Floor Statements

I move to reconsider the vote.

Ten minutes.

I thank the Senator so much.

Madam President, can the Chair tell me when I have gone about 9 minutes, and then I will wrap up.

Madam President, would the Chair inform me when I have 1 minute left of my 10 minutes so I can wrap up at that time?

Thank you very much.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon--I wanted to be here for this entire debate, but I have been chairing a hearing over in the Environment and Public Works Committee, where our attorney general, Jerry Brown, is here to make a very strong and persuasive case for our State and 11 other States to begin to take on the issue of global warming in terms of emissions of movable sources, mobile sources--cars. I came over as soon as I could.

I am so grateful to Senator Dorgan for once again showing the leadership to offer us an amendment that I think has tremendous merit and that is to strip from the immigration bill this guest worker program. I wish to make it clear that this guest worker program has nothing to do with the agricultural jobs program that is in this bill that I support, a bill that has been vetted at hearings. We know there is a need. There seems to be very little, if any, disagreement on that portion of the bill.

But this is a generalized guest worker program. I did hear the comments of Senator Sanders. I wish to associate myself with his remarks. Senator Sanders makes a brilliant point. How many times have we seen workers huddled in a corner with tears in their eyes because they received a notice that they have been laid off--not by the tens, not by the twenties, not by

the hundreds but sometimes by the thousands. Big employers in this country seemingly with nowhere to turn tell us: Oh, my goodness, we have to compete, we have to pare down our employment, and they lay people off. Those same employers are now begging for a guest worker program. Why? You have to ask yourself why? I do have a degree in economics, but I would say that was a long time ago. You don't need a degree in economics to understand what is at stake. These large employers want a large, cheap labor pool that they can draw from. My colleagues on the other side say: Oh, we are protecting those workers. Oh, they will be fine.

No, they will not be fine. How many workers do you know ever in the history of America who have to leave after 2 years and wait a year to come back to a program, leave after the next 2 years, come back, and by the way, how powerless are these workers, these temporary guest workers? They know if they say one thing to criticize, perhaps, a manager or to complain or to beg for a sick day because they have a sick child at home, when they know they have no power, everything rides on their being able to come back into the country because the employer says they can come back in. We are setting up a system of exploitation. We are setting up a system with this generalized guest worker program, a system that will put downward pressure on the American worker. We are already worried about what is happening with trade.

Many of us have been saying for years: Where are the workers' rights in these trade agreements? Where are the environmental standards? Now they claim they are coming in with these agreements. I will believe it when I read the fine print. But the point is we are already in trouble, our workers are, competing with workers from around the world. Now we are bringing them in here, 400,000 a year, every single year, millions of workers.

Now, I know my dear friends who put this together tried their best to bring us a fair bill, but this is not fair. I know my friends who worked so hard to put this together said: Well, we have to give up something to get something. I know that, believe me. I just brought my first bill to the floor as a chairman. It was tough, very tough. I understand that. But there is a point at which you have to say: Time out; let's look at this. This isn't good. I say we make this bill so much better if we can strip out this generalized guest worker program. I think Senator Sanders has shown us, by way of his research, that this whole thing is a phony request that we need these workers, when we already know that big business is laying off our workers.

I think we have to look at what we are about to do. The underlying bill takes 12 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are in the workforce already, and they put them on a path to legality. I support that. If they have worked hard and if they have played by the rules and if they are good people, I support that. It is not amnesty. I have seen what this bill does. They have to pay heavy-duty fines. They have to get in the back of the line. That is fine. But on top of the 12 million workers, we then have our regular program of green cards. Madam President, 1.1 million receive green cards; 1.5 million in 2005 were given temporary worker admission. So here we have a circumstance where we are legalizing 12 million people, most of whom are workers; we have another 3 million who come in every year, plus we have our regular immigration system, and now we are adding on top of that 400,000 workers a year.

Now, according to the Economic Policy Institute, nearly 30 million Americans make an average wage of $7 an hour. The plight of these working poor is not getting better. In fact, real wages for the bottom 20 percent of American workers have declined from 2003 to 2005. Let me repeat that. Real wages between 2003 and 2005 have declined. People cannot live on $7 an hour, to be honest with you. I was going through my son's old pay stubs when he worked his way through college in the 1980s. He worked as a clerk at a grocery store. He made $7 an hour in the 1980s; $11 on the weekend. A good job. That is what a lot of the workers still make. That is not right, to stagnate like that. It is not right.

Now, you add to the fact that our workers are losing ground; you say 400,000 guest workers. By the way, if we did this industry by industry, it might make a little more sense, but oh, no. These workers can come in and go anywhere. They can go anywhere. So it is a pool of cheap labor at the expense of the American workers. It is as simple as that. I don't think it takes an economics degree to understand it. Our colleagues say: Well, these are jobs that American workers would not take. Baloney. We heard the jobs. A lot of them are good jobs.

We are going to work on this. We may not make this amendment. I hope we win it. I think everyone who cares about American workers today should vote for the Dorgan-Boxer amendment and strip this guest worker program from the bill--leaving the AgJOBS in place, of course--but strip this from the bill. Get rid of this terrible program. If that doesn't work, there will be amendments to cut it in half and maybe more. Let's do that. I will have amendments to make sure there are some checks on this program, that if more than 15 or 16 percent of the workers don't obey the rules and stay here, even though they are supposed to go back, the program will be finished, over, done.

So there will be a series of amendments on this guest worker program.

I also will have an amendment that has the Department of Labor certifying that this guest worker program is good for America. It is good for the American worker. If they cannot so find, they will tell us, and we will have to reauthorize this program every single year. This is written in a way that no matter what the unemployment rate, no matter what is happening on the ground to our workers, 400,000 guest workers come in. Imagine that. Imagine that. Imagine a time in America where we could be up to 8 percent, 9 percent, 10 percent unemployment. I have lived through those days, and I know the Senator from North Dakota has as well. But there is no automatic change in this program. We will still have 400,000 workers a year coming in. We have to put a check and balance on that program.

So I want to be able to vote for an immigration bill that is fair and just. This program is unfair. It is unjust. It will place downward pressure on the American worker who is struggling as we speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last November, the American people voted to end the President's one-man show in Iraq. I think the Chair understands that very well, given that he was victorious in November, and a lot of the questions surrounded what are we going to do about Iraq, this terrible failed policy.

Today, we have an amazing opportunity, and I thank Senator Reid for giving us that opportunity, to vote to end this war now, and to do it in a way that is responsible, to do it in a way that is gradual, to do it in a way that makes a lot of sense.

The Feingold amendment essentially shifts the mission away from a combat mission to a support mission. It is very clear the President will get the funding he needs for the following things. Our troops will be funded to go after al-Qaida. After all, that was the primary purpose we declared after 9/11, and I voted to go to war to get al-Qaida, and to get bin Laden. Then the administration took a U-turn and got us off course into Iraq.

Our military has been superb. They have done everything they have been asked to do, from searching for those weapons of mass destruction, ascertaining there were none; and then, apparently, the mission wasn't done. The President said, get Saddam. They got Saddam. Oops, the mission still wasn't done. After that, he said, get his family members and show them on television and show the people we mean business. But the mission still wasn't done.

