A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to remove the authority of the Federal Energy Commission to collect land use fees for land that has been sold, exchanged, or otherwise transferred from Federal ownership but that is subject to a power site reservation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two bills I am introducing--one to maintain navigation on the Mississippi River during extreme weather and the second, to improve the Nation's water infrastructure, including locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

For many of us, last year's low water event on the Mississippi River is still fresh in our minds. We came close to economic catastrophe when ongoing drought conditions in the Midwest led to the lowest water levels seen on the Mississippi River since World War II and threatened to disrupt the movement of billions of dollars in goods on the river. At the height of the crisis at the end of 2012, Waterways Council and the American Waterways Operators estimated that up to $7 billion in goods could be effected by a river closure from December to January.

The worst conditions for navigation were near Thebes, IL, in a stretch of river referred to as the Middle Mississippi. It begins at the confluence of the Missouri River and ends at Cairo, IL where the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers merge. The natural bends and twists of the river here combined with naturally occurring rock formations on the river bed make this stretch particularly difficult to navigate during periods of extreme low water. To pass, barges were forced to carry lighter loads than normal, reducing efficiency and costing them money.

Only through better than expected rainfall, Congress pushing the Army Corps to expedite removal of rock pinnacles at Thebes, and some creative reservoir management was the river able to stay open and the worst case scenarios able to be avoided this time. For the Corps' part, it was an amazing fete and they should be commended for their successful efforts.

But we know from Hurricane Katrina to Sandy, from severe flooding on the Mississippi River in 2011 to the historic low water in 2012, extreme weather seems to be the new normal--becoming more frequent and more severe.

The Mississippi River Navigation Sustainment Act seeks to make government and commercial navigation users better prepared for the next extreme weather event that threatens navigation. I am pleased that Representatives Bill Enyart and Rodney Davis are introducing companion legislation in the House.

The bill authorizes the Corps to conduct a study to better coordinate management of the entire Mississippi River Basin during periods of extreme weather. This will ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes into account the effect the entire basin has on navigation and flood control efforts on the Mississippi River.

The Mississippi River Basin is the third largest watershed in the world and covers more than 40 percent of the contiguous United States. It doesn't take a PhD in hydrology to know that what happens on other systems in the

watershed affects the Mississippi River and activities on it.

This bill will also improve river forecasting capabilities through the increased use of tools like sedimentation ranges and the deployment of additional automated river gages on he Mississippi and its tributaries. During the latest low water event, many of the manual gages--sometimes literally lines painted on bridges--became unusable because the water was so low. lmproving the ability to accurately forecast and provide information on current river conditions will help barge operators and shippers who have to make long term business decisions based on this information. Operators leaving Minnesota need to know that when they get to Thebes, river conditions will allow them to pass.

The bill will also provide flexibility to the Army Corps to conduct certain operations outside of the authorized channel if such action is deemed necessary to maintaining commercial navigation. This authority would be used to maintain access to loading docks and other critical infrastructure during periods of low water. In addition, it will allow the Corps to better assist the Coast Guard in managing traffic on the river during low water events by providing areas for barge operators to moor their vessels farther away from the navigation channel, leading to increased safety and greater ability to keep the navigation channel clear.

Finally, recognizing that the Mississippi River is a vital natural resource, this bill will create an environmental pilot program in the Middle Mississippi River. This will give the Army Corps the authority to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in this portion of the river while conducting activities to maintain navigation.

Also key to maintaining navigation and commerce on the Mississippi and other inland waterways, is continued investment in water infrastructure.

For example, the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and Illinois Rivers, built in the 30's and 40's, are aging, making the risk of failure an ever increasing prospect. In addition, the lock chambers are too small to accommodate today's standard barge configuration helping lead to an average delay of more than 4 hours for passing vessels.

That is why I worked with my colleagues in Missouri and Iowa in the 2007 Water Resources and Development Act to authorize the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program which would expand and modernize these locks while restoring the ecosystem on the Upper Mississippi.

Modernizing these locks means safer, more reliable, and drastically more efficient navigation. Operators and shippers alike would benefit-- barge companies could maximize efficiency while Illinois farmers and others could reliably get their products to market.

Unfortunately, under current project delivery processes and Federal fiscal realities, the first benefits of this modernization are not expected to be felt by the navigation industry before 2047. And that was before sequestration. Between sequestration and the continuing resolution being debates on the Senate floor now, the Corps' construction budget for fiscal year 13 would be cut by approximately $80 million. Even before all of that, the Corps estimated a project backlog of approximately $60 billion.

