[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12283-12297]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
1495, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1065

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1065.
  It is an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 1065.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, May 10, 2007, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 1086 to Amendment No. 1065

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I see my leader is here, but before he 
starts, I wish to also call up the Feingold amendment No. 1086, and ask 
that be brought up and laid aside and considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1086 to 
     amendment No. 1065.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, May 11, 2007, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1097

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the manager of the bill, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the 
distinguished Senator from California, allowing me to obtain the floor.
  We all know 2 weeks ago President Bush vetoed the supplemental 
appropriations bill, a bill to fully fund the troops in Iraq and change 
the course of that conflict in Iraq. Late last week, the House sent a 
new bill to the Senate. We received that within the past hour. The ball 
is now in our court, the Senate's court. Democrats and Republicans 
agree the Senate needs to get a bill in conference as soon as possible 
and we need to work together to make that happen.
  I have had a number of conversations with Senator McConnell the last 
several days. I spoke to him earlier today at some length. As much as 
we all recognize how badly we need to get a bill to conference, we have 
not, on this side of the aisle, lost sight of the fact that the 
American people have concluded the President's Iraq policy has failed 
and we are now demanding a new way forward on behalf of the American 
people.
  In an effort to ensure quick Senate passage of our conference vehicle 
later this week, as well as to give Senators an opportunity to express 
their views

[[Page 12284]]

on the President's Iraq policy, I will offer two important amendments. 
The first amendment is Feingold-Reid, to safely redeploy United States 
troops from Iraq by March 31 of next year, and transition the mission 
to fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, providing 
security for United States infrastructure and personnel, and training 
Iraqi forces.
  Of course, after the 1st of April of next year, our troops will be in 
Iraq for counterterrorism, force protection--that is to protect 
American assets in Iraq--and to help train the Iraqis.
  I will also offer a Levin-Reid amendment which is consistent with the 
bipartisan legislation approved by Congress with one change: It permits 
the President to waive the timeline for redeployments. It has in it 
some things some Members want very badly, including the Presiding 
Officer, to deal with how our troops are taken care of, how often they 
have to go back to battle, how much time they have to have before being 
returned to the battlefield after having been deployed. We will have 
votes on these two amendments at the earliest possible date. I will 
work with the distinguished Republican leader to see when that will 
happen. These votes represent an opportunity for the Senate to shape 
the important conference we hope will begin this week upon passage of 
the Senate version of the supplemental.
  There is probably no end of amendments that could be offered, as I 
have here today, but on our side of the aisle, Democrats believe we 
should do something very close to what was done in the bill we sent to 
the President which he vetoed.
  Basically that is what we have here--except getting the President the 
ability to waive the timelines we have in the legislation.
  Finally, there are those on this side who believe there should be 
some end in sight. That is why I indicated that as of April 1 of next 
year, the funding would still go on but it would be limited to the 
counterterrorism, force protection, and training Iraqis.
  It is very important to understand that transitioning this mission to 
fighting al-Qaida is a part of the recognition of what we and the 
American people believe is important. At present, as you know, American 
troops are over there protecting the Shias, protecting the Sunnis, 
protecting the Kurds, and at all times all these different elements are 
shooting at the Americans. We should limit our focus to al-Qaida.
  Mr. President, I call up the Levin-Reid amendment first.
  That is No. 1097.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Levin, for 
     himself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1097 to 
     the language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 1065.

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


                           amendment no. 1097

     SEC. 1. MILITARY READINESS--MISSION CAPABLE UNITS.

       (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy 
     that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are 
     rated ``fully mission capable''.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any 
     unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the 
     military department concerned has certified in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed 
     Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that 
     the unit is fully mission capable.
       (c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term ``fully 
     mission capable'' means capable of performing assigned 
     mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the 
     conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent 
     with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense 
     readiness reporting system.
       (d) The President may waive the limitation prescribed in 
     subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on Armed Services that he has authorized the 
     deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully 
     mission capable and by submitting along with the 
     certification a report in classified and unclassified form 
     detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's 
     deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military 
     department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission 
     capable.

     SEC. 2. MILITARY READINESS--DURATION OF TOURS OF DUTY IN 
                   IRAQ.

       (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy 
     that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not 
     be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps 
     and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for 
     combat beyond 210 days.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be obligated or 
     expended to initiate the development of, continue the 
     development of, or execute any order that has the effect of 
     extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--
       (1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve or Army National 
     Guard beyond 365 days; or
       (2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve 
     beyond 210 days.
       (c) The President may waive the limitations prescribed in 
     subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on Armed Services that he has authorized the 
     extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq beyond the periods 
     specified in subsection (b) and by submitting along with the 
     certification a report in classified and unclassified form 
     detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's 
     extended deployment is necessary.

     SEC. 3. MILITARY READINESS--MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS.

       (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy 
     that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not 
     be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within 
     the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and 
     Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for 
     combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 
     days.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be obligated or 
     expended to initiate the development of, continue the 
     development of, or execute any order that has the effect of 
     deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--
       (1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve or Army National 
     Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 
     consecutive days; or
       (2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if 
     such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 
     consecutive days.
       (c) The President may waive the limitations prescribed in 
     subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on Armed Services that he has authorized the 
     redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods 
     specified in subsection (b) and by submitting along with the 
     certification a report in classified and unclassified form 
     detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's 
     redeployment is necessary.

     SEC. 4. BENCHMARKS.

       (a) Beginning on July 15, 2007, and every 30 days 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     State, after consultation with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, 
     Commander U.S. Central Command, and Commander, Multi-National 
     Forces Iraq, shall jointly submit to Congress a report 
     describing and assessing in detail the progress made by the 
     Government of Iraq in meeting each of the benchmarks set 
     forth in subsection (1), the security objectives set forth in 
     the President's revised strategy of January 10, 2007, and 
     answering the questions posed in subsections (2) and (3).
       (1) whether the Government of Iraq has:
       (i) enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that 
     equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
       (ii) adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of 
     provincial and local elections including setting a schedule 
     to conduct provincial and local elections;
       (iii) reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification 
     process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals 
     affected by such laws;
       (iv) amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the 
     principles contained in Article 140 of such constitution, 
     including, at a minimum, the submission of such amendments to 
     the Iraqi Parliament for the protection of minority rights; 
     and
       (v) allocated and expended $10,000,000,000 in Iraqi 
     revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of 
     essential services, on an equitable basis.
       (2) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed 
     Forces has made substantial progress in reducing the level of 
     sectarian violence in Iraq; and
       (3) whether each battalion of the security forces of Iraq 
     has achieved a level of combat proficiency such that it can 
     conduct independent combat operations without support from 
     Coalition forces in Iraq.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 75 percent 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other act for 
     assistance for Iraq under the headings ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' and ``International Narcotics and Law Enforcement'' 
     shall be withheld from obligation until the President 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services

[[Page 12285]]

     and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives that the Government of Iraq is 
     making substantial progress towards meeting each of the 
     benchmarks set forth in subsection (a)(1).
       (c) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation 
     pursuant to subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to 
     funds made available under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' for continued support for the Community Action Program 
     and the Community Stabilization Program in Iraq administered 
     by the United States Agency for International Development, or 
     for programs and activities to promote democracy and human 
     rights in Iraq.

     SEC. 5. REDUCTION OF FORCES.

       (a) Subject to the waiver authority provided for in 
     subsection (e), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the 
     reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq 
     not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing 
     such reduction within 180 days. The goal of completing such 
     reduction shall be accelerated if the President is unable to 
     report that the Government of Iraq is making substantial 
     progress towards meeting each of the benchmarks set forth in 
     subsection (a)(1) of Section 4 by October 15, 2007.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other 
     Act are available for obligation and expenditure to plan and 
     execute a safe and orderly reduction of the Armed Forces in 
     Iraq.
       (c) The reduction of forces required by this section shall 
     be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, 
     political, and economic strategy that includes sustained 
     engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international 
     community for the purpose of working collectively to bring 
     stability to Iraq.
       (d) After the conclusion of the reduction required by this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain 
     members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other 
     than the following:
       (1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American 
     citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces;
       (2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic 
     positions;
       (3) Engaging in targeted actions against members of al-
     Qaeda and allied parties and other terrorist organizations 
     with global reach; and
       (4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security 
     Forces.
       (e) Waiver Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President may waive the reduction of 
     forces requirements of this section if he submits to Congress 
     a written certification setting forth a detailed 
     justification for the waiver, which shall include a detailed 
     report describing the actions being taken by the United 
     States to bring about the meeting of the benchmarks set forth 
     in subsections (a)(1) of section __ by the Iraqis. The 
     certification shall be submitted in unclassified form, but 
     may include a classified annex.
       (2) Duration.--The Waiver under paragraph (1) shall be 
     effective for 90 days beginning on the date of the submittal 
     of the certification under that paragraph.
       (3) Renewal.--A waiver under paragraph (1) may be renewed 
     if, before the end of the expiration of the waiver under 
     paragraph (2), the President submits to Congress before the 
     end of the effective period of the waiver under paragraph (2) 
     a certification meeting the requirements of this subsection. 
     Any waiver so renewed may be further renewed as provided in 
     this paragraph.


                Amendment No. 1098 to Amendment No. 1097

  Mr. REID. I now ask the clerk report the Feingold-Reid amendment No. 
1098.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Feingold, for 
     himself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1098 to 
     amendment No. 1097.

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

       (a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall promptly 
     transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the 
     limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
       (b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--
     The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of 
     United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the 
     limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such 
     redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available under any provision of law may be 
     obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of 
     members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 
     2008.
       (d) Exception for Limited Purposes.--The prohibition under 
     subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or 
     expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
       (1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and 
     scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international 
     terrorist organizations.
       (2) To provide security for United States infrastructure 
     and personnel.
       (3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on these amendments, I am a cosponsor of 
both.
  I thank the manager very much. I hope she and Senator Inhofe can move 
the WRDA amendment along. It is an important piece of legislation for 
the whole country and it is way past due when we should have had this 
completed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Before the leader leaves, I hope I can get the attention 
of the floor staff, to make sure--my understanding is you have now 
offered the amendments on Iraq to the underlying bill, but the text 
that is before us is clean of the Iraq amendments? I think it is a good 
thing to do because we can move on here with WRDA, as the amendments 
were applied to the underlying text, not to the amendment we are 
working on.
  I thank my colleague for thinking it through. I am proud he is with 
us in wanting to move this WRDA bill forward.
  Let a message go out we are going to move this bill forward. One of 
the reasons I say to my friend, thank you--I don't want to keep him 
here, I just want to thank him.
  We have received a letter from the National Construction Alliance. It 
is the Laborers International Union of North America, the International 
Union of Operating Engineers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & 
Joiners of America.
  The reason I am bringing this up is they are very strong supporters 
of WRDA. I think their letter lays out why, so I am actually going to 
read it so it goes into the Record at this point. It says:

       Dear Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe: The National 
     Construction Alliance, representing the three leading 
     construction unions advocating for robust federal 
     infrastructure investment, endorses the Senate version of the 
     Water Resources Development Act reauthorization. This vital 
     Federal infrastructure legislation should be considered and 
     passed by the United States Senate. Our three constituent 
     unions, the Laborers, Operating Engineers and the Carpenters, 
     commend you both for your strong, bipartisan leadership on 
     this legislation.

  This gets to the heart of why Senator Inhofe and I and all on the 
committee believe so strongly about the bill.

