Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, too, rise today to speak in support of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of and to have participated in the hearings held by the Judiciary Committee on this incredibly significant legislation.

The Voting Rights Act may very well be the most important piece of Federal legislation ever passed, for without a meaningful chance to vote, there can be no equality before the law, no equal access to justice, no equal opportunity in the workplace or to share in the benefits and burdens of citizenship. Brave Americans risked their very lives in marches and demonstrations to pass this historic legislation.

The electoral process in this country has improved significantly as a result of the Voting Rights Act. This success is evident in the increased participation in elections by minority voters and in the enhanced ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. There is no doubt that progress has been made.

But I think that Ted Shaw, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, put it best when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

The Voting Rights Act was drafted to rid the country of

racial discrimination--not simply to reduce racial

discrimination in voting to what some view as a tolerable

level.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, you can take it from me that the committee has done due diligence in examining this issue. But you do not have to take it from me, of course. The extensive record the committee has compiled powerfully demonstrates the importance of the reauthorizing legislation before us today.

Even in recent election cycles, Americans continue to be disenfranchised by discriminatory redistricting plans, through the denial of voting materials they are entitled to under the law, and through changes to election procedures that disadvantage minority candidates and voters, among other things.

It is also worth noting that just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court recognized that discriminatory redistricting plans are not simply a vestige of the past--finding a purposeful effort to dilute the voting power of over 100,000 Latino Americans. It is clear to me that we have come a long way from the bridge in Selma, AL, but we have not come far enough.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in bringing about the dramatic improvements in voting rights and representation for minorities in covered areas. Keeping it in place, with a reasonable bailout provision, is the best way to be sure we do not lose the progress that has taken place.

Let me just say in response to some comments that were made during the Judiciary Committee's hearings that all Members of Congress, regardless of whether they are in a covered or noncovered jurisdiction and regardless of their political affiliation, have an interest in ensuring the continued effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act. As Federal legislators, we have a responsibility to address and eliminate discrimination wherever it is found. The integrity of our elections and of our very democracy depends on it.

Let's not falter now. Let's not stop or turn back the clock but, rather, build on the extraordinary success of this legislation and reaffirm the promise that all citizens, no matter what the color of their skin, can participate fully and equally in the electoral process. We must reauthorize the expiring provisions of the act. We must ensure that section 5 can continue to serve as a powerful deterrent to violations in areas of the country with a history of systemic discrimination at the polls.

We must also reauthorize section 203, which has empowered many voters with limited English proficiency to participate in our democratic process. It is also important that the Senate restore the original understanding of the act with respect to the opportunity-to-elect standard and to election procedures with discriminatory intent.

There is much more work to do in terms of eradicating discrimination from our elections process, and reauthorizing and strengthening the Voting Rights Act is, of course, a step in the right direction. I will vote in favor of H.R. 9, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Section 5 of the bill, which deals with Georgia v. Ashcroft and the Bossier II case, is extremely important. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, I concur with the discussion of this provision by the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kumar Garg, a legal intern with my Judiciary Committee staff, be accorded floor privileges during the debate on H.R. 9.

Mr. President, I would like to start off by making a general statement about the amendments we are going to offer, and I assume that time will come off the time of the amendment I will offer, the amendment on independent peer review. Is that correct?

Mr. President, I will make a few remarks, and then I would like to turn to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, my friend, Senator Jeffords, for a few remarks. Then after he has talked, I will offer the amendment.

Mr. President, today the Senate will consider two tremendously important amendments to the Water Resources Development Act. Those amendments are the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins independent peer review amendment and the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman- Feinstein prioritization amendment.

As many know, I have tried to work for a long time to modernize the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that this Federal agency is best situated to serve our great Nation. I have worked alongside Senator McCain in these efforts, and I thank him for his dedication to helping me bring attention to the need for congressional leadership to address what many have noted as fundamental problems with the Corps.