It is clear we need a new model--one that speeds up the process of planning and constructing these projects in the face of an often slow bureaucratic process and brings to the table greater private investment while the Federal Government is cutting back.

That is what Senator Kirk and I are proposing with the Water Infrastructure Now Public-Private Partnership Act. I am proud that Representatives Bustos and Davis have introduced companion legislation in the House.

The bill will create a pilot program to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to enter into agreements with non-federal partners using new and creative models to finance and construct up to 15 previously- authorized flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and navigation projects.

I am hopeful that this program will provide a way to maintain our investments in important water infrastructure projects even as we face severe fiscal restraints by creating a greater opportunity for private interests to come to the table.

At the same time, the bill would take care to protect previous taxpayer investments by prohibiting any privatization of Federal assets and requiring a study to show that any proposed agreement would actually provide a public benefit.

For many of these long-stalled, large scale infrastructure projects, like the Locks and Dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, this common sense bill could provide a way forward.

Together, the Mississippi River Navigation Sustainment Act and the Water Infrastructure Now Public-Private Partnership Act, represent positive steps forward in the effort to maintain the economic viability of the Mississippi River and protect our inland waterway system against threats from extreme weather and aging infrastructure. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring these common sense measures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, among Chicago's most treasured assets is Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are among this country's most valuable natural resources, but the lakes face many natural and man-made threats. I'm pleased to join my Illinois colleague, Senator Mark Kirk, in introducing today the Great Lakes Water Protection Act to address one of those threats--municipal sewage.

A recent report found that from January 2010 through January 2011, 7 U.S. cities dumped a combined 18.7 billion gallons of waste water into the Great Lakes. Sewage and storm water discharges have been associated with elevated levels of bacterial pollutants. For the 40 million people who depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, that is no small matter.

When bacterial counts go too high, beaches have to be closed. In Illinois, we have 52 public beaches along the Lake Michigan shoreline. People use these beaches for swimming, boating, fishing and many communities generate revenue from the public beaches. Every lost visitor to a public beach costs the local economy between $20 and $36 in revenue.

Our legislation would quadruple fines for municipalities that dump raw sewage in the Great Lakes and direct the revenue from these penalties to projects that improve water quality. The bill also includes new reporting requirements to provide a more complete understanding of the frequency and impact of sewage dumping on this critical water system.

The Great Lakes are a national treasure. Illinoisans know that. They want to protect Lake Michigan and they are willing to fight for the Lake. Three and a half years ago, when we learned that BP was planning to increase the pollutants it puts into Lake Michigan--the people of Illinois stood up and said no. Polluting our lake further is not an option.

Senator Kirk and I agree. Protecting the Great Lakes is not a partisan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. We will work together to ensure that this national treasure is around for generations, providing drinking water, recreation and commerce for Illinois and other Great Lakes States.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Representative Sensenbrenner is introducing the companion bill in the House. This bill will help make sure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy.

The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs.

That is why, during my 30 years in Congress I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action.

During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet all three of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance.

But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion.

In the past 5 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct?

Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him.

In the second case, the Senate found that former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was guilty of a number of things, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge.

What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status what would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.''

The judicial misconduct committees are simply inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct. These judges are not given the resources necessary nor do they have the expertise in conducting a complete investigation. They cannot, despite their best intentions, remove the inherent biases that develop from working closely with other judges. This duty would be better suited to an independent entity within the Judiciary.

The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act is the answer. This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the Federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees.

Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the Federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on Federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on Federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its Federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue but today I am focused on how a technicality in Federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of Federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC can continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright.

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of Federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on Federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based Federal land-use fees. I also asked the Department of the Interior, which maintains our Federal lands, for assistance. Unfortunately it appears that the government has not been diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that have since been transferred away from Federal ownership as neither agency was able to produce a list of impacted projects.

Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--11 of which are located in my home State of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual Federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees for is land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Mr. President, we often hear refrains of the need to make government policies more fair, clear, or simple--especially when these policies involve the collection of fees or taxes. Today I rise to introduce legislation to fix an inherently unfair policy by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from charging land-use fees for hydropower projects that are no longer located on Federal land.

FERC is responsible for licensing private, municipal and state hydropower projects. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission is authorized to collect fees from project owners for those hydro projects located on Federal lands. The rationale behind these land-use fees is to recompense the United States for the ``use, occupancy, or enjoyment'' of its Federal lands. The Federal Government is, in some sense, a landlord for these types of projects, and can collect just and reasonable rent from its tenants. The current level of these rents is a separate issue but today I am focused on how a technicality in Federal law allows the government to continue to collect land-use fees even when the land at issue has been transferred out of Federal ownership. Under current law, if the Federal Government sold the land underneath a hydropower project to the operator, or transferred it into state ownership, FERC can continue to assess full land use fees against the operator. This untenable situation is like a landlord continuing to collect rent from a tenant even after the tenant buys the house outright.