       The $13.9 billion authorization of Corps of Engineers 
     projects is an important and necessary step in addressing our 
     country's serious backlog of water projects. From harbor 
     improvement to flood protection, to lock and dam 
     construction, dredging and environmental infrastructure, your 
     bill will immeasurably strengthen America's water resources. 
     As labor unions representing nearly one million skilled 
     construction workers, we recognize that this WRDA 
     reauthorization will create tens of thousands of good paying 
     construction jobs.
       We strongly urge the Senate to pass your legislation in an 
     expeditious manner so that America's critical water 
     infrastructure needs can be addressed.

  I say to the President--who is sitting in the chair today, as opposed 
to the President of the United States--he has so long been speaking 
about the problem of our loss of middle-class jobs. What is so 
important about this particular bill is that while we are doing things 
the Nation must have in order to grow and in order to protect itself 
from the ravages of Mother Nature, as we saw in Katrina--in the course 
of doing the right thing we are creating good jobs. It is a wonderful 
winner for everybody.
  That is why we have more letters I want to share with colleagues. The 
American Society of Civil Engineers has added its voice to all these 
unions, to both Senator Inhofe and myself, saying they are very pleased 
with this bill, they are very pleased with the levee system fixes; they 
believe this is overdue legislation and that it ensures we have learned 
the lessons from Hurricane Katrina. It ``goes far toward protecting 
human life and property in flood-prone areas.''
  They ask us if the American Society of Civil Engineers can be of more 
assistance, please call them. We may, because we want everybody to 
weigh in here and help us.

[[Page 12286]]

  We have a letter from the Audubon Society. You have heard from the 
business side, the union side, now the environmental side. They have a 
million members. They say, please, let's have prompt consideration of 
WRDA because it restores America's natural resources. It includes:

       . . . Corps modernization provisions, including independent 
     review of costly or controversial Corps projects and ensuring 
     that mitigation for Corps projects is consistent with 
     stricter State laws.

  This refers to the Corps' formula in the last bill which is embedded 
in this bill.
  Audubon also talks about:

       . . . two crucial Everglades restoration projects--Indian 
     River lagoon and Picayune Strand--that would mitigate harmful 
     federal drainage projects, restore more than 160,000 acres of 
     wetlands and significant estuarine habitat, and help secure 
     Florida's tourism and outdoor recreation economy.

  They also cite the upper Mississippi River restoration program, in 
its first 15-year increment, will preserve 105,000 acres of habitat; 
protect 35,000 acres of floodplain habitat in five States along the 
river.
  The Coastal Louisiana restoration program will begin to reverse the 
devastating pattern of land loss, protecting important habitat for 
birds and fish and other wildlife as well as the region's economy and 
quality of life.
  The bill permanently authorizes the Asian Carp Barrier to protect the 
Great Lakes from this looming threat. The Audubon Society, which is so 
well respected on both sides of the aisle, closes and says that 
ecosystem restoration projects for the Everglades, the Mississippi, 
Louisiana's coastal wetlands, and the Great Lakes are overdue, as is 
Corps modernization.
  Then I will add to these letters, Mr. President, a letter from the 
National Association of Manufacturers. I mean, this is one of those 
bills that gets everybody's support. It is something that is important 
for everyone.
  They say: On behalf of more than 14 million manufacturing employees 
in the U.S., they are thanking us for our leadership, and they are 
saying: Let's move forward with WRDA. It is important. They say that: 
America's water resources infrastructure needs to be reliable and 
productive.
  They applaud our efforts and they say how vitally needed WRDA is, 
including the modernization of locks, harbors, canals, and other key 
infrastructure that is vital to America's competitiveness. They say: 
WRDA will authorize many of these needs. So that is the National 
Association of Manufacturers. So it goes on and on.
  The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association has a similar letter that 
is very important to us. The American Farm Bureau. The American Farm 
Bureau has entered this, and they have written us saying it is a good 
bill, urging us to support WRDA, and they oppose any amendment that 
would hinder our progress in moving forward.
  The corn growers of America, they have weighed in and they say: It is 
important. They have sent a letter to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, 
our leaders, saying we need to have this bill. They need to have 
efficient transportation networks and so on. This is a very important 
letter, I think. They say that continued development of our water 
resources in an environmentally sound manner will contribute mightily 
to our Nation's well-being.
  Congress needs to act now to address issues such as environmental 
restoration, navigation, flood control, hurricane protection, water 
supply, irrigation, beach nourishment, and recreation.
  So that is yet another letter. The American Public Works Association 
has sent us a letter. They have a similar message: With adequate 
dredging, our ports and waterways are the backbone of our 
transportation system, ensuring domestic and international trade 
opportunities and low-cost, environmentally sensitive goods movements. 
It goes on.
  Now, I have already placed some of those letters in the Record, and I 
am going to do it again today because I think every day, as colleagues 
will look at the Record, they will see their importance.
  I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record 
at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. BOXER. The reason I like to share these letters is that it shows 
the breadth of support this bill has. We know we come to the floor with 
a lot of legislation that is contentious, that is contentious between 
the parties, that is contentious with people throughout America, one 
group supports it. For example, the labor unions might but the bosses 
do not. This is a place where everybody comes together. I think that is 
very important.
  So colleagues know what is happening today, you know we do not have 
votes today. But we are going to try to debate some amendments today. 
We have already debated the Feingold amendment, so that is ready to be 
voted on tomorrow. I understand that Senator Coburn is on his way over 
to offer at least the one--we are hoping three amendments. He can 
debate today, and then we can have votes on those as we agree between 
the sides. The way we have decided to handle this bill, because it has 
been such a delicate balance, is the following: We are working across 
party lines to come up with amendments we can agree to. We have taken 
the amendments that have been submitted thus far, and we are sort of 
categorizing those amendments in what is easy for us to agree to, what 
is more difficult. We are going to try to work through the easier 
amendments, and the more contentious ones we will have to have votes.
  Now, what we call the big four of the committee, the Chairman of the 
full committee, the Chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking members 
of both the full committee and the subcommittee, we have made an 
agreement that we will oppose all amendments. Why are we doing this? 
Believe me, that is not an easy thing for us to do. We feel we have 
worked so closely, in a bipartisan fashion, we want to keep this bill 
totally bipartisan. We are trying to keep the most contentious items 
out of the bill to make sure it gets to the President's desk and he 
signs it.
  Now, the good news is we have a score on the bill. That means how 
much the bill is scored at. It is $13.9 billion. It makes it lower than 
the House bill. This is very good news because we want to be fiscally 
responsible.
  We also want to make sure all the projects in this bill meet certain 
criteria, that they have been studied, they have been looked at, that 
there is a fair cost share, unless there is an usual circumstance.
  So Senator Inhofe has been very strong on conditions. I expect him to 
come to the floor very soon. He actually had a weekend trip to Iraq. I 
do appreciate the fact that he has gone and that he is going to be 
here, we believe, at about 3:30--as a matter of fact, in about 10 
minutes--at which point I hope he will make some of his comments on 
this bill.
  But the way we have set the bill up is we now have the committee 
substitute pending in the form of an amendment. Leader Reid has sent 
forward two amendments, but they are not to the substitute bill, they 
are to the underlying bill about Iraq, as a way to expedite the 
consideration of the Iraq supplemental. He has done that with the 
knowledge of Senator McConnell so there are no surprises here. We have 
discussed this with Senator Feingold in terms of offering his 
amendment, which he already debated. That will be ready for a vote 
later. I hope we can set aside all these amendments and vote on them 
tomorrow morning at such time as the leader agrees.
  At this point, since I think I have laid out the reason why we so 
much need this bill, after 7 long years of not having a WRDA bill, we 
so much need this bill, and we are so proud of the committee that they 
voted this bill out in a very harmonious way and that we are still 
working side by side, the majority and minority side, on crafting the 
amendments we need to push this over the finish line.
  I look forward to the comments of Senator Inhofe. We also will, of 
course,

[[Page 12287]]

 entertain the amendments of Senator Tom Coburn when he gets to the 
floor. I urge anybody else who wants to lay down amendments, please, 
you are absolutely welcome.
  I understand Senator Landrieu would like the floor. So why don't I 
leave the floor with the understanding that if Senator Inhofe comes, 
would you wind down within 10 minutes so he can have the floor.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 Pacific Northwest


                                        Waterways Association,

                                       Portland, OR, May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe: We write to urge 
     your support for the reauthorization of the Water Resources 
     Development Act in 2007.
       WRDA is fundamentally important to the economic health of 
     our nation and particularly important to the states of 
     Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California. Our region depends 
     on international trade to a greater extent than any other 
     region in the United States. In Washington state, one in four 
     jobs are related to international trade. Cost-effective, 
     efficient, and environmentally sound trade and transportation 
     corridors are imperative to secure our place in the global 
     economy. Delay in WRDA means exacerbated backlogs which will 
     dull our competitive edge.
       The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA) 
     membership includes nearly 100 organizations in Oregon, 
     Washington, Idaho and California. PNWA represents public port 
     authorities on the Pacific Coast, Puget Sound, and Columbia 
     Snake River System; public utility districts, investor-owned 
     utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service 
     industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver 
     and export elevator companies; major manufacturers in the 
     Pacific Northwest; forest products industry manufacturers and 
     shippers; and tug and barge operators, steamship operators, 
     consulting engieneers, and others involved in economic 
     development throughout the Pacific Northwest.
       PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and 
     the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on projects of regional and 
     national importance, sharing the challenge to maintain and 
     develop our transportation infrastructure. Our members wish 
     to thank the Committee for its support of Pacific Northwest 
     transportation programs and projects.
       Issues of particular concern to the members of our 
     Association follow:


                          minimum dredge fleet

       The federally-owned hopper drege fleet and the Corps of 
     Engineers' dredges Essayons and Yaquina, are particularly 
     important to the maintenance of ports and harbors in the 
     Pacific Northwest. The goals of Congressional actions in 
     1978, 1993 and 1996, which limited the utilization of the of 
     the federal dredge fleet and provided increased opportunity 
     for industry, have been meet.
       Since passage of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 
     1993, designed to increase competition in the dredge 
     industry, the number of private dredging contractors has 
     declined. This is of concern because the Northwest has unique 
     conditions such that, compared to other regions, Northwest 
     ports depend to a greater degree on hopper dredging and on 
     smaller class hopper dredges. The Government Accountability 
     Office found in a March 2003 to Congress (GAO-03-382) that 
     operating restrictions have imposed additional costs on the 
     Corps' dredging program, but have not resulted in proven 
     benefits to the taxpayer.
       PNWA strongly supports the language included in your bill 
     to lift operating restrictions from the Essayons and Yaquina, 
     which will enable the Corps of Engineers to utilize the 
     Essayons and Yaquina to the maximum extent possible to 
     maintain Northwest ports, harbors and channels, consistent 
     with the safe and efficient performance of their missions.


                      making section 214 permanent

       Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (P.L. 106-541) provides the authority to the Secretary of the 
     Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal 
     public entities and to expedite the processing of permits. 
     Section 214 has allowed local governments to move forward 
     with vital infrastructure projects. By funding additional 
     staff to work on specific, time-intensive permits, existing 
     Corps staff members are able to process the significant 
     permit application backlog much more quickly. Funding for 
     additional Corps staff has resulted in a reduction of permit 
     wait times not only for the funding entity, but for any 
     individual or organization that makes an application with 
     that District of the Corps.
       This authority is currently scheduled to sunset on December 
     31, 2008. Though PNWA has been successful in working with 
     Congress to secure short-term extensions for several years 
     now, the time has come to give Corps regulatory offices as 
     well as the contributing entities the predictability that 
     would come with a permanent authority. PNWA strongly supports 
     language in your bill that would make Section 214 permanent.
       These provisions are strongly supported by PNWA's 
     membership, and are important to improve the efficiency and 
     cost competitiveness of Northwest ports engaging in 
     international trade. Additional provisions that are supported 
     by PNWA are included in the attached document, PNWA WRDA 
     Requests. We appreciate the Committee's and Congress' 
     attention to these important matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kristin Meira,
     Government Relations Director.
                                  ____