Then there were three elections in Iraq, to give the Iraqis a chance to choose their own leaders. We train and train and train Iraqi soldiers and police, where there are now about 300,000. If they can't defend and protect their own country, if they do not love the chance to have freedom as much as we love it for them, then I say it is time to change this mission. Keep on going after al-Qaida. Yes, you can keep training those troops if they need our help in that, and force protection. Those would be the missions. The Feingold amendment gives us this chance.

The President has derided any attempt Congress has made to end this war. He says, why should politicians get involved with this? Well, let me say why I think the Senate should get involved. Because it is our constituents, just as it is the President's constituents, who are dying in Iraq. In front of my office door I have these large boards that list the names of the dead, and 21 percent of the dead were either born in California or they were based in California--21 percent. So I will not allow this President to tell me I have no right to try to end this war. I have every right to try to end this war, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues, as I did from day one when 23 of us said this war was a bad idea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 1 minute.

Mr. President, our Nation is grieving over this war. Every day when we wake up and turn on the TV or the radio, we don't know what other horror is befalling our troops. We have a country in Iraq where 70 percent of the people want us out of there, where a broad majority says it is OK to kill or wound an American soldier, where maybe 50-plus percent of the Iraqi Parliament says we should get out on a timetable.

It is pretty simple. When I was a kid, my mother said, don't go where you are not wanted. Enough is enough. We have given and given and given, in blood and in treasury. So I proudly stand before the Senate urging my colleagues to do the right thing, to vote for responsible redeployment, a responsible end to this war, and join me in voting for the Feingold amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask for 1 minute off the leader's time.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for his very articulate statement. I so agree with what he said. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, and I want to make sure my colleague agrees, that of all the options which will be before us, all well-intentioned, all worked on so diligently--some of my colleagues are here who did that--is it not a fact that the only one that will guarantee a change in the status quo is the Feingold amendment because all the others really lead right back to where we are today because the President is given total leeway to decide exactly what to do? Am I correct on that point, that if we want change, you have to vote for the Feingold amendment, if you want to end the war?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wanted to give Senators and staff an update on where we are with the WRDA bill now that we have voted on these various Iraq resolutions.

Where we are now is that our work is almost done on this bill. We are down to the final amendments that are in the managers' package. One of our colleagues, Senator Coburn, is looking at about three or four of these amendments that he has some problems with. We are very hopeful we can work with him to resolve those questions because we have many items in the managers' package. We think about 10 or 12, or more, actually. So he is looking at four, and we are working with him to resolve them.

If we can resolve that, it would be a wonderful thing because we could get done with this bill. Senator DeMint has two amendments which we are looking at on our side, and we think we can work with those amendments. We think we can reach agreement on those amendments.

So here is where we are. This bill is being slowed down because of four particular items in the managers' package that Senator Coburn is looking at right now and we are working with him. If we can resolve those questions, and we can certainly resolve Senator DeMint's amendments, we will be done with this bill, and we can roll them all into a managers' package, either do them by voice vote or have a recorded vote and then a final passage vote, which, believe me, would be welcome news for the workers and the businesses of our great country.

If we cannot resolve these remaining matters, we are very willing to have votes on those questions and we would like to start that this afternoon. We will just work our way through the six votes and see how it all comes out, but we are hopeful. We are going to give it another hour, hour and a half to talk to colleagues. I didn't want colleagues to think that Senator Inhofe and I weren't continuing to focus on this bill. We are. We are working our caucuses in an effort to get this done.

I am going to relinquish the floor, and we will be back as soon as we have some agreement on these remaining amendments.

I see the distinguished ranking member on the floor now, so we will have a chance to collaborate on where we stand, and I yield the floor for my colleague to speak at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, after many hours of work behind the scenes and with the help of some extraordinary staff which I will talk about later tonight, we have come to the point where we are going to get this important legislation, the WRDA bill, completed. We are at that point.

Amendment No. 1145

(Purpose: To modify certain provisions relating to water resources

development projects)

Mr. President, I, along with Senator Inhofe, have a managers' amendment at the desk which has been cleared by all sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this package of amendments be printed in the Record as if read.

I further ask that upon adoption of this amendment, no further amendments be in order; that the substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time; that upon passage, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with a ratio of 6 to 5; and that the vote on passage occur at 5:15 p.m. today, notwithstanding rule XII, paragraph 4, with the above occurring without further intervening action or debate, with the time until 5:15 equally divided and controlled between the chair and the ranking member or their designees.

Mr. President, this is a wonderful moment for me as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I have to say I wouldn't be at this point without the amazing work of my ranking member, Senator Inhofe. Everyone knows there are times when we don't see eye to eye on certain issues, mostly around the environment. We get that. But when it comes to making sure the infrastructure of this Nation is where it should be, there is really no daylight between us.

I think it is very important to note that both Senators Landrieu and Vitter were determined to show us their needs for Louisiana, and both Senator Inhofe and I are very pleased we were able to work with both of them. We know we haven't met every single need, but we have taken an enormous step in that direction.

I mentioned the staff earlier, and I want to mention their names--my staff director, Bettina Poirier, and my deputy staff director, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, and Tyler Rushforth. On Senator Inhofe's staff, I thank Andrew Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Let Mon Lee. Additionally, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus and Mike Quiello with Senator Isakson.

This has been a bipartisan endeavor. This has not been easy. Some day, when I write my book on how a bill really becomes a law, I will let everyone know what it really takes to get a bill like this done, a bill that is 7 years in the making. We need to get it done. Senator Inhofe and I are going to get into that conference committee with our colleagues, and we are going to iron out the differences and hopefully be back here with the final product.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I agree with the Senators from Michigan and Ohio that the corps needs to address this dredging backlog. I also agree that the corps should make their budget decisions using all economic data available and not based only on an arbitrary tonnage limit. While the bill managers were not able to reach an agreement on an amendment, I will work with the Senators to ensure that Great Lakes dredging issues are addressed when the bill is in conference.

I agree that we have a problem here, and I will work with you in conference to address this situation.

How much time is left on my side, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I would love to hear from Senator Isakson because he has been a champion in assisting us and working on this. We are fortunate to have him as ranking member on the subcommittee.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from Louisiana. She has been such a fighter for her State in all this. There isn't a day that has gone by since the very day of the disaster that struck when she hasn't come up and told me: Senator, you need to come and see and you need to help. I am so fortunate I am in a position to help, along with Senator Inhofe. This is a bill that is so important for her State.

I thank Mary Landrieu for all the contributions she has made. I yield to her 8 of the 9 minutes I have left.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

All right, in 3 minutes 17 seconds, I want to say again how happy I am. I am smiling from ear to ear because this has been an amazing road. I think it is important to note that when we started out, we had a little surprise from the CBO that both Senator Inhofe and I were surprised about--that our last bill had some open-ended language that we didn't realize. We had to make this fiscally responsible. We did.

Senator Inhofe is a man of his word. He said these are criteria I want. We have to make sure these projects have studies; that the local people want them and there will be a local match; that they stand up to the light of day. I agreed with him. Once we were able to agree on those criteria, the rest became easy because we had to tell people no, but we did it not on a whim but on a set of criteria that we agreed to.

Our staffs have come to know each other very well while working on this. So between the staff and colleagues coming and telling us what they needed, I think we have a bill that meets everybody's needs.

In closing, I thank Senator Landrieu for her comments because I think, as we look at this bill, clearly--and there is a lot of talk about priorities--we get our priorities straight. There are amendments we defeated that said we don't like the priorities. This bill looks at Louisiana and says you are our priority. That is important. We did it.

