 
     and a member of a working group created under subsection (d) 
     shall be reimbursed for travel expenses by the Secretary, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates 
     authorized for an employee of an agency under subchapter 1 of 
     chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from 
     home or regular place of business of the member in 
     performance of services for the Committee.
       (g) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     Committee.

     SEC. 2054. NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM.

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

[[Page 14963]]

     the Secretary shall conduct a subsequent assessment of the 
     levee not less frequently than once every 5 years.
       (B) State assessment of non-federal levees.--
       (i) In general.--Each State shall conduct assessments of 
     non-Federal levees located within the State in accordance 
     with the applicable State levee safety program.
       (ii) Availability of information.--Each State shall make 
     the results of the assessments under clause (i) available for 
     inclusion in the national inventory under subsection (f).
       (iii) Non-federal levees.--

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

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

       (I) ensure timely repairs or other changes to, or removal 
     of, a levee in order to reduce the risk of loss of human life 
     and the risk to public safety; and
       (II) if the owner of a levee does not take an action 
     described in subclause (I), take appropriate action as 
     expeditiously as practicable;

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

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

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

     SEC. 2055. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

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

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

     SEC. 3002. SITKA, ALASKA.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3005. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

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

[[Page 14964]]



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall continue 
     construction of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation 
     System, Arkansas and Oklahoma, to operate and maintain the 
     navigation channel to the authorized depth of the channel, in 
     accordance with section 136 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117 
     Stat. 1842).
       (b) Mitigation.--
       (1) In general.--As mitigation for any incidental taking 
     relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, the 
     Secretary shall determine the need for, and construct 
     modifications in, the structures and operations of the 
     Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, 
     including the construction of low water dams and islands to 
     provide nesting and foraging habitat for the interior least 
     tern, in accordance with the study entitled ``Arkansas River 
     Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to States''.
       (2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project under this subsection shall be 35 percent.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

     SEC. 3010. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 3011. CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3014. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 3016. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

       (a) Cooperative Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall participate with 
     appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of 
     a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and 
     aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 
     14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine Flat 
     Dam, California, in a manner that--
       (A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement; 
     and
       (B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water 
     rights holders.
       (2) Goals and principles.--The cooperative program 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out--
       (A) substantially in accordance with the goals and 
     principles of the document entitled ``Kings River Fisheries 
     Management Program Framework Agreement'' and dated May 29, 
     1999, between the California Department of Fish and Game and 
     the Kings River Water Association and the Kings River 
     Conservation District; and
       (B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement.
       (b) Participation by Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--In furtherance of the goals of the 
     agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall 
     participate in the planning, design, and construction of 
     projects and pilot projects on the Kings River and its 
     tributaries to enhance aquatic habitat and water availability 
     for fisheries purposes (including maintenance of a trout 
     fishery) in accordance with flood control operations, water 
     rights, and beneficial uses in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Projects.--Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may 
     include--
       (A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance, 
     and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; and
       (B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create 
     opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream of Pine 
     Flat Reservoir.
       (c) No Authorization of Certain Dam-Related Projects.--
     Nothing in this section authorizes any project for the 
     raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel 
     intake structure at Pine Flat Dam.
       (d) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     studies in existence

[[Page 14965]]

     on the date of enactment of this Act, including data and 
     environmental documentation in the document entitled ``Final 
     Feasibility Report and Report of the Chief of Engineers for 
     Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration'' and 
     dated July 19, 2002.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Project planning, design, and construction.--The 
     Federal share of the cost of planning, design, and 
     construction of a project under subsection (b) shall be 65 
     percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of construction of any project under subsection (b) the 
     value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of any land, 
     easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or 
     relocations provided by the non-Federal interest for use in 
     carrying out the project.
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide not more 
     than 50 percent of the non-Federal share required under this 
     clause in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other 
     in-kind contributions.
       (f) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 3018. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