                         pnwa member directory

       Alaska Assoc. of Port Managers & Harbormasters; Almota 
     Elevator Company; Anderson-Perry & Associates, Inc.; Ball 
     Janik LLP; Bell Buoy Crab Co.; Benton County PUD #1; Boise 
     Cascade LLC; BST Associates; Central Washington Grain 
     Growers, Inc.; CH2M Hill; Clark Public Utilities; Columbia 
     Basin Development League; Columbia County Grain Growers, Inc; 
     Columbia River Bar Pilots; Columbia River Pilots; Columbia 
     River Steamship Operators Assoc.; Cowlitz County Board of 
     Commissioners; David B. Barrows Environmental Consulting; 
     Douglas County PUD #1; Dustra Group.
       East Columbia Basin Irrigation District; Foss Maritime 
     Company; Office of Peter Friedmann; Gallatin Group; Gordon 
     Thomas Honeywell Gov't Affairs; Harris Group Inc.; ID Wheat 
     Commission; Jan T. Fancher, CPA, PLLC; Jefferson Government 
     Relations; Kalama Export Company; Kleinfelder, Inc.; Lampson 
     International, LLC; Lewis-Clark Terminal Association; 
     Longview Fibre Company; Manson Construction; Moffatt & 
     Nichol; Northwest Grain Growers, Inc.; Northern Star Natural 
     Gas; OR Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD).
       Oregon Int'l Port of Coos Bay; Oregon Iron Works, Inc.; OR 
     Wheat Growers League; Pacific Merchant Shipping Assoc. 
     (PMSA); Pacific International Engineering (PIE); Parametrix; 
     PB Ports & Marine, Inc.; PNGC Power; Pomeroy Grain Growers; 
     Port of Anacortes; Port of Benton; Port of Brookings Harbor; 
     Port of Camas-Washougal; Port of Cascade Locks; Port of 
     Chelan County; Port of Chinook; Port of Clarkston; Port of 
     Columbia County; Port of Garibaldi; Port of Gold Beach.
       Port of Hood River; Port of Humboldt Bay; Port of Ilwaco, 
     Port of Kalama; Port of Kennewick; Port of Klickitat; Port of 
     Lewiston; Port of Longview; Port of Morrow; Port of Newport; 
     Port of Pasco; Port of Port Angeles; Port of Portland; Port 
     of Ridgefield; Port of Royal Slope; Port of Seattle; Port of 
     Suislaw; Port of Skagit County; Port of St. Helens; Port of 
     Sunnyside; Port of Tacoma; Port of Toledo; Port of Umatilla; 
     Port of Umpqua; Port of Vancouver; Port of Walla Walla; Port 
     of Whitman County; Port of Woodland; Potlatch Corporation; 
     Presnell, Gage & Company; Preston Gates & Ellis LLP; 
     Primeland Cooperatives; Reid Middleton, Inc.; The Research 
     Group; RETEC Group; Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt; Seattle 
     Public Utilities; Shaver Transportation Company; Stoel Rives 
     LLP; Teevin Brothers.
       Tidewater Barge Lines; Ukiah Engineering Inc. (UEI); USA 
     Dry Pea & Lentil Council; WA Association of Wheat Growers; WA 
     Public Ports Association; WA State Office of Trade and 
     Economic Development (CTED); WA State Potato Commission; WA 
     Wheat Commission; Weyerhaeuser Company; Whitman County 
     Growers.
                                  ____

                                                     May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: On behalf of more than 4 million 
     manufacturing employees in the U.S., we would like to thank 
     you for your leadership in moving forward with the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA). It is vitally 
     important that America's water resources infrastructure be 
     reliable and productive. Therefore we applaud your efforts to 
     end the stalemate over water resources project authorization 
     by bringing H.R. 1495, WRDA, to the Senate floor. We firmly 
     believe that it is time to end the impasse over passage of 
     WRDA.
       A Water Resources Development Act is vitally needed to 
     accommodate the many important projects awaiting 
     authorization, including the modernization of the locks, 
     harbors, canals and other key infrastructure that are vital 
     to the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. A sound national 
     transportation system for the 21st century needs modern water 
     projects, and WRDA will authorize many of those needs.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff and 
     issues of importance to the nation's economy and environment. 
     Again, thank you for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                          The National Association
     of Manufacturers.
                                  ____



                                                      Audubon,

                                                     May 10, 2007.

[[Page 12288]]

     Re Act Now to Restore America's Natural Treasures.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Audubon Society and 
     our more than one million members and supporters, I urge you 
     to help restore America's natural resources by advocating for 
     prompt consideration and passage of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (S. 1248). WRDA 2007 would authorize 
     unprecedented spending for ecosystem restoration projects, 
     including Everglades, upper Mississippi River, coastal 
     Louisiana, and Great Lakes.
       The bill should include Corps modernization provisions, 
     including independent review of costly or controversial Corps 
     projects and ensuring that mitigation for Corps projects is 
     consistent with stricter State laws.
       WRDA 2007 contains two crucial Everglades restoration 
     projects--Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand--that would 
     mitigate harmful federal drainage projects, restore more than 
     160,000 acres of wetlands and significant estuarine habitat, 
     and help secure Florida's tourism and outdoor recreation 
     economy. The Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program, in 
     its first 15-year increment, will restore 105,000 acres of 
     habitat, protect 35,000 acres of floodplain habitat in five 
     States along the river, and will include a significant 
     monitoring program. The Coastal Louisiana Restoration program 
     will begin to reverse this devastating pattern of land loss, 
     protecting important habitat for birds, fish, and other 
     wildlife, as well as the region's economy and quality of 
     life. The bill would also permanently authorize the Asian 
     Carp Barrier to protect the Great Lakes from this looming 
     threat.
       Ecosystem restoration projects for the Everglades, the 
     Mississippi River, Louisiana's coastal wetlands, and the 
     Great Lakes are overdue, as is Corps modernization. Thank you 
     for helping to restore some of America's greatest natural 
     treasures.
       Sincerely,
                                                     John Flicker,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                             National Construction


                                                     Alliance,

                                      Washington DC, May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairwoman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe: The National 
     Construction A11iance, representing the three leading 
     construction unions advocating for robust federal 
     infrastructure investment, endorses the Senate version of the 
     Water Resource Development Act reauthorization. This vital 
     federal infrastructure legislation should be. considered and 
     passed by the United States Senate. Our three constituent 
     unions, the Laborers. Operating Engineers and the Carpenters, 
     commend you both for your strong, bipartisan leadership on 
     this legislation.
       The $13.9 billion authorization of Corps of Engineers 
     projects is an important and necessary step in addressing our 
     country's serious backlog of water projects. From harbor 
     improvement, to flood protection, to lock and dam 
     construction, dredging and environmental infrastructure, your 
     bill will immeasurably strengthen America's water resources. 
     As labor unions representing nearly one million skilled 
     construction workers, we recognize that this WRDA 
     reauthorization will create tens of thousands of good paying 
     construction jobs.
       We strongly urge the Senate to pass your legislation in an 
     expeditious manner so that America's critical water 
     infrastructure needs can be addressed.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. Poupore,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                               American Society of


                                              Civil Engineers,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2007.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Inhofe,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman and Senator Inhofe: As the Senate 
     begins its consideration of the Water Resources Development 
     Act (WRDA) of 2007 this week, the American Society of Civil 
     Engineers (ASCE) commends your efforts to bring a bipartisan 
     bill to the floor. We appreciate your commitment to moving 
     forward with responsible legislation to authorize much-needed 
     improvements to the nation's water resources and public works 
     infrastructure. We support WRDA's speedy passage into law.
       ASCE is especially pleased to champion enactment of 
     subtitle C of the Senate bill, which would require the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers to establish a national levee safety 
     program. Subtitle C would authorize the Secretary to spend 
     $100 million to inspect and inventory the nation's levee 
     systems and fund state levee safety programs. This long 
     overdue legislation ensures that we have learned the lessons 
     from Hurricane Katrina and goes far toward protecting human 
     life and property in flood-prone areas.
       If ASCE can be of further assistance as this important 
     legislation advances, please do not hesitate to contact Brian 
     Pallasch of our Washington office.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Patrick J. Natale,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak for a few 
moments about probably one of the most important bills that this 
Congress will consider relative to Louisiana and our ongoing attempt to 
protect the 3 million people who live in south Louisiana and also to 
protect the great infrastructure we have in this country, in a vast and 
broad way, not just from the energy sector but the fisheries but, most 
importantly, transportation and commerce.
  There was an excellent article in the Post this weekend that I would 
like to have printed for the Record, written by one of the most 
distinguished citizens of our State, John Barry, who is a renowned 
author who wrote the book ``Rising Tide,'' also a recent book about the 
influenza of 1917.
  But he writes, in reference to the WRDA bill and to the amendments I 
am going to be offering to this bill, about the importance of acting 
now to save this great region of the Southern part of the United 
States, and the fact that this delta that we are attempting to save by 
building the right kind of levees, the right kind of gates and locks, 
the right kind of navigation channels, correcting some of our past 
mistakes that we made before we realized the damage that would occur by 
some of our own actions.
  He writes about the importance of this Delta, that at one time it 
reached from Cape Girardeau, MO, all the way up the Mississippi River, 
down to the present mouth of the river, that the entire delta, that it 
was created over thousands of years, and it was maintained as the river 
overflowed its banks. As the river overflowed, it carried silt. It 
built the Delta.
  But as we have channeled the delta, channeled the river and built 
levees up along the river, we have caused the natural building up of 
the delta to stop.
  Then as we cut channels through this great and amazing land, that 
reaches from the east of New Orleans all the way to the Texas-Louisiana 
border, as we crisscross it with pipelines and navigation channels to 
tap into the extraordinary oil and gas reserves both on land and 
offshore, it exacerbates an already tough situation.
  Then to level on top of that the dredging of the Mississippi River, 
to keep the sandbars out of the mouth, the channel as we have made the 
water move faster, that has an impact on the way this delta is now 
lowering itself, if you will, into the water.
  There are other contributing factors, but the bottom line is we have 
to take corrective action to reverse this. We cannot correct everything 
that we did, but we most certainly can pass this bill, the WRDA bill, 
the Water Resources Development Act, which has--about 22 percent of the 
entire bill is dedicated basically to this purpose
  It is right that a large portion of this bill be dedicated to this 
purpose because this delta, this Mississippi River, does not just serve 
the 4.5 million people who call Louisiana home but it literally serves 
the 360 million people who call the United States of America home. It 
serves Canada and Mexico as well, as well as ports around the world. So 
it is not just for the people of Louisiana whom we act today, it is in 
the national interest to do so.
  In the underlying bill, which Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have 
so carefully crafted, the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration 
system has $1.133 billion. Morganza to the Gulf, a very important 
aspect of our protection of south Louisiana, is included in this bill 
at $841 million.
  Some port work at the Port of New Iberia for Vermilion and Iberia 
Parishes, which are two of our larger southern parishes, has an 
authorization that is overdue and most certainly timely. There is an 
amount of money to help relocate facilities from the Mississippi River 
Gulf Outlet, both private and public, so we can close the Mississippi 
River Gulf Outlet, which is