I wish to thank the groups and organizations outside the Chamber that helped us by writing letters of support and encouraging our colleagues to work with us: The American Society of Civil Engineers; the Audubon Society; the Building and Construction Trades; National Waterways Conference; the National Association of Manufacturers; the American Farm Bureau; the National Construction Alliance, made up

of the labor union; the National Union of Operating Engineers and Carpenters and Joiners; the Associated General Contractors of America.

It is rare that you have a bill that garners the support of so many from across this great country of ours. But it is about making sure that the WRDA infrastructure in this country is up to the task it faces. We have to be ready for whatever hits us by way of floods, hurricanes, disasters. We have to be ready for ecosystem restoration and all the rest. I left out the corn growers, who supported us also, and they sent us a letter. So from the corn growers to the carpenters, this is a bill everybody wants.

I hope my colleagues will come over, and I hope we get a huge vote in favor of this bill and we can go into conference, where we will have six Democrats and five Republicans, and we will sit down with our counterparts and bring a product back that everybody can be pleased with.

I think we are about ready for the vote; is that correct?

Mr. President, I just want to say to all of my colleagues that this was a wonderful vote tonight, and I think the country will be very grateful because it has been 7 years since we have had a Water Resources Development Act. We desperately need to keep up the country's infrastructure with our needs, and this bill is a wonderful step in that direction. We are all set to go to conference with the House. I have already had some conversations with Congressman Oberstar. We are looking forward to getting this back and moving forward.

Again, to the staffs on both sides, thank you so much. To colleagues on the committee, thank you very much. To, of course, the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, I want to say again that without his partnership we never could have come to this point. I think every State in the Union will be grateful because we worked together across party lines to achieve something that is 7 years in the making, something that we really needed--this water resources bill.

I thank my colleague very much.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I do wish to say, as I mentioned before, not only did the principals work well together, but the staffs did as well. I got to know the staff on the other side of the aisle. I really have enjoyed working with them. They are very fair. They represent their boss very well.

One thing about the staff across the aisle here is they have respect for each other. They tell each other the way they feel. It is the only way to work around here. You are only as good as your word. We had some tough moments here.

I also wish to thank the floor staff. I don't want to start naming names, but the floor staff on both sides were so helpful, because for me, this is my first major bill I ever managed, so clearly I needed a little direction. I am very fortunate to have all of this support from both sides of the aisle. I will mention Lula and Dave just because I happen to see them in front of me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007; an original bill to make technical corrections to title III of SAFETEA-LU; H.R. 1675, Preservation Approval Process Improvement Act of 2007; H.R. 1676, Native American Home Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007; S. 254, a bill to award posthumously a Congressional Gold Medal to Constantino Brumidi; an original bill entitled the International Emergency Economic Powers Enforcement Act of 2007; and to vote on the nominations of Mr. David George Nason, of Rhode Island, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions; Mr. Mario Mancuso, of New York, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; Mr. Michael W. Tankersley, of Texas, to be Inspector General of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ms. Janis Herschkowitz, of Pennsylvania, to be a member of the board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; Mr. David George Nason, of Rhode Island, to be a member of the board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; and Dr. Nguyen Van Hanh, of California, to be a member of the board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank.

Committee on commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve S. 1300, S. 694, the nomination of David James Gribbin, IV, to be General Counsel of the United States Department of Transportation, and nominations for promotion in the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``U.S. Preference Programs: How well do they work?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Rogue Online Pharmacies: The Growing Problem of Internet Drug Trafficking'' on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list: Francine H. Haight, Founder of Ryan's Cause, Laguna Niguel, CA; Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Arlington, VA; Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, New York, NY; Philip B. Heymann, James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Former Deputy U.S. Attorney General, Cambridge, MA; Thomas McClellan, Ph.D., Executive Director, Treatment Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a markup of S. 1256 ``Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2007'' on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, beginning at 2 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be auhorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, to hold a hearing on the nomination of Dr. Michael J. Kussman to be Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Are the Explosive Costs of Elder Care Hurting Family Finances and Business Competition?, in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, May 16, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing regarding Medicare Advantage, Marketing, and Sales.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

``The State of Mercury Regulation, Science, and Technology.''

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry because I don't know when my ranking member will be here. Do I understand the Chair correctly that I would have 15 minutes and he would have 15 minutes, so I should conclude my remarks after such time?

Will the Presiding Officer please let me know when that time has come?

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is on the floor of the Senate and that Members on both sides of the aisle are very supportive of this legislation. This legislation authorizes the projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. Again, it has very strong support across party lines.

I think it is important for the Senate to know, as well as the American people, that this bill is long overdue. Seven years ago, we passed the last WRDA bill. What does that mean? It means that very important flood control projects, wetlands restoration, environmental projects, clean water projects--so many of these projects have been delayed. When we are talking about the Nation's economy and public safety and the environment, these are things we all want to address. We address them in this bill. The beauty of it is that although Senator Inhofe and I have some deep differences on issues, this is one bill we both strongly support, and across the board we see support.

Every day I have come to the floor to talk about WRDA. I have stressed the strong support in the country for this legislation. I read yesterday from various letters of support. I want to call to Senators' attention--when they arrive to vote on the first amendment, which I hope we will all be opposing, or at least the vast majority of us--on their desks they will find, due to the good work of our pages, the letters of support I referred to yesterday. We have an amazing coalition. We have the National Association of Manufacturers supporting this bill. We have the American Farm Bureau Federation supporting this legislation, with a direct letter. We have a letter from the National Waterways Conference supporting this bill. We have the Audubon Society supporting this legislation. For those who may not be aware, it is a society of more than 1 million members and supporters who work very hard to restore America's natural resources. We have them supporting this bill. We have the American Society of Civil Engineers supporting this bill. We have the National Construction Alliance, which is made up of the Laborers International Union, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. This is about as broad a coalition as we can have. It concludes with a letter from the Associated General Contractors of America. We have a bill that, as the National Construction Alliance says, is a $13.9 billion authorization of Corps projects which is a necessary first 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.

That is what we address in this very important bill.

We certainly have many contentious debates on the floor of this Senate. We are going to have one again on Iraq. It tugs at the heartstrings. It is very difficult. But this is one piece of legislation which should not be difficult for us. Senator Inhofe and I share a commitment to shoring up our Nation's infrastructure, including our water resources. We have a true partnership on this issue. I hope colleagues will join with us, as we work through the amendments. There will be some amendments we can support, but we have made a pact that even if there are some amendments each of us individually supports, if the four top members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have not agreed on them, we will be forced to vote no. This is not a pleasant situation for either of us. We think it is the way to maintain the delicate balance of the legislation, because the bill is a product of bipartisanship.

I mentioned the other two members of the committee who have worked so hard, Senators Baucus and Isakson. I thank them.

The whole country is looking to see what we do to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and what we do to move forward so that we don't see another tragedy as we witnessed recently. About 25 percent of this bill is directed at Louisiana. We have gone very far to meet their needs. We do understand we haven't done 100 percent of what they need, but there will be other WRDAs, and there may well be a couple of amendments on which we can move forward. We don't know at this particular point.

We have waited 7 long years for this bill. We are going to be having a vote at a quarter of 12.

Before I yield to my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the committee, for his comments, I hope everyone will join in voting no on the Coburn amendment. What he does in his amendment is, he has decided--and he is here in the Chamber now--that one of the projects in California should wait until another project in California is totally funded.