I want to be clear about my intentions with the amendments we will offer this morning, as well as our other efforts involving the Corps. We just want to get this agency back on track to serve the interests of all Americans. That is what it is about, period.

As many have noted over the past few days, I have been trying to bring up this issue for quite some time. In fact, I have waited 6 long years to come down to the floor of the Senate to push for meaningful reform of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Back in 2000, during debate on final passage of the last enacted WRDA, the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the current ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, made a commitment to me to address the issues that plagued the Corps.

At that time I sought to offer an amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an independent peer review process for the Army Corps. In response to my amendment, the bill managers adopted language to authorize the National Academy of Sciences to study peer review. This study has long been complete, and the final recommendation was clear. In a 2002 report-- Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning--the National Academy of Sciences recommended creation of a formalized process to independently review costly or controversial Corps projects.

Four years later, and with Corps reform bills in the 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, we are still trying to enact such a mechanism.

I would just like to note that I am pleased to see my friend involved in this issue, particularly given the role he played in 2000. My only hope is, after 6 years of work on this issue, we can go home tonight knowing we did right by the taxpayers, by the citizens of our country who rely on sound Corps projects to protect their families, their property, and the natural systems they want to protect for future generations.

Yes, Corps reform has been a work in progress. In 2001, I introduced a stand-alone bill to modernize the Corps. Later that Congress, I cosponsored a bill with Senator Smith from New Hampshire, Senator Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Ensign of Nevada, and Senator McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona. In March 2004 I introduced another stand-alone Corps reform bill along with Senator Daschle and Senator McCain. Then in the spring of 2005, Senator McCain and I offered another bill detailing the changes we hoped to see in the agency. And, finally, this spring we introduced another stand-alone bill.

What these efforts have been about is restoring credibility and accountability to this Federal agency that has been rocked by scandal, overextended to the tune of a 35-year backlog, and constrained by a gloomy fiscal picture. We can do that today. We can restore credibility and accountability to the Corps by passing the amendments that my friend, the Senator from Arizona, and I will be offering.

Some have said I have an ax to grind with the Corps. That is not true. The reason I am dedicated to improving this embattled agency is that I care about the Corps, and I want it to succeed. My home State of Wisconsin and numerous other States across our country rely on the Corps. From the Great Lakes to the Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental restoration, flood control, and many other valuable services.

I want to improve the way this agency operates, so that not only Wisconsinites but all Americans--particularly those who help pay for Corps projects either through their Federal tax dollars or, in many cases, through taxes they pay at a local level as part of a non-Federal cost-sharing arrangement--can rest easy knowing that their flood control projects are not going to fail them, their ecosystem restoration projects are going to protect our environmental treasures, and their navigation projects are based on sound economics and reliable traffic projections.

Much of the work that has gone into reforming the Corps was done before our Nation saw a major U.S. city laid to waste. When Hurricane Katrina rocked New Orleans, none of us imagined the horrors that would ensue. None of us imagined that much of the flooding--much of the flooding--that occurred could have possibly been prevented had some of the reforms we will be discussing today been in place decades ago.

Despite every wish to the contrary, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exposed serious problems that this body will be addressing for years to come. Many have stood on this floor and in their States and talked about what must be done to responsibly move forward in a post- Katrina landscape. And many of those discussions have, of course, centered, appropriately, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

I am here to say that if you were outraged by FEMA's poor response, like me, then you should be equally outraged by problems with the Corps and the process that has determined where limited Federal resources are spent.

While any hurricane that makes landfall will leave some level of destruction behind, the country has been shocked to learn that there were engineering flaws in the New Orleans levees, and that important information was ignored by the Corps. According to one of the independent reviewers looking into what happened with the levee failures, the causes of the failures ``are firmly founded in organizational and institutional failures that are primarily focused in the Corps of Engineers.''

Now, I had the chance to visit New Orleans a little over a week ago, and I can attest that the sentiment toward the Corps is anything but cordial. There is a lot of anger toward the Corps down there, and we have a responsibility in Congress to address it.