[[Page 12289]]

also, hopefully, going to be part of this bill, some work on the 
western side of our State, the Calcasieu River and Pass and rock bank 
protection, and there is a lock project around the capital city, to 
mention a few.
  The bottom line is, there is about $2.5 billion in this bill for 
Louisiana projects. It sounds like a lot, and it is. We are proud of 
the 8 years of work that have gone into building this WRDA bill, 
through past Congresses and now this one. Under the leadership of 
Senator Boxer, she has committed to work with her colleague, Mr. 
Oberstar, on the House side to get a WRDA bill to the President's desk 
for him to sign. It doesn't do us any good to keep talking about a WRDA 
bill.
  The only good that will come of this bill is if we can actually get 
it to the President's desk, get him to sign it, and get these projects 
underway. The people of Louisiana have waited for 8 years through any 
number of hurricanes, not the least of which in the last 2 years, we 
have had the unbelievable challenge of dealing with Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, the first and third largest hurricanes in terms of disaster 
and impact to ever hit this country. We are still fighting to rebuild 
and reeling from the damage of those storms. As I have said many times, 
it wasn't just the multiple levees that collapsed, it was really a 
Federal flood more than a hurricane that did us in. It was the multiple 
failure of levees that should have been maintained, should have been 
stronger, should have been higher, and were not.
  It is also because of the loss of great wetlands. I would like to 
share what a healthy wetland looks like, with cyprus trees and land 
where you can do a little swimming and boating and fishing--not, of 
course, a lot of walking and building. This wetland stretches from east 
of New Orleans to the Sabine River pass, which separates Louisiana and 
Texas. This is a lot of what our coast looks like. This doesn't look 
like a Florida beach or the Biloxi beach or the North Carolina beach. 
We actually don't have any beaches in Louisiana. We actually only have 
two. That is a little bit of a fib. We do have two. One is 7 miles 
long, and it is called Grand Isle, and the other one is Holly Beach. 
The rest of our coast basically looks like this. You can't even get to 
it because there are only two roads, two lanes each. We don't have any 
interstate highways on our coast. We have two two-lane roads, one down 
the east side of our State and one down the west. They basically dead-
end into swampland. This is not wasteland. This is beautiful land. It 
nurtures migratory birds. It is 40 percent of the nurseries of the gulf 
coast, extraordinary wetlands we are trying to preserve. Without this 
bill, it will be impossible.
  I would like to show a poster. I see Senator Coburn here, and I will 
finish in just a moment. I will resume after his comments.
  As Senator Boxer knows, because she came down and flew over these 
wetlands--I am so grateful to my colleague from California, the 
chairman of this committee, for coming to fly over these wetlands--we 
flew over New Orleans, which is right here, and out to the coast. We 
got to see some of these wetlands. This is the coast of Louisiana. The 
red spots are land loss just since Katrina and Rita, the land loss from 
the storm. A lot of it is St. Bernard Parish, lower Plaquemine Parish, 
and then over this way, which is where Hurricane Rita made landfall. So 
hurricanes exacerbate an already difficult situation. But because we 
have been putting navigation channels through these wetlands, we have 
been allowing for shipping, which is appropriate, but you have to have 
the right locks and dams and water control structures. Because mostly 
we have blocked the great Mississippi River, which is the largest river 
system on our continent, from naturally overflowing so that we could 
ship the grain out of the Midwest, so we could ship products from 
Canada down to the midsection of our country, this delta is starved for 
sediment. We don't have a choice.
  I am going to end now by saying that this WRDA bill, as far as 
Louisiana is concerned, is the bill that is going to reverse this 
decline and start us on a path of safety for the residents, of 
protection for the environment, and of laying down the foundation for a 
great economy, which we need to do. We can't shut off this part of the 
Nation and call it quits. We can't shut down the refining capacity and 
oil and gas. We have to make it work. We can. It is going to take good 
science, long commitments, and more than this WRDA bill. But this 
legislation is a start.
  In a few minutes, after Senator Coburn speaks, I will lay down an 
amendment that will lay the foundation for the category 5 protection we 
need. We do not expect, in Louisiana, this Congress to pick up the 
whole tab. We most certainly do not expect this Congress to pick up the 
tab in this bill. But we would like to lay the beginning foundation, 
knowing the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas will pay our 
own way as well. The independent stream of revenue we now have from 
offshore oil and gas revenues can contribute to this project which is 
going to be several decades, and it will take anywhere from $30 to $50 
billion. But there is no alternative. It is expensive, but the cost of 
doing nothing is even more.
  Let me yield the floor for the Senator from Oklahoma who was 
scheduled before me. I will return to the debate at a later time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple amendments I will be 
offering in a few minutes. I wanted to spend a moment or two talking 
about priorities.
  The work on the WRDA bill has been very important. I am supportive of 
us keeping our obligations, especially in Louisiana for the tremendous 
problems they have encountered. There is a legitimate role for the 
Federal Government as a partner with the people of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Texas in terms of restoration and also prevention so 
that we don't see the same things again. The WRDA bill is an important 
bill for a lot of States on a lot of projects, many of which have come 
about because the Federal Government has overreached in some of its 
authority and demanded things of States they can no longer afford to 
do. That is where we sit today. That is the consequence sometimes of 
having a Federal Government that is a little bit bigger than what the 
Constitution envisioned and what our Forefathers envisioned as 
appropriate.
  Let me talk about the process for a minute. The chairman asked me a 
moment ago if I was going to offer any other amendments other than 
amendments on this bill. I told her no, and I will not. But I think it 
is important for the American people to consider what we are doing here 
today. It is important work, but it certainly is not as important as 
funding our troops. We have asked American families and their children 
who are serving in the armed services to do a very difficult job. It is 
very controversial at this time. But regardless of where you are on 
that job, the fact that we continue to produce bills and not address 
their needs seems somewhat out of context for where we should be. It 
has been almost 60 days since the President asked for the additional 
funding. We have passed the COMPETES Act, spending money on the future, 
but we can't seem to pass the money for our troops in harm's way. We 
passed an FDA reauthorization with PDUFA for making sure drugs get 
cleared, but we can't seem to produce a consensus that our troops will 
be funded with the necessities they require since they are in harm's 
way. I find it ironic that we would do anything other than that.
  When I look at the Constitution, our No. 1 priority is defense. 
Whether or not we agree with the foreign policy ongoing today, we all 
agree we don't want our troops to be in any way placed in harm's way 
because of our lack of action. That is a justified criticism today 
which may come true, that American troops are hampered because we 
cannot pass a bill. I won't offer that amendment, although I think that 
is what we should be discussing, rather than the WRDA bill.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Inhofe and Boxer, for their work on 
this bill. I know it means a lot to a lot

[[Page 12290]]

of communities that don't have the resources to accomplish the things 
they need to. However, one of the things I am concerned about is 
priorities. Last year, we had a debate on the emergency status of 
funding the levees in Sacramento. I had offered an amendment. I talked 
with the Governor of California, with the two Senators from California. 
Ultimately, I withdrew that because I became convinced that, in fact, 
it was an emergency. It still is. Sacramento is the largest town in 
this country that is at major risk for a flood. The Corps of Engineers 
uses years for an event, and Sacramento sits at 85 years, the 
likelihood that 1 out of the next 85 years, Sacramento will be flooded, 
whereas New Orleans today, even post-Katrina, has a 1-in-250-year risk 
of being flooded again.
  As we look at the WRDA bill, one of the things we ought to think 
about is how do we prioritize to make sure that where there is a 
legitimate Government role, we actually spend the money on that role. 
There is a lot of money in this bill. Granted, this is an authorization 
bill which will put forward a lot of new projects, some of which we 
know the cost and some we don't.
  I remind my colleagues, right now we have enough work for the Corps 
of Engineers for the next 50 years, if we don't give them another job 
to do on their budget. In this bill, we are going to give them several 
more major projects and not the appropriate funding to do them. One of 
the reasons we will not give them the appropriate funding is because we 
don't have the money because, No. 1, we have $200 billion a year in 
waste, fraud, and duplication in the money we appropriate presently, 
which the Senate and the Congress refuse to look at, and No. 2, because 
of the limitations we have in terms of the magnitude of the jobs we put 
before the Corps.
  If you look at priorities in terms of what is important, California 
has several projects in this, as do several other States. You ask: What 
are the priorities? You say: We as a family have so many things we have 
to do. Should we do the most important ones first? If families have a 
roof they need to put on the house, it is highly unlikely they will 
build a swimming pool. They are going to fix the roof first and then 
save for the swimming pool. We don't do that in terms of many of the 
priorities in this bill.
  Myself and seven other Members voted against going ahead with this 
bill for two reasons. No. 1 is the intent, although the details were 
not followed in terms of the new earmark proposals in the bill. No. 2 
is that we think the priorities are out of whack.
  I do have a couple of amendments I will offer.


                Amendment No. 1089 to Amendment No. 1065

  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and 
amendment 1089 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1089 to amendment No. 1065.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 prioritize Federal spending to ensure the needs of 
  Louisiana residents who lost their homes as a result of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita are met before spending money to design or construct a 
                     nonessential visitors center)

       On page 209, line 1, strike ``The'' and insert ``Subject to 
     paragraph (5), the''.
       On page 210, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (5) Requirement.--No Federal funds shall be used to conduct 
     any study, or to carry out any activity relating to the 
     design or construction, of the visitors center under this 
     subsection until the date on which the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, and the State of Louisiana, certifies to 
     Congress that all residents of the State of Louisiana who 
     were displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita in 
     2005 are no longer living in temporary housing.

  Mr. COBURN. This is a simple amendment. It says that there are 
100,000 people from Louisiana today in temporary housing. We have 
failed to move them from temporary housing into other housing.
  There are, in this bill, plans and studies for a new visitor center 
to be set up in Morgan City, which will be a great thing for the area 
of Louisiana. I do not doubt that. The purpose of this amendment is to 
say we should not spend any money on that until we get the people 
affected by Katrina back into housing instead of temporary housing.
  So it is not necessarily a criticism, although I generally have 
criticisms of the Federal Government's role in providing visitor 
centers for tourism, et cetera, in the States. More importantly, it is 
about priorities, of whether we ought to take care of those people who 
have been markedly impaired in their housing opportunities, which 
ultimately affects their ability to earn a living in Louisiana, before 
we build another visitor center, before we spend any money on it. We 
attempted to try to find out how much this visitor center would cost, 
and nobody could tell us. But the point is, we probably should not 
spend a penny on that until we have taken care of the people in 
Louisiana.
  If you look at the stories that continue to come out--and Senator 
Landrieu has been a champion in this body of making sure the rest of 
the Members of this body are aware of the continuing needs of Louisiana 
for housing--we should not spend any money on anything other than those 
critical needs for the people of Louisiana. When those are met, then we 
go and build a visitor center. We do not do it at the same time. To do 
it at the same time says there is no limit on the amount of funds we 
have, and we know there are. So we should not put this forward.
  This amendment does not take away the visitor center, it does not 
eliminate the visitor center; it just says you cannot spend any money 
on it until we have taken care of people in Louisiana and their 
housing. It is very simple, very straightforward, but puts a priority, 
much like you and I put a priority on what our needs are. One of our 
big failures in this body is picking priorities. If we had unlimited 
funds, we would not need to do that, but we do not have unlimited 
funds. Our true deficit was far in excess of $300 billion last year, 
although we claimed it was under $200 billion by Enron-style 
accounting. But, in fact, we added $300 billion to our children's and 
grandchildren's debt.
  So this is just a little, small amendment that says we should not do 
this until we have taken care of the obligations that are in front of 
us in terms of people's lives. When we have done that, then go for it, 
go do it, but do not do it ahead of those people. When people cannot 
have services, cannot have what they need, who have been displaced by a 
natural disaster the likes of which we have never seen before in this 
country, we should not spend one penny on thing other than taking care 
of them. Once they are taken care of--a legitimate Federal role, to 
make sure the environment for housing has been created so Louisiana can 
get back on its feet--then we ought to do that. So we are not 
eliminating it. We are just saying, do not spend the money, there is no 
authorization until you have met and it has been certified that the 
housing needs of those who are in temporary housing today--trailers, 
tens and tens of thousands of people are still living in trailers, who 
still do not have access to housing--do not do that until you have met 
that need. It is very simple.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator to yield for a 
question?
  Mr. COBURN. Certainly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, is the Senator now going to go to the 
second amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I plan on it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would it be wise to have the Senator from 
Louisiana respond now, and then the floor would go back to the Senator 
for the next amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would be fine with that.