I call this amendment the Russian roulette amendment because the project he wants to delay is an important project in the San Diego area. It is the city of Imperial Beach. There is a very important project the Corps is recommending where the local match will be paid-- the initial stages, 30 percent; the final stages, 50 percent. We are talking about protecting 2,083 businesses. There are 812 nonrental property businesses and 1,271 rental properties. We are talking about 22 retail businesses, 217 businesses located along the beachfront, 195 are rental, and 19 businesses near the shoreline. What we are talking about doing is a project that is so cost-effective, it has met every criteria. It has gone through every phase. We received a letter from the mayor which clearly states they will be picking up their share.

This is a project which needs to move forward. You don't say to somebody in the southern part of a State: You don't deserve this flood protection until someone in the northern part of the State gets flood protection. We have to do it all. This is the United States of America. California, if we were a nation, would be the fifth largest economy in the world.

All Members have a right to their opinion and a right to offer amendments. I support my colleague's right to do so. But it is absolutely wrong. He will present it as some kind of a beach project. He makes it sound as if what we are doing is protecting a beach.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We are using the replenishment in this project as a way to absorb the floodwaters.

I will speak for a minute on this later. I hope we will have a resounding ``no'' vote. Every Member has a right to say what he or she thinks belongs in this bill. But this bill has gone through a rigorous process. We don't have anything in here that doesn't meet the criteria. Senator Inhofe was very strong on that. I agreed with him completely.

With my time waning, I yield the floor and look forward to a strong ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment in 15 minutes.

Mr. President, there has been some misinformation. The last flooding and very bad winter storm was in 2004, and we have all that documented--in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--in this area. I understand Senator Coburn wants to substitute his opinion for the opinion of the Corps, but I want to go through, with my colleagues who might be listening to this debate, how many steps this project has already been through, as have all the projects we have agreed to fund.

So the WRDA bill is 7 years in the making.

Mr. President, will you tell me when I have 1 minute remaining because I want to yield that minute to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, 1:10 remaining? I thought I had 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given an additional 3 minutes, and the same for Senator Coburn, if he wishes to respond.

I am going to take 2 minutes, and then we will see if Senator Coburn wants to respond, and then we will give the last minute to Senator Inhofe.

There is a lot of misinformation about the flooding here. There is also the implication that this is not an important project, when I have already pointed out how many businesses are at risk, how many residences.

This project has gone through so many steps. First, the local people said: We want to step forward and pay toward solving this problem. Then, the Corps said: You are right. Let's do a cost-benefit study and see if it makes sense for Federal dollars to go into the mix. Well, it came back: Absolutely. Then they said: What is the best type of project? Should we build walls? What should we do? No. They said: The best type of project is to utilize the sand as a natural barrier to these floods.

What we are desperately trying to do is complete this project because we are very concerned we could have even a worse problem than we had in 2004.

As much as I respect my colleague, I feel his judgment is not something I can accept. I cannot look in the eyes of the people who have been fighting for this project since 2003 and say to them they do not deserve to get any attention paid to their problem until Sacramento is taken care of.

I have to say to my friend, in going after this project the way he is, it seems to me he is picking one project out of a hat, which is extremely disturbing.

Mr. President, I know there are those who need to go over to the White House, so I will stop my discussion. I think I have enough information in the Record to have colleagues join with me.

I say, if Senator Coburn has anything to add at this time, I will reserve the minute for Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for that overwhelming vote. I view it as a vote that basically says this bill is a good bill. Let's not tinker with this bill unless there is pretty quick agreement on both sides that it is the right kind of amendment. This wasn't the right kind of amendment. We appreciate this vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, Senator Cardin be recognized to call up amendment No. 1072; that once the amendment is reported by number, there be 5 minutes under the control of Senator Cardin, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be withdrawn; that the Senate then resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 1089, and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 1089, the Senate consider the Feingold amendment No. 1086, and there be 5 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with all debate time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that prior to a vote in relation to the amendments covered in this agreement, no intervening amendments be in order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be recognized to speak as in morning business: Senators Dodd, Inouye, Alexander, and Levin and that after that the Senate stand in recess.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I hope we will do what we did on the last amendment, which is to say no to it because, as we learned from the Senators from Louisiana, this particular amendment is directed at the local people who are willing to pay 100 percent for this center. The fact is, Louisiana is never going to get on its feet if it does not revive tourism. Let's face it. It isn't that we can say: Let's just build the flood protection and worry about the visitor centers later. There is a certain amount of linear thinking going on behind this amendment and the one before.

This is the United States. We have to do everything; we can't just do one thing. We have to build the flood protection, and we have to revive Louisiana's economy. This is a rather mean-spirited amendment in the sense that not even a penny of Federal money is involved in the building of this particular center. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute 20 seconds, and I will yield the rest of the time to Senator Inhofe.

I thank Senator Feingold for being a leader on Corps reform. I don't view this amendment as reform. My colleague says we have to take the politics out of the decisionmaking process. Well, the fact is, his commission is a political commission appointed by the President, appointed by the Speaker, the minority leader, and so on. So he is taking the decisions, in many ways, away from us. Therefore, I call this the ``we have met the enemy, and it is we'' amendment--taking the power away from us to decide what is important in priorities and adding another layer of bureaucracy in political appointees, who are now going to slow things down.

We do have problems. It has taken 7 years to get to this point with WRDA. There are checks and balances every step of the way. We have very tough criteria in this bill. I know the occupant of the chair knows that because he is on the committee.

Senator Inhofe and I have said the locals have to pay their share. The cost/benefit ratio has to be in place. Everything has to be thought through. The Corps has to make their report. They come to the committees, and they go through authorization and appropriation.

I hope we will vote no on this amendment.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I would say it would be Senator Hagel first, followed by Senator Dodd.

Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Kerry?

If the President could just tell me when I have used 4 minutes, I will yield the rest of the time back to Senator Kerry.

I think, again, this gives us the sense of some of the debate that has been going on inside the environment committee and across the various committees. I certainly believe these kinds of debates are helpful because we get the charges, if you will, out in the open. People on one side or the other can have this free debate.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. When I learned he was going to offer this amendment, I wrote to the Corps and I asked them whether they are considering the impact of global warming already as they do their work. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record their answer to me. It is dated May 10. I will just read a little bit of it.

The Corps planning process has been considering the

physical impacts of global climate change for over 20 years,

initially through the consideration of sea level rise in

project planning. As part of the evolution in our approach to

incorporating the impacts of global climate change, we are

including more risk and uncertainty analyses in our planning

process. We continue to collaborate with Federal agencies to

ensure that we are up to date on the current interpretations

of climate change scenarios and to refine our processes as

more aspects of global climate change are understood. This is

imperative because the water resources public works projects

being planned and designed today must protect against and be

resilient to future extreme events, which could be

exacerbated by global climate change.

They are basically saying:

We believe the [Corps] is a leader in developing an

innovative, yet practical, cost-effective approach to

addressing climate change impacts in our planning and

management of our key water-based infrastructure. We are well

positioned to respond to the Nation's needs now and in the

future.

I want to have this letter printed in the Record because I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts that as a result of his offering this amendment, we were able to get the Corps to focus on everything they have been doing to address climate change. I think the Senator will be pleased to see some of the steps they are already taking. I think his amendment is really consistent with what the Corps has already begun to do.