       (a) Credit for Non-Federal Work.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward that 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of any flood 
     damage reduction project authorized before the date of 
     enactment of this Act that is to be paid by the Sacramento 
     Area Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the Federal 
     share of the flood control project authorized by section 9159 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 
     Stat. 1944).
       (2) Federal share.--In determining the Federal share of the 
     project authorized by section 9159(b) of that Act, the 
     Secretary shall include all audit verified costs for 
     planning, engineering, construction, acquisition of project 
     land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and 
     environmental mitigation for all project elements that the 
     Secretary determines to be cost-effective.
       (3) Amount credited.--The amount credited shall be equal to 
     the Federal share determined under this section, reduced by 
     the total of all reimbursements paid to the non-Federal 
     interests for work under section 9159(b) of that Act before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Folsom Dam.--Section 128(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 
     Stat. 2259), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretaries'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Technical reviews.--The Secretaries'';
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``In developing'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Improvements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing'';
       (4) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In conducting'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Use of funds.--In conducting''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Project alternative solutions study.--The 
     Secretaries, in cooperation with non-Federal agencies, are 
     directed to expedite their respective activities, including 
     the formulation of all necessary studies and decision 
     documents, in furtherance of the collaborative effort known 
     as the `Project Alternative Solutions Study', as well as 
     planning, engineering, and design, including preparation of 
     plans and specifications, of any features recommended for 
     authorization by the Secretary of the Army under paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(5) Consolidation of technical reviews and design 
     activities.--The Secretary of the Army shall consolidate 
     technical reviews and design activities for--
       ``(A) the project for flood damage reduction authorized by 
     section 101(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 274); and
       ``(B) the project for flood damage reduction, dam safety, 
     and environmental restoration authorized by sections 128 and 
     134 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842).
       ``(6) Report.--The recommendations of the Secretary of the 
     Army, along with the views of the Secretary of the Interior 
     and relevant non-Federal agencies resulting from the 
     activities directed in paragraphs (4) and (5), shall be 
     forwarded to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives by not later 
     than June 30, 2007, and shall provide status reports by not 
     later than September 30, 2006, and quarterly thereafter.
       ``(7) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed as 
     deauthorizing the full range of project features and 
     parameters of the projects listed in paragraph (5), nor shall 
     it limit any previous authorizations granted by Congress.''.

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

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

     SEC. 3021. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

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

[[Page 14966]]



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

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

     SEC. 3023. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 3024. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3027. NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The portions of a 10-foot channel of the 
     project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 
     (40 Stat. 1276) and described in subsection (b), are not 
     authorized.
       (b) Description of Portions.--The portions of the channel 
     referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) Rectangular portion.--An approximately rectangular-
     shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the 
     channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long 
     and is further described as commencing at a point N. 
     104,165.85, E. 417,662.71, thence running south 2406'55" E. 
     395.00 feet to a point N. 103,805.32, E. 417,824.10, thence 
     running south 0038'06" E. 87.84 feet to a point N. 
     103,717.49, E. 417,825.07, thence running north 2406'55" W. 
     480.00 feet, to a point N. 104,155.59, E. 417.628.96, thence 
     running north 7305'25" E. 35.28 feet to the point of origin.
       (2) Parallelogram-shaped portion.--An area having the 
     approximate shape of a parallelogram along the northeasterly 
     portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in 
     paragraph (1), approximately 20 feet wide and 260 feet long, 
     and further described as commencing at a point N. 103,855.48, 
     E. 417,849.99, thence running south 3307'30" E. 133.40 feet 
     to a point N. 103,743.76, E. 417,922.89, thence running south 
     2407'04" E. 127.75 feet to a point N. 103,627.16, E. 
     417,975.09, thence running north 3307'30" W. 190.00 feet to 
     a point N. 103,786.28, E. 417,871.26, thence running north 
     1705'15" W. 72.39 feet to the point of origin.
       (c) Modification.--The 10-foot channel portion of the 
     Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut navigation project described in 
     subsection (a) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     realign the channel to include, immediately north of the area 
     described in subsection (b)(2), a triangular section 
     described as commencing at a point N. 103,968.35, E. 
     417,815.29, thence running S. 1705'15" east 118.09 feet to a 
     point N. 103,855.48, E. 417,849.99, thence running N. 
     3307'30" west 36.76 feet to a point N. 103,886.27, E. 
     417,829.90, thence running N. 1005'26" west 83.37 feet to 
     the point of origin.