While the inherent unfairness of such a scenario is clear, the statutory and regulatory web that has created this snare is extremely complex. In addition to allowing for the collection of Federal land-use fees, the Federal Power Act also contains a section regarding Power Site Classifications, or PSCs. A PSC attaches to the land when a preliminary hydropower license application is made, and entitles the government, or its designees, to enter the associated land and develop a hydropower project if some other person or operation is occupying it. These classifications are similar to easements, in that they permanently attach to the title of the lands. The purpose of PSCs is to make sure that hydropower can be developed in the limited number of areas on Federal land that are suitable, and furthermore that once such an area is identified by a preliminary application, that the site is not then diverted to an alternate use.

However, FERC has interpreted the statutory fee collection provisions to give these PSCs another affect that is not in keeping with this purpose--to charge land-use fees from existing hydropower operators in cases where the Federal Government no longer owns the land. In such a case, there is no need for a PSC to preserve the hydropower value of land as it is already being used for power production. Nor is the Federal Government somehow missing out on other beneficial uses of the land, because it no longer owns the land at issue.

When I first learned of this issue, I asked FERC for a list of the hydropower projects for which it was collecting these PSC-based Federal land-use fees. I also asked the Department of the Interior, which maintains our Federal lands, for assistance. Unfortunately it appears that the government has not been diligent in keeping track of which projects are located on lands that have since been transferred away from Federal ownership as neither agency was able to produce a list of impacted projects.

Consequently, my staff attempted to survey the number of affected projects by consulting with both the National Hydropower Association and the Alaska Power Association. This search identified 15 possible projects subject to these PSC land use fee collections--11 of which are located in my home State of Alaska. While some may dismiss these fees as being relatively minor, I can tell you that these annual Federal fees for land not even owned by the Federal Government can represent a significant hardship for my constituents.

The bill I am introducing today would put a halt to this kind of fee collection. It simply says that when FERC is making fee determinations, it cannot take PSCs into account. Therefore, the only land that the Federal Government will be able to collect ``use, occupancy, and enjoyment'' fees for is land that it actually owns. I hope all of my colleagues can agree this treatment is a fair resolution of the issue and I ask for their support.

Mr. President, today I rise to join with Senator Durbin to introduce the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping in the Great Lakes, America's largest source of surface fresh water. The Great Lakes are home to more than 3,500 species of plants and animals and are the source of drinking water for more than 30 million Americans. It is time that we put a stop to the poisoning of our water supply. Cities along the Great Lakes must become environmental stewards of our country's most precious freshwater ecosystem and take action to reverse the trend of discharging sewage into the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes Water Protection Act gives cities until 2033 to build the necessary infrastructure to prevent sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. Those who violate the EPA's sewage dumping regulations after this deadline will be subject to fines up to $100,000 for every day they are in violation. These fines would be directed into a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to be used for wastewater treatment options, with a special focus on greener solutions such as habitat protection and wetland restoration.

Many cities along the Great Lakes Basin lack the critical infrastructure needed to divert sewage overflows during times of heavy rainfall. Some reports estimate that as much as 24 billion gallons of combined sewage and storm water runoff are dumped into the Great Lakes every year. Loaded with a mix of bacteria and other pathogens, untreated sewage poses a serious threat to public health and safety and is one of the leading causes of beach closings and contamination advisories at Great Lakes beaches.

According to data collected over the past 5 years by the Illinois Department of Public Health, it is not uncommon to see the total number of beach closures and contamination advisories across the Lake Michigan beaches in our State exceed 500 in a single swim season. These events threaten the health of our children and families and cost local economies millions. A University of Chicago study concluded the closings due to high levels of harmful pathogens like E.coli cost the local economy about $2.4 million each year in lost revenue.

Protecting the Great Lakes is one of my top priorities in Congress. As an original cosponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Act, I support a broad approach to address some of the greatest challenges to the Great Lakes ecosystem and the economic growth of the region. However, while we continue to push for comprehensive Great Lakes restoration, we must also move forward with tailored approaches to tackle specific problems.

I am proud to introduce this important legislation to end the disastrous practice of releasing billions of gallons of untreated sewage into our Nation's most abundant source of freshwater. It is my hope that my colleagues will work with me to to preserve the Great Lakes and ensure this source of safe drinking water is safeguarded for future generations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.