I thank Senator Kerry. I thank Senator Inhofe for engaging in this debate with him. It is a little more pleasant for me to see the debate between Senator Kerry and Senator Inhofe rather than Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe. It is a little bit of a rest for me. I thank both of them for their intelligent approach to this debate.

I send this letter to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, I wish to talk about something else for a moment to let Senators know where we are. We have been working staff to staff. We are so close to completing this WRDA bill. Once we vote on this 60-vote issue, we are down to a few amendments. There is a managers' package that has been signed off on by the leaders of the committee. We would like to get that done.

What we want to say to colleagues on both sides is, if you want to participate in this bill, tonight would be the night to do it because we are wrapping this thing up tomorrow. Our hope is we can complete it. We have this managers' package. If you have something you need to say about this bill, if you have a last-minute amendment you want to show us, this would be the time, this would be the moment.

I would be happy to yield some time to my colleague if he wishes to make some comments.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to take less than a minute to tell colleagues where we are. I thank the majority leader for his assistance on the WRDA bill. Our understanding is that we have a managers' package with several amendments. There may be only one or two that are contentious. Our goal for tomorrow, once we complete the Iraq votes, is to go to the managers' package without the contentious one or two amendments in it. By the way, I don't think any of them are contentious, but one Senator is saying they are.

We will adopt that managers' package hopefully by a voice vote, and then if it is necessary to have a recorded vote on these one or two additional amendments, we will do that and then move to final passage of WRDA, something we can be very proud of after 7 long years of not having a bill.

I thank my colleagues in advance for their cooperation.

To the Senator who may have a problem with one or two of these amendments, please take another hard look because they are noncontroversial, and I hope that Senator can join with us. We can finish this bill tomorrow in the very early afternoon or the late morning, and both sides can be very proud.

Again, this is a bill that is endorsed by just about everyone in the country.

I say to my colleagues, our intention is to conclude this bill tomorrow. Senator Inhofe and I are very strongly interested in concluding it tomorrow. The bipartisan members of the committee are very strongly interested.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Wisconsin.

I concur that this is the committee's intent.

I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful independent review and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful mitigation reform and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful reform of the Corps of Engineers planning guidelines and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

Mr. President, I thank the leader for his comments. I appreciate the leader's continued support for this reauthorizing legislation and the authorization of the new projects for navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water storage and water quality.

Mr. Leader, the Middle Creek Project will restore lands within the Middle Creek floodplain and study area. I believe the project will reconnect the floodplain of Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by breaching the existing levee system and creating inlets that direct flows into the study area. The restoration will provide flood damage reduction by relocating residents of the Robinson Rancheria from the floodplain.

Mr. Leader, that is correct.

Mr. Leader, the bill under consideration would authorize the Middle Creek Project. The bill does not expressly authorize the United States to take land into trust for the Rancheria.

Mr. President, I appreciate the interest of the Senator from Nevada in the effect of this project on the Rancheria. Since 1981, the Secretary of the Interior has held 37 acres in trust on behalf of the Rancheria. The parcels discussed in the committee report are currently owned by the Rancheria and are very close to their current reservation boundary. Two of the three parcels are along the Clear Lake shoreline. The committee believed it was appropriate to compensate the Rancheria by allowing them to add to their reservation lands that are approximately 1 mile away from their current reservation boundary and which the tribe already owns.

Mr. President, the California delegation strongly supports the projects included in S. 1248. I hear the majority leader's concerns. Being chair of the committee, I, of course, support the language in the committee's recommendation with respect to the land transfer for the Robinson Rancheria, should the bill be enacted. While I may disagree with the leader's position as it concerns this particular project, I appreciate his comments and support for the legislation as a whole.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on Short-Term Energy Outlook Summer 2007: Oil and Gasoline.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda: Hearing on ``Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the District of Columbia.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?--Part IV'' on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness List: James B. Comey, Former Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 553, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 800, to establish the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York; S. 916, to modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 1057, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the New River in the States of North Carolina and Virginia as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1209, to provide for the continued administration of Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service; S. 128l, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain rivers and streams of the headwaters of the Snake River System as additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System; H.R. 161, to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial in Bainbridge Island, Washington; H.R. 247, to designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the Willamette National Forest in the State of Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver, a former Member of the House of Representatives; and H.R. 376, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefields and related sites of the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, during the Civil War as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating the battlefields and related sites as a separate unit of the National Park System.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, be authorized to hold a hearing on Alzheimer's disease during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Senate Dirksen Office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1065.

It is an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

I yield the floor.

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.

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 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,

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.

Mr. President, may I ask the Senator to yield for a question?

Mr. President, is the Senator now going to go to the second amendment?

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. 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 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.)

Yes.

This is considered a 50-year fix.

Well, of course, all projects have to be maintained.

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.

Let me say, we continue to maintain the dams in Oklahoma, too. So whether you are maintaining a dam or maintaining this kind 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.

Yes, I am delighted.

Madam President, I ask where we are now. Senator Coburn has two pending amendments; is that correct?

We now have Senator Feingold's amendment pending on prioritization and two Coburn amendments; is that correct?

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.

Mr. President, Senator Inhofe and I wish to be heard for 3 minutes each, if we could have the vote at the end of that. We ask unanimous consent to please accommodate us so we would have the vote 6 minutes from now and divide the time for 3 minutes each.

Mr. President, will you tell me when my 3 minutes has expired so I can then yield the remainder to my friend?

Mr. President, around here we have a lot of tough issues. We have a lot of disagreements. We try to work together. I have to say on this bill, this Water Resources Development Act, we have a bill that is the product of major bipartisan cooperation. Senator Inhofe and I are very proud of the work that has been done on both sides of the aisle. We have had tremendous help from our committee. The chair and ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees this, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Isakson, have been extraordinarily helpful, and all colleagues have as well.

It is rare to have a bill that is supported by the National Association of Manufacturers and the Laborers Union, the American Farm Bureau and the Carpenters Union, the National Waterways Conference, the Associated General Contractors, and the Operating

Engineers. So we are here today to tell the Senate that this bill is a win-win for everyone in this country. We urge our colleagues who have amendments to consider them carefully, because we have worked so hard to balance this bill. It is a delicate balance. I know I have colleagues on my side who have ideas that I support, but I have an agreement, as does Senator Baucus, as do Senator Isakson and Senator Inhofe, that we will oppose all amendments that are not unanimously agreed to by the four of us in order to keep the balance in this bill. If we have amendments all four of us can agree to, they will be placed in a managers' package.

We want colleagues to please come to this floor as soon as possible with their amendments so we can see how we can dispose of them. Even though we will probably not be voting tomorrow or Monday, we will be working here on this bill.

This bill makes a huge commitment to the people of Louisiana. It puts Louisiana's coast on a category 5 protection path. It is fiscally responsible.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to do something very important, which is to have printed in the Record the CBO cost estimate associated with the substitute text that will be considered by the Senate.

Mr. President, what we are very proud of, both Senator Inhofe and I, is that the CBO comes in with a cost estimate that is $13.9 billion, which is about $2 billion less than the House-passed bill.

So for all of those reasons, we urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to proceed on this bill.

I yield the remaining time to my friend and colleague Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, even though the disclosure requirements of S. 1 have not been enacted, Senator Inhofe and I believe we should comply with the intent of that legislation, so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a listing of all the project-related provisions of the substitute text and the proponents of those provisions.