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

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

     SEC. 3029. CHRISTINA RIVER, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3032. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14967]]



     SEC. 3038. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

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

     SEC. 3039. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3041. PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
     relating to port and industrial use purposes are 
     extinguished;
       (2) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 
     that will compete with services and facilities offered by 
     public marinas is extinguished;
       (3) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished in each area in which the 
     elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (4) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the 
     standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any 
     low area constituting wetland for which a permit under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) is required.
       (b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho, 2.07 acres.
       (2) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho, 7.32 acres.
       (c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes with respect to 
     property covered by deeds described in subsection (b).

     SEC. 3042. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

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

     SEC. 3043. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

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

     SEC. 3044. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

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

     SEC. 3045. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3047. SPUNKY BOTTOM, ILLINOIS.

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

[[Page 14968]]



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

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

     SEC. 3049. MILFORD LAKE, MILFORD, KANSAS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Project for Flood Control.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (3) of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 
     28, 1983 (relating to recreational development in the Lower 
     Atchafalaya Basin Floodway), the Secretary shall carry out 
     the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
     System, Louisiana, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the 
     Act of August 15, 1985 (Public Law 99-88; 99 Stat. 313; 100 
     Stat. 4142).
       (b) Visitors Center.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers and in consultation with the State of Louisiana, 
     shall study, design, and construct a type A regional visitors 
     center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana.
       (2) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The cost of construction of the visitors 
     center shall be shared in accordance with the recreation 
     cost-share requirement under section 103(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)).
       (B) Cost of upgrading.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of upgrading the visitors center from a type B to type A 
     regional visitors center shall be 100 percent.
       (3) Agreement.--The project under this subsection shall be 
     initiated only after the Secretary and the non-Federal 
     interests enter into a binding agreement under which the non-
     Federal interests shall--
       (A) provide any land, easement, right-of-way, or dredged 
     material disposal area required for the project that is 
     owned, claimed, or controlled by--
       (i) the State of Louisiana (including agencies and 
     political subdivisions of the State); or
       (ii) any other non-Federal government entity authorized 
     under the laws of the State of Louisiana;
       (B) pay 100 percent of the cost of the operation, 
     maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the 
     project; and
       (C) hold the United States free from liability for the 
     construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 
     and rehabilitation of the project, except for damages due to 
     the fault or negligence of the United States or a contractor 
     of the United States.
       (4) Donations.--In carrying out the project under this 
     subsection, the Mississippi River Commission may accept the 
     donation of cash or other funds, land, materials, and 
     services from any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit 
     corporation, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 3054. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.

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

     SEC. 3055. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

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

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

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

[[Page 14969]]

     within the State of Louisiana due to the treatment of the 
     Outlet under the analysis and design of comprehensive 
     hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-
     103; 119 Stat. 2247).
       (c) Coordination With Secretary.--The Assistant Secretary 
     shall ensure that the programs described in subsections (a) 
     and (b) are fully coordinated with the Secretary to ensure 
     that facilities are relocated in a manner that is consistent 
     with the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane 
     protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 
     Stat. 2247).
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--The Assistant Secretary may 
     use up to 2 percent of the amounts made available under 
     subsections (a) and (b) for administrative expenses.

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

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

     SEC. 3058. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 3059. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3061. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3065. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

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

[[Page 14970]]



     SEC. 3066. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3069. L-15 LEVEE, MISSOURI.

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

     SEC. 3070. UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.

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

     SEC. 3071. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

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

     SEC. 3072. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MONTANA.