[[Page 12291]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me respond to my colleague. I want 
to begin by first thanking my colleague from Oklahoma for his time and 
focus. He has come down to our State. He has viewed the damage. As you 
can tell, Mr. President, he is most familiar with our situation. He is 
absolutely correct, we have a great deal of work to do.
  This particular visitor center, like several others, is not just for 
extra recreation, I say to my colleague. This is the heart and soul of 
tourism in this region. We do not have big cities like New York and 
Chicago in this region. Maybe they are somewhat like the Senator's 
cities in Oklahoma. They are small communities, but they are important 
communities. Throughout the southern part of our State, as I have shown 
on the maps, we do not have large communities but communities of 15,000 
or 10,000, for example, high up on a ridge, surrounded by levees.
  We are proud of these great wetlands. We want people to come see 
them. So it is not just saving them for the birds and the fish, which 
is very important, but it is actually saving them for the benefit of 
the people who live there, who want to be able to recreate on them, and 
we want to share them with the world.
  I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, we think the more people can 
actually get their eyes on this problem, the more support we can get 
for doing the right things to preserve them, to taper down on 
unnecessary and unwanted development, to scale up the investments in 
the right kinds of levees and structures, that will help us preserve it 
over time.
  So while I know on first blush it may seem to the Senator as if this 
is a frivolous expenditure, I would say this is part of a very 
comprehensive approach Louisiana has to save the wetlands. I do not 
think--I will be happy to submit for the Record the total cost because 
I most certainly can get that for the Senator--it is going to amount to 
very much money, but it is an important aspect of our redevelopment 
that has to do with science, with engineering, with the environment, 
with the basic industries, and with tourism and the education of people 
about what wetlands are.
  I say to the Senator, as I said, one of the difficulties Senator 
Vitter and I are having in trying to explain this to the Nation is 
there are virtually no other shores in the country like this. There are 
low-lying areas, of course, in South Carolina and North Carolina, and 
marshes, but there is virtually no other delta like this in the 
country. So people literally have not been able to see it.
  When you see something like a beach in Florida, the wonderful coast 
in California, which many of us have been to, or to Long Island in the 
Hamptons, in New York, when you have seen that with your own eyes, you 
can appreciate it, and you can understand it. The only way to get to 
the coast of Louisiana is literally by boat or by air, except for those 
two little highways I spoke about: LA1 on the east side and Holly Beach 
Road on the west side.
  So having this center--I would like to show you where it might be, if 
I can find a picture of the Atchafalaya. I am not sure I have one. Let 
me show you the original picture I started with. I will show it, not to 
make too much of this because it is just a small education center. The 
center would allow people to come down into this wetlands area and see 
some of the great Atchafalaya Basin that is sort of the last standing 
Cyprus swamp in the country. So again, it is a small item.
  I object to the Senator taking it out of this bill, but I want him to 
know this is not because we do not think it is important to put people 
in housing and to build levees. We are doing all that and doing it as 
fast as we can, trying to reduce redtape, but we do think these 
educational centers which we are building serve a significant and 
important purpose. I do believe the State has already contributed in 
kind, as well as the local parish.
  So I will leave my argument there and at the appropriate time come 
back to this subject.
  I yield the floor, but I would like to speak sometime later this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I would like to make some comments. First of all, we do not take this 
out. We do not eliminate it. We just say there ought to be a priority 
on the funds, and the funds for housing ought to come ahead of this. 
No. 2 is, 3 years ago, a new visitor center was opened for this very 
purpose for the Atchafalaya Basin, which is the focus of the new 
visitor center. This just opened 3 years ago.
  Again, in a quote from it: Smack dab in the center of the Atchafalaya 
Basin is a very welcoming site for those traveling on Interstate 10. 
The Atchafalaya Welcome Center is open seven days a week from 8:30 to 
5. The center is located off Interstate 10 at exit 121. It is a first 
class facility, quite impressive, with historical information within 
the walls. It is an Acadian-style cottage museum. Outside, wildlife and 
nature will take you back in time.
  It was completed in June 2004. It has many of the same things the 
Senator wants to support. There are also two other visitor centers in 
Morgan City, so it is not that there is not some process out there 
already to do that.
  Again, the point is not to eliminate this visitor center. The point 
is to say, shouldn't we have a priority--before we allow money to go 
for another visitor center where there is already one that has just 
opened 3 years ago, shouldn't we have the people who need housing taken 
care of? So I will stand with that and will not continue the debate on 
that.


                Amendment No. 1090 to Amendment No. 1065

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and call up amendment No. 1090.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1090 to amendment No. 1065.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 prioritize Federal spending to ensure the residents of the 
   city of Sacramento are protected from the threat of floods before 
          spending money to add sand to beaches in San Diego)

       On page 11, strike line 5 and insert the following:
       (6) Imperial beach, california.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
       On page 11, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (B) Requirement.--No Federal funds shall be used for beach 
     nourishment for Imperial Beach, California, until the date on 
     which the Secretary certifies to Congress that the Sacramento 
     River Bank Protection Project has been completed.

  Mr. COBURN. This, again, is for the restoration of beaches. It is a 
30- or 40-year project, which I do not object to on its face. I love 
beaches. I take my family to Florida. I noticed recently they restored 
beaches down there. Again, the question is priorities. We have a tough 
time setting priorities. We take authorizations bills, we don't look at 
them. What we do is we get them authorized and then we fight like heck 
when the appropriations time comes around to get our projects funded.
  The Sacramento levee system, according to the Corps of Engineers, is 
one of the most important projects they have in terms of reducing risk 
for people at risk of flood. We had a debate on this floor less than a 
year ago with the Senators from California. I talked to the Governor of 
California. I had attempted to strip out some of the funding of an 
emergency bill for emergency funds for the Corps of Engineers for this 
basin and for these levees. They convinced me with their argument that 
was a high priority. I actually withdrew my amendment. I did not ask 
for a vote on it.
  We have a WRDA bill that has this in it, and then we have a beach 
restoration project, over which there is some

[[Page 12292]]

significant debate in terms of Imperial Beach in southern California, 
restoring that beach over the next 40 to 50 years, with intermittent 
projects every 4 to 5 years, pumping sand to restore the beach. I am 
not against that, either. But what I think we have to do is set a 
priority.
  Why shouldn't the priority be that we protect the people of 
Sacramento and finish the levee system? The answer will be: We can do 
both. Well, we really cannot do both. We will do both probably, but we 
cannot do both. We cannot do both with the money we have. So then it 
comes to: Where are the priorities? We will have this debate again when 
the bills come forward in the appropriations process, of where the 
priority is. We will probably fund both these projects. But when the 
American taxpayers ask: Now, which one is most important, which one is 
a true Federal responsibility, which one is a State responsibility, 
they are going to want some answers. When asked about protecting a 
major city such as Sacramento with a levee system that the Corps of 
Engineers designed, which was substandard to begin with, and redoing 
that to make sure we protect all these people, or letting the State of 
California restore its own beaches from sand erosion, I believe the 
vast majority of Americans will say: As to the beach, probably the 
local community can afford to do that. They get the benefits off of it. 
They get the property taxes off of it. They get the tourism off of it. 
But Sacramento is a different story. It is something the Federal 
Government started. It is something the Federal Government is 
responsible for, and something the Federal Government should respond to 
and finish.
  Senator Feinstein, in our debate last year, noted that the bottom 
line is that human life and property hangs in the balance based on the 
sustainability of these levees. I think that is right. I do not think 
human life stands in the balance on restoring the beaches, which is 
really a State responsibility.
  What we are going to do in this bill is we are going to take taxpayer 
money. We are actually going to borrow the money to do it. We are not 
going to do it out of the regular budget. We are going to pay for 
something that is a State responsibility. The other factor that comes 
into it is that every State in the Union, save one, has a surplus this 
year. We have a $300 billion deficit, if we are honest. So, again, it 
comes back: is it great if we have extra money, if we aren't borrowing 
the money for the future? Should we do this at the same time? I would 
agree.
  The fact is, we don't want to make the hard choices. We don't want to 
tell anybody no, not now. What we want to do is be able to have both. 
We can satisfy people today, but the people who will be dissatisfied 
with the generational collar that we put around them will be our kids 
and grandkids as they repay the cost of out not prioritizing things, 
not looking at things that are most important, and otherwise not 
standing up to the line and doing what we should be doing, which is 
making the hard choices of priorities.
  One of the things I think the American citizenry is upset with, as 
much as the war or more, is the fact that it seems as if we don't care 
about the future. We will throw money at anything, money we don't have.
  So these two amendments I bring to the floor today are not big. They 
may not pass, but they are based on a principle. The principle is to be 
a good steward. We all, in our own personal lives, with our own money, 
have to make priorities. We have to put that roof on before we do 
something else to the house. We have to make a choice about where the 
first dollar should go. Unfortunately, sometimes we do a poor job of 
that in the Congress.
  I believe, from the way this Senator sees it, securing the levees 
ought to be a much higher priority than restoring beach that can be 
restored by a local community or the State of California. It is not 
truly a Federal responsibility.
  I have studied a great deal about the beach restoration project. They 
have a general plan. What has happened to them has been out of their 
control, the Tijuana River in terms of how it has been blockaded and 
dammed and the amount of sand that filters in and that is available for 
the beach. Several attempts at growing structures had been made in 
1978. A plan was put forth that would have restored it. It did not meet 
the environmental impact statement. It was abandoned at that time.
  What we know and what is predicted by those who have watched this--
especially Orrin Pikley, the director of the program for the State 
Developmental Shorelines at Duke University--is that we shouldn't be 
nourishing the beaches. President Clinton, much to his credit, saw the 
need for the States to take a greater burden in financing beach 
nourishment, and he proposed eliminating all funding for nourishment 
projects and studies, and he reduced the Federal share to 35 percent on 
any projects that weren't ongoing.
  Where is the responsibility? Who is going to pay for it? It is easy 
to spend your money. It is easy to not tell anybody no. But the fact 
is, when we get down to the long and the short of it, we can't do 
everything everybody wants to do. I know a lot of people were told no 
in this bill about things they want to do, but we do some of it, to be 
fair. But in the long run, lives, safety, and housing have to take 
precedence over convenience and recreation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I would like to lay down the reasons why.
  First, I do want to thank Senator Coburn because he was very 
accommodating to both Senator Inhofe and me by coming here on a Monday 
afternoon and putting these amendments down so we could begin the 
debate and hopefully vote on them tomorrow. I do appreciate that. It 
means a lot to us as managers because we worked long and hard on this 
bill.
  Before I tell my colleagues why I call this amendment the Russian 
roulette amendment, let me just say I have supported Senator Coburn on 
many of his amendments where he is looking at the fiscally responsible 
thing to do, and I will continue to do so when I think those amendments 
make sense, and I am sure there will be more. But I do want to call to 
the Senator's attention, if you step back from this particular 
amendment, which I strongly disagree with--I think it is dangerous, and 
I will go into that in a minute. If you step back and look at the whole 
picture of this bill, we should be very proud that working together, 
Republicans and Democrats, we took a bill that was scored at about $31 
billion down to a bill that is about $13.9 billion because we really 
did apply some strict standards to this bill.
  There are no projects in this bill that are giveaways or handouts or 
make somebody's beachfront pretty. That is nonsense because neither 
side would approve of that.
  I also want to make a point--because I think Senator Feingold made 
this point very well, although I disagreed with him and we had a bit of 
a debate on it last week--that when colleagues use the word 
``prioritize,'' that we should ``prioritize,'' and then they offer 
these amendments, they are putting out their priorities. That is not 
subjective. It is not subjective if I put out my priorities next to 
Senator Coburn's, next to Senator Feingold's, next to Senator Inhofe's. 
That is objective. I think the Presiding Officer who is now sitting in 
the chair knows because she sits on the committee that has jurisdiction 
over this bill. It is hard. We battle it out for what the right 
priorities should be.
  Now, as I told Senator Feingold last week when we had a debate, 
because he is offering an amendment dealing with prioritization and 
setting up a whole new way to prioritize this project, let's look at 
this process in which we are engaged because I think the Senator--the 
reason I believe the Senator is on weak ground is because he seems to 
be ignoring what has gone on before he got involved.
  First of all, these projects start from the local governments up, and 
the local governments and the communities get together and say: We have 
a very rough