Additionally, following the hurricane, we have faced questions from our constituents about where the Corps was spending its limited budget and why. We have a responsibility to address those legitimate concerns, too.

The Times-Picayune of New Orleans recently said the following:

Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, are critical for

this state [meaning Louisiana, of course] which--after the

levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the

poster child [the poster child] for the Corps' shortcomings.

The best chance for changing the way the Corps operates is

through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ

Feingold.

And finally,

Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in

changing the way the Corps does business. The McCain-Feingold

amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the

main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe

and Kit Bond. What those Senators offer as reform is

meaningless, however . . . Sham reform won't do anything

to restore confidence in the Corps and the Congress must

do better.

I agree that this body must do better than sham reform. Today Senator McCain and I will be offering amendments that we believe are the minimum changes this body must accept as we look to the future and reflect on the past. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in demonstrating that the Senate can respond to over 10 years of Government reports--from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the Army Inspector General--on the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and provide the leadership to move the Army Corps into the 21st century.

I want to publicly recognize the EPW Committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, as well as the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman and ranking member, Senators Bonds and Baucus. Late this spring those offices approached Senator McCain and me and indicated a willingness to talk about some of our interest with respect to the Corps. From those discussions came real compromise on both sides. The result is that the underlying WRDA bill does include significant language to ensure periodic updating of the principles and guidelines that form the foundation of every Corps project but which have not been updated since 1983.

The language also includes a minimum mitigation standard for Corps civil works projects. The Corps' track record on mitigation suggests that the Nation would be better served through the standard described in the underlying bill. As WRDA moves through conference, I look forward to the EPW Committee standing by the language we agreed on and included in the underlying bill in sections 2006 and 2008 so that it is included in any bill that comes out of Congress.

I will now give some of my time on the amendment to my friend, a distinguished leader in this area, the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from Vermont, I will offer the amendment, if there is no objection. I have an amendment at the desk numbered 4681 regarding independent peer review.

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

Mr. President, I call up a modified version of the amendment which is at the desk.

I thank the Chair.

I offer this independent peer review amendment on behalf of myself, Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Collins. As we all know, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, through their leadership of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, have done an extensive investigation into all aspects of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I applaud their leadership and am proud they are cosponsoring this amendment, as I think it is a testament to the importance of implementing the changes included in this amendment. Additionally, Senator Jeffords has consistently pushed, through his position as ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many of the provisions of this amendment. I publicly thank him for all his attention to this matter.

Finally, Senator Carper has seen the need for an independent peer review amendment through both his Homeland Security Committee membership and his EPW Committee membership, and I appreciate his support in moving this issue forward.

Before I explain exactly what my amendment does, let me take a few minutes to talk about what various Government reports have said about the Corps' study process, as these reports have been the basis of my efforts over the last 6 years.

More than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army inspector general, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and other independent experts have revealed a pattern of stunning flaws in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project planning and implementation and urged substantial changes to the Corps' project planning process. Most recently, in June of this year, a report entitled ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System Draft Final Report on the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force'' acknowledged that the New Orleans levees failed catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina because of poor design and flawed construction. In planning the system, the Corps did not take into account poor soil quality and failed to account for the sinking of land which caused sections to be as much as 2 feet lower than other sections.

Breaches in four New Orleans canals were caused by foundation failures that were ``not considered in the original design.'' The system was designed to protect against a relatively low-strength hurricane, and the Corps did not respond to repeated warnings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that a stronger hurricane should have been the standard. The Corps also did not reexamine the heights of the levees after it had been warned about significant subsidence.

In discussing this report, the Corps' chief of engineers acknowledged that the agency must change, telling reporters that ``words alone will not restore trust in the Corps.''