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

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

       (a) Definition of Restoration Project.--In this section, 
     the term ``restoration project'' means a project that will 
     produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects, 
     and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related 
     benefits, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance 
     with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone 
     River and tributaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to 
     produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and 
     recreation benefits.
       (c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried 
     out by--
       (A) other Federal agencies;
       (B) Indian tribes;
       (C) conservation districts; and
       (D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council; 
     and
       (2) seek the full participation of the State of Montana.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest for the restoration 
     project

[[Page 14971]]

     under which the non-Federal interest shall agree--
       (1) to provide 35 percent of the total cost of the 
     restoration project, including necessary land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
       (2) to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility 
     studies and design during construction following execution of 
     a project cooperation agreement;
       (3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after 
     the date of enactment of this Act that are associated with 
     the restoration project; and
       (4) to hold the United States harmless for any claim of 
     damage that arises from the negligence of the Federal 
     Government or a contractor of the Federal Government in 
     carrying out the restoration project.
       (e) Form of Non-Federal Share.--Not more than 50 percent of 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of a restoration project 
     carried out under this section may be provided in the form of 
     in-kind credit for work performed during construction of the 
     restoration project.
       (f) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the 
     consent of the applicable local government, a nonprofit 
     entity may be a non-Federal interest for a restoration 
     project carried out under this section.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) Management of sediments.--

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3079. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3082. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

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

     SEC. 3083. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Project Goal.--
       (1) In general.--The goal for operation of Lake Eufaula 
     shall be to maximize the use of available storage in a 
     balanced approach that

[[Page 14972]]

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

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

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

     SEC. 3085. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA.

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

     SEC. 3086. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

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

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

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall convey at fair market value to the Lowell School 
     District No. 71, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to a parcel consisting of approximately 0.98 
     acres of land, including 3 abandoned buildings on the land, 
     located in Lowell, Oregon, as described in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land to be 
     conveyed under subsection (a) is more particularly described 
     as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the 
     west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of 
     the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to 
     Lowell, as platted and recorded on page 56 of volume 4, Lane 
     County Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of 
     Pioneer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of 
     beginning of this description; thence north on the west line 
     of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at 
     right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 
     250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of 
     Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; and thence east 
     250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description 
     in sec. 14, T. 19 S., R. 1 W. of the Willamette Meridian, 
     Lane County, Oregon.
       (c) Condition.--The Secretary shall not complete the 
     conveyance under subsection (a) until such time as the Forest 
     Service--
       (1) completes and certifies that necessary environmental 
     remediation associated with the structures located on the 
     property is complete; and
       (2) transfers the structures to the Corps of Engineers.
       (d) Effect of Other Law.--
       (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (2) Liability.--
       (A) In general.--Lowell School District No, 71 shall hold 
     the United States harmless from any liability with respect to 
     activities carried out on the property described in 
     subsection (b) on or after the date of the conveyance under 
     subsection (a).
       (B) Certain activities.--The United States shall be liable 
     with respect to any activity carried out on the property 
     described in subsection (b) before the date of conveyance 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 3088. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION.

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

[[Page 14973]]

       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

     SEC. 3089. TIOGA TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3091. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3093. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Membership.--Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
       ``(viii) rural water systems; and''.
       (b) Reauthorization.--Section 907(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2712) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for 
     flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Anderson Creek, Jackson and 
     Madison Counties, Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that 
     the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, 
     and economically justified.
       (b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project, 
     Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries project--

[[Page 14974]]

       (1) Anderson Creek shall not be considered to be an 
     authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project; 
     and
       (2) the Anderson Creek flood damage reduction project shall 
     not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries Project.

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

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

     SEC. 3097. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3100. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 3101. DENISON, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 3102. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 3103. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 3104. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, VERMONT.

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

     SEC. 3105. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT.

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

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     States of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study 
     and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, 
     soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural 
     measures to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and 
     create wildlife habitat in the Upper Connecticut River 
     watershed.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study and development of the strategy under subsection (a) 
     shall be 65 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the study and development of the strategy may be provided 
     through the contribution of in-kind services and materials.
       (c) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization with 
     wetland restoration experience may serve as the non-Federal 
     interest for the study and development of the strategy under 
     this section.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the study and 
     developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may 
     enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide 
     technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies and nonprofit organizations with wetland restoration 
     experience, including assistance for the implementation of 
     wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation 
     measures.
       (e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     development and implementation of the strategy under this 
     section in cooperation with local landowners and local 
     government officials.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