[[Page 12293]]

situation and we pay Federal taxes and we would like to make a 
partnership to protect lives and property and businesses. From there, 
they put up their fair share. They have to be willing to put up their 
fair share. So this isn't Uncle Sam paying for all this. This is a 
joint effort, and they have to come forward and the various committees 
of jurisdiction approve a study.
  Now, when these studies are looked at, I say to my friend, there is a 
cost-benefit ratio involved, and sometimes it is very tough on 
colleagues because they think they are going to get a project and 
realize it just doesn't add up. So everything before us that has passed 
muster, the local government, the local people, they pick up the share, 
and it has to be funded with a study. And that study, as I said, has to 
come in and show that this makes sense, and then it goes to the various 
committees or the administration will fund it. There is an 
environmental impact statement that goes along with all this. They are 
considered again in WRDA. I guess this is the chance for colleagues to 
say: We don't like this project or that, and we are having this debate. 
It is the Senator's absolute right to choose and pick what he thinks 
are not priorities. I understand. So after we pass it here, it then has 
to go forward and get appropriated as well.
  This bill has been 7 years in the making. We have cut it more than in 
half. I think it is a proud product.
  I would say to my colleague, the reason I say the amendment is 
playing Russian roulette is this: We don't know when a hurricane, a 
storm, is going to come up and hit us in the face. It may come in the 
northern part of my State, I say to my friend. I have a coastal State. 
I have a State that is beautiful. We have more beauty per square inch--
of course, I am not subjective on the point--than I think any other 
State. We have 37 million people. We have a real problem. The fact is, 
we can't just do one thing--Sacramento--and not take care of all the 
other things.
  I so appreciate my friend's coming around with us on the Sacramento 
issue. I cannot tell my colleagues what it means to me because, as he 
now knows, we have to take care of Sacramento. It is low lying. It is a 
potential catastrophe. He is absolutely right to call attention to the 
levees. We have to do all that.
  But the reason I say his amendment is Russian roulette is because it 
is essentially counting on the fact that we are not going to have this 
problem in Imperial Beach. I want to say this is not a beach project; 
this is a hurricane and storm damage reduction project. This is not 
about making somebody's property pretty to look at. This is serious 
business.
  And speaking of business, if we don't do this work--the locals are 
going to pay, in the beginning, 30 percent and then 50 percent. If we 
don't take care of it, business is going to get the floods and it is 
going to be wiped out. So I wish I could say to my friend all I need is 
one flood control project in Sacramento and be done with it, but with 
37 million people and an economy that if we were a separate Nation 
would be the fifth or sixth largest in the world, obviously California 
needs so much.
  Now, we have stressed Louisiana and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 
Senator Inhofe and I pulled aside a lot of people and said: Look, we 
have to come together to help that region. But we also have a backlog 
of 7 years' worth of work. In the case of Imperial Beach, this project 
got started in 2007, and the people are waiting. The city of Imperial 
Beach is home to 26,000 people. Four thousand of its residents live 
within two to three blocks of the shoreline. It is located near San 
Diego, just to give everybody a picture, and the beaches and the sand 
dunes act as a buffer to protect residential and commercial properties. 
It is a defense. It is a defense against storms and storm surge. If we 
don't do that, we would be building walls, a very expensive way to get 
that hurricane damage reduction.
  So nature provides our coastal communities with natural protection 
from violent storms and the waves they produce. In the Northeast it is 
the high rocky cliffs. From the Mid-Atlantic around the Gulf of Mexico, 
it is the wide, sandy beaches. In Louisiana, it is miles of wetlands. 
That is why both our colleagues, Senators Vitter and Landrieu, talk a 
lot about wetlands restoration, which we do in this, because that is 
the natural flood control, just as the beaches and the bluffs are 
natural flood control that God gave us.
  The coast of my State is particularly prone to strong winter storms 
that blow in from the Pacific. During the El Nino years, storms can be 
especially dangerous. That is why I say Russian roulette. We are 
playing Russian roulette. This is not some project that sprung up 
because some individual looked out and said: You know, I want more 
beach in front of my house. No. It has nothing to do with that. It is a 
dangerous situation. The public is going to be paying for half of this.
  The Army Corps of Engineers said 100,000 cubic yards per year is 
eroding from the beach, corresponding to a shoreline retreat rate of 6 
feet per year. There is adequate protection from winter coastal storms. 
That is what the Army Corps of Engineers said. That is not me speaking. 
I am not an engineer. I respect what they say.
  I know my friend says he is not striking this, he is just saying it 
is more important to do Sacramento first. We need to do all of it. We 
need to do this bill. We need to take care of our people in this bill 
wherever they live--east, west, the north of my State, the South, East 
or West of the country, Midwest--wherever they are, wherever they need 
help.
  At the current retreat rate, the shoreline in the northern portion of 
the area could reach the first line of development this year--this 
year. That is why this bill is so needed. It is needed now--not next 
year, not after they finish Sacramento or after they finish Hurricane 
Katrina. We shouldn't be picking and choosing. We should be having an 
absolutely firm commitment to making sure every one of these projects 
fits the benchmarks we have set in a bipartisan way, meet the 
benchmarks, meet the criteria, and not punish people and say, gee, you 
people in Imperial Beach, you are paying and we are going to pay 50 
percent out, but we are stopping because a lot of miles away in another 
part of the country, or this State, other people need help and they are 
more important than you. I don't think that is right.
  We are Senators. We are Senators of all the people. We have to look 
at their needs. Absolutely, prioritizing is key. I have shown my 
colleague how we prioritize through this process and how we cut back 
the costs of this bill. The beaches, the coastline, the protective 
buffer is literally washing away.
  (Ms. Klobuchar assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the restoration project in this bill solve the 
problem of Imperial Beach?
  Mrs. BOXER. This is considered a 50-year fix.
  Mr. COBURN. It is a 50-year fix only if they continue to do the work 
every 5 years, correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, of course, all projects have to be maintained.
  Mr. COBURN. According to the Corps, every 5 years we will pump the 
same amount of sand up there, and in 50 years we will be doing the same 
thing again. This isn't a long-term fix; this is a short-term fix, 
according to the Corps, not according to anybody else. They have to do 
the same thing every 5 years to maintain the status quo; is that 
correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. No. The initial project consists of 1.214 million cubic 
meters of sand, resulting in a total beach with 32 meters beyond the 
existing beach line. That is the first phase. To get to your point, it 
is estimated that once every 10 years, over the 50-year life of the 
project, they would replenish, not every 5 years.
  Mr. COBURN. Every 10 years, they are going to have to bring back the 
sand the ocean naturally washes away from the beach because we have not 
done what needs to be done, which is a long, extended growing, to help 
the beach replenish itself.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me say, we continue to maintain the dams in Oklahoma, 
too. So whether you are maintaining a dam or maintaining this kind

[[Page 12294]]

of project, yes, you have to take care of your house, your home, your 
project. This isn't a free lunch for anybody. The local people have to 
pay for that as well.
  So the reason the Corps recommended this particular project is they 
say it is very cost effective, it provides a lot of protection for 
these people, and it has a very high cost benefit. For every dollar put 
in, the American people get $1.70 in return, and few projects can claim 
such a return.
  Mr. COBURN. I would not know how to argue with that. Would the 
Senator yield for a moment, and I will finish up?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am delighted.
  Mr. COBURN. The difference between this and a dam is a dam is put 
there to control water or generate power. They have to be maintained. 
The way to fix this, according to the people we have talked to, is the 
original Corps plan is to put the money into an extended growing until 
the beach redevelops and replenishes itself. We will continue to do 
this every 10 years. I am not saying that is not a good priority, but 
it is not a priority like many of the other things.
  I have a letter that I received from Dr. Serge Dedina, executive 
director of WiLDCOAST, supporting our amendment and asking that this 
money be placed secondary to the efforts in Sacramento because their 
studies show one winter storm will wash away what this money was spent 
for. In fact, this isn't the best plan, although it is a plan and--
again, if I was there, I would want this beach maintained and restored. 
But I understand the desire for it. I understand the priorities for it. 
I understand the decisions that have been made in terms of lessening 
priorities that weren't included in that bill.
  I appreciate the time the chairman of the committee has given me to 
offer these amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 14, 2007.
       Dear Senator Coburn: Please accept this endorsement for 
     your amendment to the WRDA that would require that residents 
     of Sacramento be protected from the threat of floods by the 
     completion of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Program 
     before federal funds are spent to add sand to beaches in San 
     Diego (Imperial Beach) .
       WiLDCOAST represents the interests of Imperial Beach 
     taxpayers who are solidly opposed to any public expenditures 
     on beach replenishment projects in Imperial Beach. We have 
     been informed by City of Imperial Beach staff that federally 
     funded beach sand projects are designed to ``enhance private 
     property.''
       Our Beach Sand Stakeholder Advisory Group is formed of 
     local Imperial Beach business owners and coastal engineering 
     technical experts who all agree that the effort to have U.S. 
     Taxpayers fund Imperial Beach sand replenishment is an 
     absolute waste of scarce federal dollars. It has been 
     scientifically proven that millions of dollars of sand that 
     would be dumped on the beach of Imperial Beach would wash 
     away in a single winter storm.
       We appreciate your support for stopping wasteful 
     expenditures of scarce federal dollars through badly planned 
     and flawed sand replenishment projects in Imperial Beach, 
     California.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Serge Dedina,
                                    Executive Director, WiLDCOAST.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask where we are now. Senator Coburn 
has two pending amendments; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. We now have Senator Feingold's amendment pending on 
prioritization and two Coburn amendments; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I feel like I want to respond for a couple of minutes 
more to this amendment and say that my colleague says: Oh, my goodness, 
every 10 years you have to do more work. As I say, the Corps found that 
this is the most economical and sustainable way to resolve this 
problem. He talks about beaches--what were his words--being washed 
away. Yes, beaches will be washed away. We expect that, and every 10 
years we will restore the beach. But it is better that that happens 
than houses washing away, businesses washing away or people washing 
away. So we have looked at the other options, such as concrete 
structures, walls--all very expensive and requiring a lot of 
maintenance and so on.
  So we have a situation where the city is paying for 35 percent of the 
initial part of the project, 50 percent for the rest of the project. 
The city of Imperial Beach is not looking for a handout, but it is 
sharing the burden of protecting its people.
  Again, I don't quite understand the prioritization of the Senator 
from Oklahoma, or why he picks on this particular project. This is a 
project that is more cost effective than any other alternative. It is 
one of the most cost effective in the Nation. We feel very good about 
it. But just as Louisiana's wetlands restoration will lessen impacts of 
hurricanes, because the wetlands are that natural absorber of the water 
and they also lessen the power of the hurricane, we are here using the 
God-given beaches as a way to do this flood control or, better said, 
hurricane impact reduction. So we learned from Hurricane Katrina that 
we should address our flood threats before they materialize.
  We are worried about this particular community. I am very pleased 
that this particular project certainly wasn't even controversial when 
we put together our package because it so clearly fits all the criteria 
we had in place. My colleague is saying don't do this until you do 
Sacramento, and it doesn't make any sense to me because we need to do 
it all. That is the point of the WRDA bill--to take care of as many 
people as we can, and that we can project with the most stringent 
criteria that we have. So this ``Russian roulette'' amendment plays 
with the fate of my community. I think Senator Coburn's other 
amendment, which would strike a blow at the tourism revival in 
Louisiana, is also an ill-fated amendment.
  The reason I was so glad he came over this afternoon is I am hoping 
we can have votes on these three amendments tomorrow. If we send a 
signal that the members of the committee are sticking together on this 
in a bipartisan way and we are going to move this forward, I think it 
would be very good for the bill.
  I look forward to Senator Inhofe's arrival. He has had a very 
grueling weekend in Iraq. I don't know exactly when he will arrive. At 
this point, 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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this week, the week of May 14, is 
National Police Week, and the streets here in Washington, DC are filled 
with tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, their families, and 
their children. This is the week we recognize 17,917 officers whose 
names are inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
here on Judiciary Square, all of them people who gave their lives to 
make our communities a safer place.
  It is the week we recognize 145 fallen heroes of our Nation lost this 
past year. The people of Alaska give thanks that we did not lose a law 
enforcement officer in the line of duty during 2006. This is also the 
week we add the names of 237 additional law enforcement officers to the 
memorial. These are officers who lost their lives in the line of duty 
in generations past but whose stories did not come to light until now. 
One of those 237 officers is William George Pfalmer, Jr.
  Officer Pfalmer's career with the Anchorage Police Department came to 
an end on June 9, 1953, when he was shot following a traffic stop of a 
stolen vehicle. He was shot in the left arm and the