Mr. President, I say thank you to Senator Inhofe. People see us tangling on a host of issues. I think it gives them a good feeling to know there are times when we see eye to eye. I would say, when those times occur, it should mean we can get our legislation through pretty quickly because we have worked hard to accommodate the views of both sides of the aisle.

I am pleased the Senate voted overwhelmingly to start the process of considering the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I hope, in short order, we will find out we can actually move to the bill. We are technically on a motion to proceed to the bill, which is slowing us up a bit, but we think there are other issues causing that. We hope they will be resolved.

This important legislation authorizes projects and policies of the Civic Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers and, as I said, it has tremendous support both from my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, the entire Environment and Public Works Committee--which runs the gamut of philosophies and geographies and all the rest.

Colleagues asked to see the substitute bill we worked so hard on, that has a very good score from the Congressional Budget Office--less than the House-passed bill; fiscally responsible. A good chunk of it is aimed at Hurricane Katrina--which both Senator Inhofe and I feel very good about. We believe certainly Louisiana is in desperate need of help, and we have answered their call in a very strong way. I would say about 25 percent of the bill is actually dedicated to making sure Louisiana is made whole and is protected in the future.

We hope our colleagues from Louisiana will feel good about this. If there are other things they want to offer, we ask them to come down and show us what they are. Senator Inhofe, Senator Isakson, Senator Baucus, and I have an agreement that unless the four of us agree on these amendments, we are going to oppose them. That is hard for us to do. We don't like to give up our freedom. But on this we are going to do it. Why? This bill is 7 years overdue--7 long years. There is enough blame to go around as to why it happened. We don't need to get into it. It is not important. Right now we have an opportunity to make up for lost time and get to where we are back on a track that makes sense. This is a great economy in this country. We need an infrastructure that matches our ambitions and our future dreams for a thriving business community, a place where workers can get good jobs. So we need this bill.

What we are saying to colleagues is, first of all, some of you want to see the bill. Of course. The bill is available to you.

The bill is available in both cloakrooms. The bill will be printed in the Record tonight. You have all been part of it. I think you all will be pleased with it. There is a CBO score that has been placed in the Record for you to see. There is huge support out here in America for this bill. We have letters coming in from disparate groups in this country which include farmers, which include workers' unions, contractors, all kinds of businesses. This is a very powerful message to the Senate to move forward. The House has passed the bill. Let's get to conference. Let's get a bill to the President's desk.

Again, I say thank you to Senator Inhofe. I will say this a lot. But it has been a pleasure to work with him and his staff. My staff feels the same way. We have made great progress. This bill is a project of commitment, of bipartisan and partnership.

I mentioned Senators Baucus and Isakson. They have been very important in terms of working with us on this package. Many members of the committee went to Louisiana to see the problem there. Senators Landrieu and Vitter were determined to show us their needs, and they did. Again, a lot of the work in this bill is directed toward Louisiana.

I do want to thank members of the staff. Sometimes chairmen wait until the bill is finished to do that. But I want to do it now: My staff director, Bettina Poirier, and my deputy staff director, Ken Kopocis; Jeff Rosato and Tyler Rushforth for all their work. On Senator Inhofe's staff, I wanted to thank Andrew Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Letmon Lee. Additionally, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins with Senator Baucus and Mike Quiello with Senator Isakson.

We have had many late-hour, emergency, stressful phone calls getting to this stage. We hope those phone calls will not have been in vain and that we have come up with a product everyone will be proud of.

In so many ways this is the start of a new day because I believe we are now on track to restore the regular process of meeting the Nation's water resources needs as they arise. But we will not get done with this bill if colleagues do not come to the floor and let us see their amendments.

I echo what Senator Inhofe said. Let's not play hide and seek with

amendments. Let's get those amendments out. I have already been very open. I have told everybody there is an agreement with the big four on the committee; that we need to agree to them, to support them. It may well be there is an amendment on Senator Inhofe's side that he wouldn't vote for because one of us said it is not acceptable. The same thing could well happen on our side. That does not diminish anyone's right to offer these amendments. They have the right to do it. We support their right to do it because if they come soon, maybe we can work on these amendments together and get them included in the managers' package. So that would be the best of all worlds.

I thank Senator Feingold because he and I had a chat. He is going to offer an amendment I do not agree with on prioritization of Corps projects. But he is going to come over here at noon. He is going to take his time then, and then he is not going to talk about this anymore until we have a vote. And he will do it in 2 minutes on Tuesday so that we can get the debate on these amendments over with now.

So I ask other Senators with amendments, within the sound of our voices: Please come over with your amendments. We have all day, all day here with an open microphone for you. You can take as much time as you want. You can put your amendment out there. You can talk about it, and then Senator Inhofe and I can look it over, share it with Senators Isakson and Baucus.

We want to accommodate everybody. We really do. If you meet the criteria we have set out--I think the criteria is well thought out. We want to make sure every project in this bill can be defended. That is important because we have precious few dollars to waste. So we want you to come over with your amendments. We are going to try to help everyone. We have already done so much to help you. We want to do more. We both agree, Senator Inhofe and I, that WRDA is an important bill, and it is overdue 7 years--too long to wait for a bill that authorizes essential flood control, navigation, ecosystem restoration; 7 years of projects being ready to go and unable to begin because, for whatever reason.

Again, we did not--we could not get the political will, or we could not just push it over the finish line, as I like to say. So we had 7 years of communities in your State and mine and Oklahoma and other places, people waiting to shore up their infrastructure needs, many of them vital to protecting homes and families from catastrophic flooding.

Believe me, I can tell you, in my State flood control is one of the major priorities of Senator Feinstein and I, as well as Governor Schwarzenegger. It is quite bipartisan in the State legislature as well.

So, yes, there are a lot of projects in the bill. It is the cost of waiting so long to act. So I think it is remarkable that given all the time that has gone on, we were able to put together a bill that is fiscally responsible. The bill before the Senate is less expensive than the bill passed by the House. The original bill had some ambiguous language that drove up the score. But I believe Senator Inhofe and I and others, we have corrected this problem. It was not easy. It took discipline, but we worked cooperatively in a bipartisan way.

We have a bill that meets our communities' and our Nation's acute and unmet water infrastructure needs. It does it in a fiscally responsible way. Let me tell you what the bill does. Title I would authorize 47 projects consistent with completed chief of engineers reports. Now, that is very important because these reports lay out what we have to do, what the cost will be.

Those chief of engineers reports deal with flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects. These chief reports are the result of years of engineering science, economic analysis, environmental assessment, hours of Corps of Engineers work and expertise going into preparing these documents, concluding with the final review of the chief.

Title I would also authorize new locks on the upper Mississippi River, Illinois waterway system, and the concurrent ecosystem restoration plan for those waters. This project is important to waterway goods movement, particularly grains from the heartland of America. That is why the farmers support this bill. We have an amazing coalition of people supporting this bill.

If you cannot move goods, grain, from the heartland, we are in a lot of trouble. We will be in a lot of trouble if this bill does not get done. Senator Inhofe and I are committed to getting this done. We have our differences in this Chamber, and by the way, that is the way it should be. There are differences in this Chamber, but when it comes to this bill, it seems to me we have to set them aside. Those differences should be set aside.

Title I also includes authorization for the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Program, to revert wetland loss and provide hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits.

I will discuss this issue in depth at a later time. But we know the loss of wetlands is a major cause of flooding. Not even to get into the fact that our species need these wetlands, put that aside; the wetlands are flood control, natural flood control. We have lost so many wetlands that the Corps came to us and told us they believe it is a major cause of trouble now. We did not realize what we had until they were gone. So now we are restoring wetlands.