Also, in June of this year, a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, ``Project Engineering Peer Review Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,'' recommends that Congress enact legislation to mandate external, independent peer reviews for all major Corps projects that would include reviews of the feasibility report, subsequent design and engineering reports, the project plans, and specifications and construction. Reviews should be carried out by experts who have no connection to the Corps, to the local project sponsor, or to the particular project contract.

In May of this year, we got ``A Nation Still Unprepared,'' a report that resulted from the excellent work of my friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor of our independent peer review amendment, and Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking member of the committee, and another cosponsor of our amendment.

That report recommends independent peer review of levee systems that protect population centers throughout the country. I don't know if Senator Collins or Senator Lieberman will have time to elaborate more on the thorough investigation their committee conducted and on their key findings and recommendations, but the report in many ways speaks volumes on its own.

One of the most striking reports, conducted by R.B. Seed in May of this year, ``Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Protection Systems and Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, Draft Final Report,'' finds that the catastrophic failure of the New Orleans regional flood protection system was the result of ``engineering lapses, poor judgments, and efforts to reduce costs at the expense of system reliability.'' The Corps failed to design the system with appropriate safety standards, failed to adequately address the complex geology of the region, failed to provide adequate design oversight, and engaged in ``a persistent pattern of attempts to reduce costs of constructed works at the price of corollary reduction in safety and reliability.''

These failings led to the ``single most costly catastrophic failure of an engineered system in history'' that caused the deaths of more than 1,290 people and some $100 to $150 billion in damages to the greater New Orleans area.

I could go on, and I will. I want my colleagues to know what is at stake. In March 2006, the Government Accountability Office testified that ``the Corps' track record of providing reliable information that can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.'' Four recent Corps studies examined by GAO were ``fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' These studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking.'' The recurring problems ``clearly indicate that the Corps' planning and project management processes cannot ensure that national priorities are appropriately established across the hundreds of civil works projects that are competing for scarce federal resources.'' Problems at the agency are ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the Corps' Civil Works portfolio'' so that effectively addressing these issues ``may require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the Corps' planning and project management processes rather than a piecemeal approach.''

I commend to my coleagues this damning testimony before the House Energy and Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform by Ann Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO.

In March of 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers External Review Panel for the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force letter to the Corps' chief of engineers found that decisions made during the original design phase led to the failure of the 17th Street canal floodwall in New Orleans and are representative of ``an overall pattern of engineering judgment inconsistent with that required for critical structures.'' These problems pose ``significant implications for the current and future safety offered by levees, floodwalls and control structures in New Orleans, and perhaps elsewhere.'' The External Review Panel recommends a number of immediate actions to improve Corps planning for ``levees and floodwalls in New Orleans and perhaps everywhere else in the nation,'' including external peer review of the Corps' design process for critical life safety structures.

In September 2005, the GAO issued a report which backs up our call for prioritization. ``Army Corps of Engineers, Improved Planning and Financial Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions to Manage Project Funds'' finds that the Corps' excessive use of reprogramming funds is being used as a substitute for an effective priority-setting system for the civil works program and as a substitute for sound fiscal and project management.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Corps reprogrammed funds over 7,000 times and moved over $2.1 billion among projects within the investigations and constructions account.

In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.'' This report recommends that the National Ocean Council review and recommend changes to the Corps' civil works program to ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of coastal projects; provide greater transparency to the public; enforce requirements for mitigating the impacts of coastal projects; and coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts.

The report also recommends that Congress modify its current authorization and funding processes to encourage the Corps to monitor outcomes from past projects and study the cumulative and regional impacts of its activities within coastal watersheds and ecosystems.

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a slew of reports:

The ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service'' recommends modernizing the Corps's authorities, planning approaches, and guidelines to better match contemporary water resources management challenges.

``Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning'' recommends needed changes to ensure effective use of the adaptive management by the Corps for its civil works projects.

``River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' describes the challenges to water resources planning at the scale of river basins and coastal systems and recommends needed changes to the Corps' current planning practices.

``Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Planning'' recommends needed changes to the Corps' ``Principles and Guidelines'' in planning guidance policies.

In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission's ``America's Living Oceans, Charting a Course for Sea Change, A Report to the Nation, Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy'' recommends enactment of ``substantial reforms'' of the Corps, including legislation to ensure that Corps projects are environmentally and economically sound and reflect national priorities. The Pew report recommends development of uniform standards for Corps participation in shoreline restoration projects and transformation of the Corps over the long term into a strong and reliable force for environmental restoration. The report also recommends that Congress direct the Corps and other Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive floodplain management policy that emphasizes nonstructural control measures.

In May 2002, the GAO found in its report ``Scientific Panel's Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance'' that the Corps has proposed no mitigation for almost 70 percent of its projects. And for those few projects where the Corps does perform mitigation, 80 percent of the time it does not carry out the mitigation concurrently with project construction.

In response to language that was included in the WRDA 2000 bill, the National Academy of Sciences, in ``Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning'' issued in 2002, recommends creation of a formalized process to independently review costly or controversial Corps projects. And in one of the most disturbing of the numerous reports on the Corps and the problems endemic in this agency, in November 2000, the Department of the Army Inspector General issued a report entitled ``Investigation of Allegations Against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Involving Manipulation of Studies Related to the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Systems.'' Their report found that the Corps deceptively and intentionally manipulated data in an attempt to justify a $1.2 billion expansion of locks on the upper Mississippi River and that the Corps has an institutional bias for constructing costly, large-scale structural projects.

Back in 1999--yes, 7 years ago--the National Academy of Sciences, in their report titled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' recommends key changes to the Corps' planning process and examines the length of time and cost of Corps studies in comparison with similar studies carried out by the private sector.

Twelve years ago, in June of 1994, the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee report, ``Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century,'' a Report to the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force--often referred to as the Galloway Report after the report's primary author, BG Gerald Galloway-- recommends changes to the Nation's water resources policies based on lessons learned from the great Midwest Flood of 1993, including modernizing the Corps' Principles and Guidelines, requiring the Corps to give full consideration to nonstructural flood damage reduction alternatives, requiring periodic reviews of completed Corps projects, adopting floodplain management guidelines that would minimize impacts to floodplains land reduce vulnerabilities to population centers and critical infrastructure, and reinstituting the Water Resources Council to facilitate improvement in Federal water resources planning.

Lastly, but certainly not least, in 1994 that very busy National Academy of Sciences issued yet another scathing report, ``Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology,'' which finds, among other things, that the Corps and all Federal agencies with responsibility for marine habitat management should revise their policies and procedures to increase use of restoration technologies; take into account which natural functions can be restored or facilitated; improve coordination concerning marine resources; include environmental and economic benefits derived from nonstrucural measures in benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat projects; and examine the feasibility of improving economic incentives for marine habitat restoration. It has been a long recitation of these reports, but it is an amazing record.

Over 12 years of analysis on how we can improve the Corps of Engineers. During that time, WRDA bills passed in 1996, 1999, and 2000, with the only reform coming in the NAS study I got included in the 2000 bill. That is why today is the day to implement the knowledge we have from all of this expert consideration of the Corps. Today is the day for action.

With that history in mind, let me describe what our independent peer review amendment does: No. 1, it requires independent review of projects that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety. Under my amendment Corps project planning will be independently reviewed if the project costs more than $40 million, a Governor requests a review, a Federal agency finds the project will have a significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial; No. 2, it ensures truly independent review panels by implementing National Academy of Sciences criteria about who would be eligible to provide expert review; No. 3, if implements the recommendation of the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report on peer review that said that independent reviewers should be given the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of decisionmakers; No. 4, it includes strict deadlines for reviews. Reviews are subject to a strict timeline that requires independent review panels to complete the review 180 days after being impaneled or 90 days following the close of public comment, whichever provides the most time. This timeline balances the need to not delay the planning process with the need to ensure that the panel will be able to review the full draft study and to consider any relevant public comments; and No. 5, it implements recommendations from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee's Katrina report by requiring review of the more detailed technical design and construction work for Corps flood control projects where failure could jeopardize the public safety.