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

       (a) General Management Plan Development.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation with the States 
     of Vermont and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint 
     Commission, shall conduct a study and develop a general 
     management plan for ecosystem restoration of the Upper 
     Connecticut River ecosystem for the purposes of--
       (A) habitat protection and restoration;
       (B) streambank stabilization;
       (C) restoration of stream stability;
       (D) water quality improvement;
       (E) invasive species control;
       (F) wetland restoration;
       (G) fish passage; and
       (H) natural flow restoration.
       (2) Existing plans.--In developing the general management 
     plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans 
     for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River.
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in any 
     critical restoration project in the

[[Page 14975]]

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3111. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3113. LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
     relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
       (2) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished in each area in which the 
     elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the 
     standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any 
     low area constituting wetland for which a permit under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) would be required for the use of fill material.
       (b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Auditor's File Numbers 432576, 443411, 499988, and 
     579771 of Whitman County, Washington.
       (2) Auditor's File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 154511, 
     156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington.
       (c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes in or to property 
     covered by a deed described in subsection (b).

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

       (a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
     Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the 
     McNary Lock and Dam Project and managed by the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement Number 
     DACW68-4-00-13 with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla 
     District, is transferred from the Secretary to the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Easements.--The transfer of administrative jurisdiction 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to easements in 
     existence as of the date of enactment of this Act on land 
     subject to the transfer.
       (c) Rights of Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall retain rights described in paragraph (2) with 
     respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is 
     transferred under subsection (a).
       (2) Rights.--The rights of the Secretary referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the rights--
       (A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the 
     standard project flood elevation;
       (B) to manipulate the level of the McNary Project Pool;
       (C) to access such land described in subsection (a) as may 
     be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment ranges 
     and carry out similar activities;
       (D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, or 
     other environmental restoration features authorized by 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C.

[[Page 14976]]

     2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330);
       (E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and
       (F) to carry out management actions for the purpose of 
     reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies 
     that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, any island included in the land described in 
     subsection (a).
       (3) Coordination.--Before exercising a right described in 
     any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (d) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The land described in subsection (a) shall 
     be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the 
     McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
       (2) Cummins property.--
       (A) Retention of credits.--Habitat unit credits described 
     in the memorandum entitled ``Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER 
     SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife 
     Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter 
     Supplement No. 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA 
     HMU'' provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife 
     Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of land 
     formerly known as the ``Cummins property'' shall be retained 
     by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the 
     parcel on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Site development plan.--The United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service shall obtain prior approval of the 
     Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any 
     change to the previously approved site development plan for 
     the parcel of land formerly known as the ``Cummins 
     property''.
       (3) Madame dorian recreation area.--The United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service shall continue operation of the Madame 
     Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--The United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service shall be responsible for all survey, 
     environmental compliance, and other administrative costs 
     required to implement the transfer of administrative 
     jurisdiction under subsection (a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3118. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3121. OCONTO HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

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

     SEC. 3122. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 3124. PILOT PROGRAM, MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

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

[[Page 14977]]

     June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, chapter 382) (commonly known as 
     the ``River and Harbor Act of 1910''), the Act of January 1, 
     1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter 47) (commonly known as the 
     ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''), and the Act of July 3, 
     1930 (46 Stat. 918), for the project referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall apply to any activities carried out 
     under this section.

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

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

     SEC. 3126. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3129. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

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

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

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

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 4001. EURASIAN MILFOIL.

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

     SEC. 4002. NATIONAL PORT STUDY.

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

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

       (a) In General.--To determine with improved accuracy the 
     environmental impacts of the project on the McClellan-Kerr 
     Arkansas River Navigation Channel (referred to in this 
     section as the ``MKARN''), the Secretary shall carry out the 
     measures described in subsection (b) in a timely manner.
       (b) Species Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with 
     Oklahoma State University, shall convene a panel of experts 
     with acknowledged expertise in wildlife biology and genetics 
     to review the available scientific information regarding the 
     genetic variation of various sturgeon species and possible 
     hybrids of those species that, as determined by the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, may exist in any portion of 
     the MKARN.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall direct the panel to report 
     to the Secretary, not later than

[[Page 14978]]

     1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and in the 
     best scientific judgment of the panel--
       (A) the level of genetic variation between populations of 
     sturgeon sufficient to determine or establish that a 
     population is a measurably distinct species, subspecies, or 
     population segment; and
       (B) whether any pallid sturgeons that may be found in the 
     MKARN (including any tributary of the MKARN) would qualify as 
     such a distinct species, subspecies, or population segment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4012. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO.