Finally, title I includes small projects for flood damage reduction, navigation, aquatic ecosystem restoration, under the continuing authority programs of the Corps.

Title II will make changes in Corps of Engineers authorities in how it carries out its programs. Title II contains the administrative provisions that are commonly referred to as Corps reform. These important provisions include updating the Corps' planning process, the water resources planning coordinating committee, independent peer review, and improvements to the Corps' mitigation program.

Now, a lot of this language was new to the last bill. I thank my colleague, Senator Inhofe. When he was in charge of the committee, he took the lead on this section, and we kept that section intact. We made progress with Corps reform. These provisions will help ensure the Corps does its job more effectively and soundly, require in many cases an extra pair of eyes on its projects.

Senator Inhofe worked with Senator Feingold and me and others. The language stands. We should be proud. Yes, there is Corps reform in this bill.

Now, I wanted to make it clear that Senator Feingold wants to do more. One of his ideas is prioritization. Frankly, I think it is off the mark, and we are going to have a debate about it to see where the chips fall on that particular amendment. But I thank him for his cooperation. He is going to come down in a little while. He is going to take his time. He is going to debate this bill. Senator Inhofe and I, I am sure, will have a response, and then we will be able to have a very short continuation of the debate just a couple of minutes per side, hopefully, on Monday or Tuesday, and we will finish this bill.

Title II also contains the authorization for the National Levee Safety Program, a new program that helps identify failing levees and provides Corps resources and expertise to help improve and repair those levees.

Title III includes provisions that would affect existing, ongoing, or completed projects. These sections include making modifications to project cost ceilings, modifying project purposes, changing project boundaries, extending authorizations for annual programs, and correcting original deficiencies. Why is this important? Because so much time has passed that these projects need another look. Sometimes there is new technologies that can come in and meet the needs. Sometimes there is new cost estimates that need to be reflected. So Title III affects existing, ongoing, or completed projects.

I have just about 3 more minutes or 4 more minutes, then I will have to yield to whoever would like to speak at that time.

Title IV includes authorizations for new project studies. It also makes modifications to ongoing studies. Title V includes modifications to the Estuary Restoration Act, an existing restoration program of the Corps. It includes programmatic authorities for regional approaches to water resources problems.

Title VI would deauthorize all or portions of 52 previously authorized Corps

projects. The deauthorization represents projects or portions of projects that are no longer supported by local interests. This does happen. Sometimes you have a plan, and after years and years people say: There is a better way to do it, or we don't need it. That is reflected here.

So that is a brief overview of the bill. But it only begins to express the bill's importance to our communities, our families, our Nation, our farmers, our workers, our businesses. The bill is about authorizing projects our communities need to help protect thousands of homes and millions of lives from catastrophic floods. The bill is about authorizing projects our communities need to help restore the great wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation. These are places in which wildlife thrives and our families can enjoy for generations to come.

Indeed, as hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and our outdoor industries boom, this bill is an important part of keeping America's recreation economy thriving.

The bill makes other very important contributions to our Nation's economy. It authorizes projects our communities need to help increase our port and waterway capacity and makes shipping easier, safer, more efficient.

It literally keeps America's economy moving. We are in a global economy. Ships come into port, and they go out of port. They move goods in, they move goods out. Workers are at the ports, businesses are at the ports.

I will tell you, when we get to our next highway bill, we have to do a lot more for our ports in terms of cleaner air and goods movement. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe perhaps as early as next year, and the other colleagues who chair and rank on that subcommittee, to begin looking at that next bill that is so important to our goods movement.

But this is part of it. We need to pass this bill to keep America's economy moving because so much of our economy is dependent on our water resources. In just the next 2 minutes, I am going to give you a couple of examples of what I am talking about.

America's ports and harbors are our gateway to the world. Our manufacturers' goods, automobiles, computer chips, agriculture goods such as grains, wines, and fruit pass through our ports and harbors around the world. Goods worth $5.5 billion pass through our ports every day and more than 2.5 billion tons of trade move through our ports and waterways. That volume is expected to double over the next 15 years. In the next 15 years, goods movement is going to double in our country. So we have to get down passing this bill, because thousands of jobs are on the line. Many businesses are expecting us to take action, and our farmers want action. Five million jobs are at America's ports. WRDA is essential.

Outdoor recreation, I talked about that. The Corps of Engineers operates more than 2,500 recreation areas at 463 projects, and leases an additional 1,800 sites to States or locals. The Corps hosts 360 million visits a year at its lakes, beaches, and other areas. It is estimated that 1 in 10 Americans visits Corps projects once a year, 25 million people. We need to pass this bill. That generates 600,000 jobs to support visitors.

Public health and safety, economic growth, environmental protection are the goals of this bill.

This is the first bill--I think Senator Inhofe and I are very proud of this--that takes into effect ethics reform, even though the bill has not been signed into law. We have asked colleagues to submit letters answering the question: Do you have a conflict of interest in any of your projects? Those letters are open for the public to see. They are at the committee offices. We have printed in large print the results of those letters and each of the projects Members have asked for.

We are proud of that.

One of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is we ignore water infrastructure at our own peril. We are going to be moving new WRDA bills right after this one. We are going to be looking at our levees. We are not resting after this bill passes.

I look forward to moving along on this bill. I know at this point we have a bit of a slowdown on the bill by my Republican colleagues. I understand their issues have nothing to do with the legislation. I respect that. It is a tool being used. But I urge both sides, let's put aside our differences on whatever they are. Whether it is judges, whether it is Iraq, God knows we have differences; they are tough. I respect those differences. Senator Inhofe does as well. But we need to move this legislation. This bill can't wait much longer.

Again, we are going to work in a cooperative way. We urge Members from both sides to get their amendments to the floor. Even though we can't at this point put those amendments in the Record, we can debate them today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley so much for his endorsement of this important bill.

It was interesting, I say to the Senator, that just as you came to the floor, I was handed the letter from the Corn Growers saying how much they support our legislation. And we add to that the letters from the American Public Works Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Waterways Conference, the American Farm Bureau Federation. We have the Carpenters Union. We have many unions.

This is one of those bills that have broad support. But I am just very glad the Senator came down to express his support.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allocate time, and that would be for Senator Martinez to immediately follow my remarks and to have the floor for up to 10 minutes; then Senator Salazar for 10 minutes; Senator Alexander for 10 minutes; and at the end of their time, the time be reserved for Senator Feingold for 1 hour, followed by myself at the end of that hour.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. President, as we all know, time has been reserved for Senator Feingold for up to an hour. He

says he is going to take less time, but he has that time, at which time I will respond to him. What I wish to do is lock in some time for Senator Pryor immediately following my remarks so he may speak on the issue of Iraq.

I have no objection to that request.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his kind remarks. He and I are close colleagues. We have worked very closely together on so many issues. On Corps reform, we worked closely together, and working together we did get very important peer review into the bill. I am very proud of his work on this bill and praise him for it.

It is very rare we find ourselves on differing sides, but I am in strong opposition to his amendment, and I want to lay out the reasons.