[[Page 12295]]

right shoulder, shattering his spine and causing him to spend the 
remainder of his life in a wheelchair. Officer Pfalmer lost his battle 
to survive those wounds on December 26, 1970, at the age of 45, after 
undergoing one of many corrective surgeries.
  I rise today in tribute to Officer Pfalmer and I rise to share the 
remarkable story of a present-day Anchorage officer, Officer Cathy 
Diehl Robbins, who made sure Officer Pfalmer's contributions were not 
lost to history. But for Cathy's determined research, the name of 
William George Pfalmer, Jr. might never have been inscribed on the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
  When Officer Pfalmer was shot on June 9, 1953, the city of Anchorage 
did not even pay him a full day's pay. At the time, the city did not 
offer a pension to police officers, nor did it compensate them for 
their injuries. Officer Pfalmer, who was 27 years old at the time, 
turned in his badge--which so happened to be badge No. 13--and was left 
to fend for himself. Anchorage is a city well known for its community 
spirit. This was true in 1953, it is true today. Officer Pfalmer was 
named Anchorage's Father of the Year, and the community helped to raise 
$13,000 to help the family through their difficult time. But that was 
not enough to enable the Pfalmer family to remain in Alaska.
  A World War II Coast Guard veteran, Officer Pfalmer moved his family 
to California where he could receive medical treatment without charge 
from the VA. The officer's wife Eleanor was his full-time caregiver. 
They were tough years financially, but love and commitment held the 
family together. Officer Pfalmer kept his family afloat for most of 
those 17 years by purchasing cars at auto auctions, reconditioning 
them, and reselling them. His three sons, Glenn, Garry, and Greg, 
helped out after school repairing the cars under their dad's 
supervision. The three sons were literally their dad's arms and legs. 
They all became mechanics, a trade their father taught them.
  The Pfalmer family assumed that their father's service with the 
Anchorage Police Department was long forgotten, until one day, out of 
the blue, son Greg received a call from Cathy Diehl Robbins. Cathy, who 
had been researching the history of the Anchorage Police Department in 
her own time, came across an article of some 10 years earlier. That 
article led Cathy to believe there was a hero who somehow had fallen 
through the cracks. Cathy would not let go and was determined to run 
the story to the ground. After diligent research, she discovered the 
story was true. She tracked Greg down on the Internet and learned that 
his father was the Anchorage police officer she had read about. She 
wondered whether the officer was still alive and, sadly, learned he was 
not. Cathy then made it her mission to ensure that Officer Pfalmer's 
contributions were not forgotten.
  On June 9, 2006, 53 years after the fateful incident that cost the 
officer his career, the Anchorage Police Department acknowledged 
Officer Pfalmer's loss as a line-of-duty death. He was subsequently 
recognized by the Alaska Peace Officers Memorial, and this year his 
name is inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
  It is fitting that Cathy Diehl Robbins was invited by the National 
Law Enforcement Officers Fund to read Officer Pfalmer's name at the 
annual candlelight ceremony, which was held last night, Sunday, May 13. 
I am pleased that Garry Pfalmer, one of Officer Pfalmer's three sons, 
was able to travel from Fairbanks to witness the ceremony.
  During this National Police Week, we remember fallen officers for the 
way they lived their lives, not the way they gave them. Today, we 
remember Officer Pfalmer not only for the events of June 9, 1953, but 
also for the support and the inspiration he provided to his family 
during the next 17 years: a hero at home and a hero in the service of 
our community.
  During this National Police Week, we recite again and again the 
phrase that ``heroes never die.'' So let us spend a moment to reflect 
upon the life of Officer Pfalmer, and as we do, let us acknowledge the 
efforts of an angel named Cathy Diehl Robbins, who brought the story of 
Officer Pfalmer back to life.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, it took me a few minutes to get the 
details I needed to respond to Senator Coburn. I am sorry for the 
delay. But I want to continue the debate we had just about 45 minutes 
ago on his amendment No. 1089 about which he spoke earlier, and we are 
prepared, I think, to vote on in the morning.
  I am hoping my good colleague from Oklahoma will think about the 
possibility of withdrawing his amendment because I am going to submit 
some things for the Record that I think might have a bearing.
  First of all, I think he offered his amendment in a way to be 
somewhat critical--although he was very respectful--somewhat critical 
that the Federal Government would be funding visitors centers before we 
build our levees and protections that we need for south Louisiana. I 
was a little puzzled by that. I went and found the facts.
  Actually, we are not asking the Federal Government to spend a dime. 
What we are asking the Federal Government to do is simply to authorize 
a visitors center, type A as opposed to B, so we can be, as I said in 
the earlier debate, more interpretive--to have a real place where 
people can come and learn about the wetlands and the entire delta. The 
cost difference between B and A would be absorbed by Louisiana. So the 
Senator's main argument that it would cost the taxpayers of the United 
States, out of our budget, out of our money, is not accurate. I am not 
sure he understood that, but I think it has real bearing on the debate.
  Again, in reference to Coburn amendment No. 1089, which is the 
Atchafalaya Basin Project, Eagle Point and Fosse Point Visitors Center, 
it is to simply authorize a larger type, more robust center, if you 
would, so we can have a kind of interpretive visitors center and 
education to go on in this part of the State, teaching not only 
ourselves in our State and the region but the country about the 
benefits and really extraordinary value of the wetlands.
  Madam President, 8,000 visitors a month visit this center, which is 
already established. Again, it is at no cost to the Federal Government. 
I will speak with Senator Coburn in an effort to see if he can withdraw 
his amendment. If not, we will continue this debate tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Louisiana Atchafalaya Basin Program Project Profiles

       The ultimate goal at Eagle Point Park is to enhance, 
     promote, preserve and protect the ecosystem of the lake and 
     the precious resources of the Atchafalaya Basin.
       The development of Eagle Point Park will provide a 
     sustainable recreation park facility designed to fulfill the 
     needs of eco-tourism and become a welcomed regional and state 
     amenity. The park's exceptional location near the Atchafalaya 
     Basin will continue to remind visitors of what Louisiana once 
     looked like in its pristine splendor of unbroken forests and 
     swamps. Ultimately, Eagle Point Park will preserve the 
     precious resources of the basin, recover the basin's majesty 
     while managing the human impact, and enhance economic 
     development to surrounding communities and the entire state.
       The Corps of Engineers is developing a scope of work to 
     produce Plans and Specifications for the Phase I analysis 
     currently underway with the Team of the Corps of Engineers, 
     URS, GSA, Wayne Labiche Engineering, and Sidney Bourgeouis 
     Architects. After completion of this work the Parish will be 
     in a position to advertise and award a construction 
     contract(s) for the Phase I development.
       Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently 
     considering an aquatic restoration project in Lake Fausse 
     Pointe. The

[[Page 12296]]

     lake has filled in to a depth of 1.5 feet in many places and 
     the warm shallow water is not conducive to fish life. Plans 
     are being considered for dredging a series of sink holes and 
     using the dredge material to build small islands which will 
     provide animal and bird habitat and should eventually provide 
     shade along the banks.
       Aside from the Educational Value of facilities: State and 
     Federal Agencies would be housed at Morgan City Interpretive 
     Center; LSD will put research lab at the Morgan City 
     Facility; and discussion is ongoing with other agencies for 
     location.
       It is important to note that Morgan City was the host of a 
     FEMA trailer site, but the site has been closed.
       8,000 visitors visit the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway each 
     month.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. In addition, Madam President, I referred earlier to a 
Washington Post article, an article written by John Barry. It was an 
opinion piece in Saturday's paper, May 12. I referred to it, but I am 
not sure that I technically asked for it to be printed in the Record. 
At this point I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 12, 2007]

                       Our Coast To Fix--or Lose

                           (By John M. Barry)