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

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

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

     SEC. 4014. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4018. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

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

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

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

[[Page 14979]]



                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 5001. LAKES PROGRAM.

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

     SEC. 5002. ESTUARY RESTORATION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14980]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14981]]

       (D) establish such working groups as the Committee 
     determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the 
     duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public 
     policy and scientific issues;
       (E) facilitate the resolution of interagency and 
     intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on 
     the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and 
     mitigation program;
       (F) coordinate scientific and other research associated 
     with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation program; and
       (G) annually prepare a work plan and associated budget 
     requests.
       (4) Compensation; travel expenses.--
       (A) Compensation.--Members of the Committee shall not 
     receive compensation from the Secretary in carrying out the 
     duties of the Committee under this section.
       (B) Travel expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by a member 
     of the Committee in carrying out the duties of the Committee 
     under this section shall be paid by the agency, Indian tribe, 
     or unit of government represented by the member.
       (c) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
     The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Committee.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14982]]

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

     SEC. 5011. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT.

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

                   TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

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

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

     SEC. 6002. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIFORNIA.

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

     SEC. 6003. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

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

     SEC. 6004. BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.

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

     SEC. 6005. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

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

     SEC. 6006. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

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

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

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

     SEC. 6008. SHINGLE CREEK BASIN, FLORIDA.

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

     SEC. 6009. BREVOORT, INDIANA.

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

[[Page 14983]]



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

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

     SEC. 6011. LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA.

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

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

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

     SEC. 6013. MUSCATINE HARBOR, IOWA.

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

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

       The project for recreation facilities at Big South Fork 
     National River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, 
     authorized by section 108 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6015. EAGLE CREEK LAKE, KENTUCKY.

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

     SEC. 6016. HAZARD, KENTUCKY.

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

     SEC. 6017. WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

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

     SEC. 6018. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 6024. CASCO BAY, PORTLAND, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 6025. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 6026. PENOBSCOT RIVER, BANGOR, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 6027. SAINT JOHN RIVER BASIN, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 6028. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE.

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

     SEC. 6029. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

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

     SEC. 6030. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.

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

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

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

     SEC. 6032. EPPING, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

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

     SEC. 6033. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 6039. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1958 ACT, OHIO.

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

     SEC. 6040. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1960 ACT, OHIO.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 6043. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

     SEC. 6044. TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

     SEC. 6045. TAMAQUA, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 14984]]



     SEC. 6048. ARROYO COLORADO, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 6049. CYPRESS CREEK-STRUCTURAL, TEXAS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 6051. FALFURRIAS, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 6052. PECAN BAYOU LAKE, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 6053. LAKE OF THE PINES, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 6054. TENNESSEE COLONY LAKE, TEXAS.

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

     SEC. 6055. CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.

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

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

       The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, 
     West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is not 
     authorized.

  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I thank all Senators for the passage of this very important 
bill. There has been tremendous bipartisan cooperation. I especially 
thank Senator Jeffords and Catharine Ransom, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and the 
great leadership of our chairman, Senator Inhofe. He did an outstanding 
job, with the great help of Angie Giancarlo, Ruth Van Mark and Stephen 
Aaron.
  On my staff I express a special thanks to a fellow, Letmon Lee, who 
has worked on this tirelessly for better than 2 years, Karla Klingner, 
on my staff, Brian Klippenstein, who worked so hard. I believe we have 
a product we can take to the House.
  It is long overdue that we pass the Water Resources Development Act. 
It was due to be passed in 2002. We have finally done it. My thanks to 
both sides.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Senator for his statement. I concur with 
him wholeheartedly. Let's get on with it.
  Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________