I describe the Senator's amendment as ``we have met the enemy and it is us.'' I reject the fact that Members of the Senate have to give us their judgment and their views on what is important in our own States to some politically appointed panel, probably politicians, because they will be appointed by politicians. I have other objections to this amendment because I think it creates a bias toward large projects. It reduces the ability of the Corps to pursue small ecosystem restoration programs. It reduces their ability to pursue small but vital flood control projects. It could preclude navigation projects that serve small communities, recreational interests, and subsistence fishermen. Because, as it is drafted, it sets up a tier system of priority recommendations, but each tier is limited to 5 billion dollars' worth of projects, or 100 total projects. That means a worthy flood control project in my State, or any State, could end up stuck in a lower tier simply because it is more expensive, if equally more important projects in other States were ranked in a higher tier. I think it is an arbitrary system that can label a project second tier despite critical local public safety needs.

How does a project become second tier if it is the only way to protect a community? Such an arbitrary label will inappropriately undermine an important project's chances of receiving appropriations, and I believe people's lives could be in jeopardy because of it. I don't think that is the kind of prioritization we need when we have to fight tooth and nail every year to get critical funding for very important and needy flood control projects.

The Senator named a lot of groups I support and that support me, and I respect that fact. But to be candid, a lot of these groups don't like water projects in general, and I think sometimes they will just say: Fine. Anything to slow down these projects.

I believe Congress, not political appointees or a commissioner, should retain this responsibility. I understand the legislation has been changed to an advisory situation, but it only slows us down. It slows us down with political appointees, and I have a basic problem with that. It is adding layers of delay. We have already delayed this bill 7 long years. We need it, Mr. President. We need it.

We need it because the farmers say we need it and the corn growers say we need it and the labor unions say we need it and the chambers of commerce say we need it and we have colleagues supporting it--from Senator Inhofe to Senator Boxer. If my colleagues don't think that is something to point to, it is. It means things are working around here.

My colleague and friend, Senator Feingold, is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility. We took this bill down from $33 billion to a score of $13.9 billion. How did we do it? We were careful. We did scrutinize these projects. And, by the way, we have standards built into this bill. I want my colleague to understand--and it is very important because this is kind of a trash-the-Senate amendment, taking away, casting doubt on our judgment--that we worked hard by setting up these objective criteria by which I have had to, frankly, turn against my own Members and say: You know I can't take care of that for you because it doesn't fit the criteria.

So I think there is a sense of fiscal responsibility that is permeating this place. We took a bill from $33 billion down to $13 billion--$13.9 billion to be exact--and we did it without some appointed people telling us what to do.

We did it because we care about fiscal responsibility and we care about keeping this economy moving, and I just don't think we need this commission. We went through an exhaustive process to determine which projects and studies would be authorized. They have to have chief of engineers or other completed Corps reports for construction. They have to meet a benefit-cost test, or have environmental benefits. So I think we have a lot of built-in safety features as we go through this process.

We have a very broad committee that has different ideologies. We represent broad areas of the country. Frankly, I think we all want to protect Americans. We have seen what happens when we look at Katrina, so we want to do our best.

I laud my colleague for his absolute commitment and dedication to finding ways to make this process work better, but I say this bill proves, in my opinion, that we are listening.

We did incorporate the fine Corps language that my friend worked on so hard, and he knows how strongly I feel about this particular amendment. But he insists on it because, in his heart, he thinks it is important. I know he has some things he will say now about my comments, so I will yield to him with the understanding that I will be able to respond in due course.

Mr. President, I want the Senator to know he can have as much time as he wants. As he knows, I am not rushing the bill in terms of hearing from people. As a matter of fact, I thank him for coming today because we don't see anybody else talking about their amendments, and we do want to get this bill done.

I will use this as another opportunity to call on my colleagues, who may well support the Senator's amendment or oppose it or have other amendments, to please join us on the Senate floor. It is very pleasant here. It gets you away from other debates that are a little harder in many ways. So I urge my colleagues to come down, show us your amendments, please. We want to get this moving. We are going to be here today, we could be here tomorrow, we could be here Monday debating amendments and, hopefully, disposing of this bill on Tuesday.

Did my colleague want to respond?

Absolutely. I would like to say to anybody wishing to speak on the Feingold amendment, please, I will make sure you get adequate time.

I also want to say to my friend, as he leaves, because he has asked me to think about it, that I am going to ask him to think about it also. I want him to think about this: there are so many checks and balances on this WRDA bill. I want to go through a couple for him, just so that maybe he doesn't believe we are without checks and balances.

First of all, we have the local people who decide what it is they need and want to protect their communities. We have the State people, who come in and have to issue a water quality certificate. So they are involved in it. We have the Corps that has to do the study based on a cost-benefit analysis and other issues. There are matching funds in every case--almost every case. So we have a big check there, if a local community is willing to put up the money. So that is matching funds.

There is the executive branch that comes in. The executive branch comes in and they decide what they want to fund. We have the Appropriations Committee, after the authorizers get done with it, deciding what they want to fund. And we have every one of us Senators standing for reelection at some point who have to face up and say, we fought for this particular project.

Also, I thank my colleague for something right now on ethics reform, and I want him to know something which he may not know. As a result of all his work on ethics reform, and so many other colleagues here and our leader and the rest, even though the ethics reform isn't law yet-- we hope it will soon be--the committee decided to act as if

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

So even though we do have strong disagreement, and I don't want to sugarcoat it because it is pretty strong--we disagree on this--there is so much progress that has been made, and my friend is responsible for a lot of that, and I feel really good about that. I hope he doesn't take my opposition to this particular amendment, my strong opposition to it, in any way as diminishing the amazing work he has done so that this bill comes to us in a form that, really, I think we can all be proud of.

I thank my colleague very much for coming. And, of course, the record is open and the floor is open to all colleagues who want to speak, pro or con, on this particular amendment or any other amendment that people would like to offer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have made some good progress on the bill today. A number of our colleagues have come forward. I particularly wanted to thank Senator Feingold for coming and debating his amendment on prioritization with me. We are going to have a vote on that, if all goes well, on Tuesday. That has not been finalized, but it looks as if that is what is going to happen.

I would say to colleagues that we did have a good, fair debate so far today, and we are going to continue this tomorrow and on Monday. I hope that those who have not come forward with their amendments would be so kind as to do that. We don't have very many because we did take care of many issues between both sides of the committee, but if there are amendments, we urge our colleagues to please come forward and talk about those amendments. This way, they can have as much time as they want and we can hopefully get this bill done.

We keep adding to the letters of support. I was just handed a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers in favor of this bill, so it is one of these rare moments in history where we have the manufacturers association, the labor unions, we have the farmers, we have the corn growers, and we have the water people. We just have a huge amount of support for this bill. It is one of those times that everybody is coming together, setting aside other matters, other issues that are so terribly contentious, such as Iraq, which tears at our heartstrings whenever we are on it, and other tough matters we deal with every day. This is one which does bring us together, I am happy to say.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I just referred to printed in the Record.

Mr. President, without the physical infrastructure in this country in good shape, we can't move goods, we can't move people, and we can't move services. So we need all this. And this bill is 7 years old. So we are very pleased.

We are also very pleased that this bill complies with the spirit of the ethics reform we passed here in the very early days of the session. Although that ethics bill hasn't yet become law--we expect it will-- this committee, on both sides, decided we wanted to comply with it. So we got letters from colleagues stating whether they had any type of perceived conflict of interest or a conflict of interest in relation to the projects that are in the bill.

At this point, I do not see any colleagues coming here to speak, but we will keep the floor open for a period of time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.