       There has been much debate in the past 20 months over 
     protecting Louisiana from another lethal hurricane, but 
     nearly all of it has been conducted without any real 
     understanding of the geological context. Congress and the 
     Bush administration need to recognize six facts that define 
     the national interest.
       Fact 1: The Gulf of Mexico once reached north to Cape 
     Girardeau, Mo. But the Mississippi River carries such an 
     enormous sediment load that, combined with a falling sea 
     level, it deposited enough sediment to create 35,000 square 
     miles of land from Cape Girardeau to the present mouth of the 
     river.
       This river-created land includes the entire coast, complete 
     with barrier islands, stretching from Mississippi to Texas. 
     But four human interventions have interfered with this 
     natural process; three of them that benefit the rest of the 
     country have dramatically increased the hurricane threat to 
     the Gulf Coast.
       Fact 2: Acres of riverbank at a time used to collapse into 
     the river system providing a main source of sediment. To 
     prevent this and to protect lives and property, engineers 
     stopped such collapses by paving hundreds of miles of the 
     river with riprap and even concrete, beginning more than 
     1,000 miles upriver--including on the Ohio, Missouri and 
     other tributaries--from New Orleans. Reservoirs for flood 
     protection also impound sediment. These and other actions 
     deprive the Mississippi of 60 to 70 percent of its natural 
     sediment load, starving the coast.
       Fact 3: To stop sandbars from blocking shipping at the 
     mouth of the Mississippi, engineers built jetties extending 
     more than two miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. This 
     engineering makes Tulsa, Kansas City, Minneapolis, 
     Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and other cities into ports with 
     direct access to the ocean, greatly enhancing the nation's 
     economy. The river carries 20 percent of the nation's 
     exports, including 60 percent of its grain exports, and the 
     river at New Orleans is the busiest port in the world. But 
     the jetties prevent any of the sediment remaining in the 
     river from replenishing the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts 
     and barrier islands; instead, the jetties drop the sediment 
     off the continental shelf.
       Fact 4: Levees that prevent river flooding in Louisiana and 
     Mississippi interfere with the replenishment of the land 
     locally as well.
       Fact 5: Roughly 30 percent of the country's domestic oil 
     and gas production comes from offshore Louisiana, and to 
     service that production the industry created more than 10,000 
     miles of canals and pipelines through the marsh.
       Every inch of those 10,000-plus miles lets saltwater 
     penetrate, and eat away at, the coast. So energy production 
     has enormously accelerated what was a slow degradation, 
     transforming a long-term problem into an immediate crisis. 
     The deprivation of sediment is like moving a block of ice 
     from the freezer to the sink, where it begins to melt; the 
     effect of the canals and pipelines is like attacking that ice 
     with an ice pick, breaking it up.
       As a result, 2,100 square miles of coastal land and barrier 
     islands have melted into the Gulf of Mexico. This land once 
     served as a buffer between the ocean and populated areas in 
     Louisiana and part of Mississippi, protecting them during 
     hurricanes. Each land mile over which a hurricane travels 
     absorbs roughly a foot of storm surge.
       The nation as a whole gets nearly all the benefits of 
     engineering the river. Louisiana and some of coastal 
     Mississippi get 100 percent of the costs. Eastern New Orleans 
     (including the lower Ninth Ward) and St. Bernard Parish--
     nearly all of which, incidentally, is at or above sea level--
     exemplify this allocation of costs and benefits. Three man-
     made shipping canals pass through them, creating almost no 
     jobs there but benefiting commerce throughout the country. 
     Yet nearly all the 175,000 people living there saw their 
     homes flooded not because of any natural vulnerability but 
     because of levee breaks.
       Fact 6: Without action, land loss will continue, and it 
     will increasingly jeopardize populated areas, the port system 
     and energy production. This would be catastrophic for 
     America. Scientists say the problem can be solved, even with 
     rising sea levels, but that we have only a decade to begin 
     addressing it in a serious way or the damage may be 
     irreversible.
       Despite all this and President Bush's pledge from New 
     Orleans in September 2005 that ``we will do what it takes'' 
     to help people rebuild, a draft White House cuts its own 
     recommendation of $2 billion for coastal restoration to $1 
     billion while calling for an increase in the state's 
     contribution from the usual 35 percent to 50 percent. 
     Generating benefits to the nation is what created the 
     problem, and the nation needs to solve it. Put simply: Why 
     should a cab driver in Pittsburgh or Tulsa pay to fix 
     Louisiana's coast? Because he gets a stronger economy and 
     lower energy costs from it, and because his benefits created 
     the problem. The failure of Congress and the president to act 
     aggressively to repair the coastline at the mouth of the 
     Mississippi River could threaten the economic vitality of the 
     nation. Louisiana, one of the poorest states, can no longer 
     afford to underwrite benefits for the rest of the nation.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Finally, Madam President, I spoke earlier and read some 
items into the Record. I perhaps read the wrong list. So I am going to 
resubmit this so the Record is clear. The $3.3 billion in the 
underlying WRDA bill represents about 20 percent of the total bill. As 
I tried to explain to some of my constituents at home, if we were 
talking about a desert bill we would probably have zero money in this 
bill. But we are talking about a water bill, and Louisiana most 
certainly has a great deal of water--sometimes more than we need, more 
than we asked for, and more than we want. But this is Congress's major 
water development bill. Because we sit at the mouth of the greatest 
river system in the country, which is the mouth of the Mississippi 
River, and because we have some of the greatest and last coastal 
wetlands in the country, of course, this would have a great many 
projects for us.
  We really appreciate, Senator Vitter and I, the cooperation of 
Republicans and Democrats in being particularly supportive of us as we 
struggle to get many of these protection projects in this bill 
authorized because, of course, of our recent tragic experiences with 
the storms.
  The $3.3 billion in projects is significant, necessary, and essential 
to beginning to build a kind of barrier of protection that the people 
of south Louisiana, and I might add south Mississippi and part of south 
Texas, depend on to keep them safe.
  We do not live right on the coast, as people do in Mississippi, 
Alabama, Florida, and actually in Texas. We are the only people 
actually moving from the coast. We are not moving to the beaches. There 
are no beaches to move to.
  I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         WRDA 2007--Senate Floor Consideration (May 7-10, 2007)


                        general overview of WRDA

       WRDA 2007 authorizes more than an estimated $13.9 billion 
     of Corps projects.
       In comparison--WRDA 2000 authorized $4.1 billion; WRDA 1999 
     authorized $2.5 billion.
       The major authorization components of WRDA 2006 are:
       Louisiana: $3.336 billion--24%
       Florida Everglades: $1.73 billion--12%
       Upper Mississippi River--Illinois Waterway: $3.77 billion--
     27%
       All Other Authorizations: $5.064 billion--37%
         Estimated Total: $13.90 billion--100%


                           Louisiana Projects

       Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration: $1.133 
     million
       Louisiana Coastal Ecosystem next wave: $728 million
       Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Protection: $886 
     million
       Port of Iberia Navigation/Storm Surge Protection: $131 
     million
       Jefferson Parish Consolidation: $100 million
       Larose to Golden Meadow certification up to 100 year level: 
     $90 million
       MRGO Revolving Loan Fund for Private Facilities: $85 
     million

[[Page 12297]]

       MRGO Relocation Assistance for Public Facilities: $75 
     million
       Red River Waterway mitigation: $33 million
       Southeast Louisiana development planning: $17 million
       Calcasieu River and Pass Rock Bank Protection: $15 million
       Various Louisiana Environmental Infrastructure: $13 million
       Bayou Sorrel Lock: $10 million
       MRGO de-authorization: $5 million
         Total: $3.336 billion

     BOLD Text represents changes from WRDA 2006

  Ms. LANDRIEU. These are coastal wetlands. We are proud of that. It is 
a totally different environment and topography than exists in many 
other places. But we do have some very special and extraordinary needs, 
and I would be doing a great disservice to the people of our State if 
we didn't fight as hard as we could for the many projects in this 
bill--for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration; the 
Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Protection Project, which we 
literally have been working on for 20 years; the Port of Iberia 
Navigation and Vermilion Parish Hurricane Protection Project; Jefferson 
Parish consolidation; Larose to Golden Meadow, which is a little 
community down here in Lafourche Parish, but it was the only authorized 
Federal levee that did not collapse in the last hurricane. But it has 
been shrinking. This will help us to build it up, to strengthen it, and 
to keep that wonderful community safe and dry, as the next storms 
approach.
  We understand people cannot live in some areas. They are prohibited 
from development. We are doing much more strict zoning and planning and 
community planning and design. In fact, some communities are picking up 
and moving north. Some communities are not building any more in flood 
zones. We are with the program when it comes to keeping our people 
safe.
  We can do more in that regard and we will. But without these 
fundamental earthen barriers and levees and locks, this job will never 
get done. It is not going to get done overnight, but it will be done, 
to protect the 3.5 million people who live in the southern part of 
Louisiana, as well as about 1.5 million people who live in Mississippi.
  As you can see, these are the great wetlands of Saint Bernard and 
Plaquemines Parish Project, Gulfport, and some parts of Pascagoula, and 
Pass Christian. The storms come from the west. It gives a tremendous 
buffer to Gulfport and Pascagoula. Of course, if the storms come more 
from the east, they are more vulnerable as they lay bare to those storm 
surges and high winds.
  For these wetlands to stay and to be restored by the actions of this 
bill is incredibly important and actually essential to the preservation 
of this great metropolitan area. This is more than New Orleans, which 
is 450,000 people, or was before the storm. It is now down to about 
200,000. Jefferson Parish, which is part of the metropolitan area, our 
suburban sister parish, is 450,000. That parish could have just as 
easily gone under 4 to 12 feet of water had the levees broken on the 
other side of the canal that sits about right here.
  In addition, north of the lake--this is Lake Pontchartrain--we have 
700,000 people ringing the north side of this lake, and hundreds of 
thousands of people who are living down in these ridges.
  There is a tremendous amount of population that needs to be saved and 
protected and sustained. But as I said earlier, it is not just the 
people who are there, it is the economy, the infrastructure of the 
economy we are protecting and supporting. Whether it is fisheries, 
transportation, navigation, 10,000 miles of pipeline, to keep the 
lights on and provide gas and electricity and fuel to the rest of this 
country--that comes from here, as do petrochemicals that help to make 
many of the products that we manufacture in this country better and 
safer for human use. That happens along the southern part of this great 
delta.
  That is why we fought so hard for this bill. I want to end by saying 
I commend Senator Boxer, my colleague from California, for making this 
a priority. I thank our leader, Harry Reid. It has been 8 long years 
since WRDA has passed and Louisiana cannot wait another month, let 
alone another year.
  There is a hurricane season literally right around the corner in 
June. This is the middle of May. People are still on pins and needles 
wondering whether the levees that we have reconstructed and fixed are 
going to hold for this next hurricane season. They are most certainly 
looking with great anticipation, and some anxieties, too, if this 
Congress will act.
  I know there are some amendments that are going to be laid down 
complaining about some aspects of this bill, but I thank Senator Boxer, 
and I thank Senator Inhofe for his attention to the needs of Louisiana, 
and I thank this Congress for responding so generously and so quickly. 
Senator Vitter and I do have several amendments we would like to 
discuss later tomorrow, which would improve some things from our 
perspective. But we most certainly understand and appreciate the great 
work that has gone into this underlying bill.
  This bill needs to pass now. It lays a foundation for the long-term 
recovery and restoration of this great delta. Some expense will be 
borne by the Federal Government, which is absolutely appropriate since 
the benefits go all over the Nation from the river systems and the 
other infrastructure, economic infrastructure that exists. And some of 
the costs will be borne, as it should be, by the people who call 
Louisiana home and call Calcasieu Parish or Cameron or Vermilion or 
Iberia, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Saint Tammany, et cetera, 
home.
  We are happy to make our own contributions to this effort. We love 
our home. We love where we live. We have to make it safer, and we have 
to be able to restore these wetlands and build better levees that do 
not fail and do not break in the middle of these storms.
  We cannot stop the storms, but we most certainly can mitigate against 
the damage and use better science, better engineering, and, frankly, 
better leadership in this Congress to make sure the tragedies that 
happen in Katrina and Rita do not repeat themselves.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any cloture 
filed tomorrow on amendments 1097 and 1098 be considered as having been 
filed prior to the motion to proceed to S. 1348.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1495 on Tuesday, May 15, the time 
until 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 
1090, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators 
Boxer and Coburn or their designees; that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate 
vote in relation to the amendment, with no intervening amendment in 
order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________