In a nutshell, that is what the amendment does.

Mr. President, when you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps reform, you are likely to hear your intentions mischaracterized.

I wish to address at some point today some of the myths out there about what we are trying to do here. At this point, I inquire whether my cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona, is interested in addressing this issue.

I yield time to the Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York, who will speak in morning business, but I understand the time will be charged to my side of the amendment.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his continued cooperation in the way in which this debate is proceeding. I will use a few minutes of my time to bring us back to the debate on these two amendments that are before us. First, to make it absolutely clear to people that the amendment that Senator McCain and I are offering certainly would not slow down the bill in any way or delude the bill; we have a time agreement. However, it turns out the legislation will go forward and there is an obvious expectation that the bill will pass. In light of the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, I want to make it clear to people that this in no way is going to somehow stop the bill from going through this body. We will let the chips fall where they may based on the results of the

votes, but there is no slowing down of the bill.

Secondly, I was struck by the response to our amendment. Senator McCain and I laid out some pretty damning evidence about what the Army Corps of Engineers' role may have been in the Katrina disaster, which everybody admits is one of the worst disasters in the history of our country. I think the Senator from Missouri indicated that he didn't think we ought to engage in a blame game. I wouldn't call it a blame game, but somebody has to be held responsible. We have to acknowledge what might have caused this horrendous problem, and the evidence is overwhelming. Just as FEMA's performance was abysmal, so, too, was the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in properly establishing levees and other engineering that had to be done. And it may well have been significantly responsible for the tragedy that occurred in New Orleans. I don't know if they plan to mount a response to that, but I hope the record makes it clear that this New Orleans situation is Exhibit A in the kinds of problems that can occur if you don't have appropriate review of these Army Corps of Engineers projects.

I wanted to also respond to some of the specific issues the Senator from Missouri spoke about. He talked about what issues an independent review group could consider. I want to make it very clear. Under my amendment, which directly implements the recommendations of the 2002 National Academy of Sciences' report on peer review, independent panels will ensure that the Corps' proposed approach to a problem will work to resolve the identified problem and not cause unintended adverse consequences. Independent review panels will not take away any decisionmaking responsibilities. I want to be clear on that because a couple of the comments today could at least be interpreted to suggest that somehow this is going to take away the decisionmaking power from those who have it. Under my amendment, no decisionmaking responsibilities are taken away from the Army Corps of Engineers. The amendment simply allows for independent experts to identify problems in the best possible way.

Why would anyone not want to hear the important feedback from independent experts?

I would like to talk a little more in detail about one of the biggest differences between our independent review amendment and the Inhofe- Bond alternative which will be voted on side by side starting at 2:30, as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated. One of the very clear recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences' 2002 report on peer review is that reviewers should have the flexibility to comment on important issues to decisionmakers.

On this point, the two competing amendments are very different. I want my colleagues to understand the importance and the potential ramifications of the difference as they consider these two amendments.

My amendment implements the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences by allowing a thorough analysis of a Corps feasibility study. The Inhofe-Bond amendment ignores this recommendation by sharply limiting what independent reviewers would be allowed to consider. On this point, it is good to give an example of why this matters. Many of us know about the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO, in Louisiana. In Louisiana, MRGO is what this project is referred as.

According to most scientists who have looked at it, MRGO, a Corps navigation channel, greatly exacerbated the impact of Hurricane Katrina by funneling and intensifying Katrina's storm surge directly into New Orleans and by destroying 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands that could have buffered the storm's surge. These same experts, including the independent reviewers looking into what happened in New Orleans, have said that the devastating flooding that overwhelmed St. Bernard Parish and the lower ninth ward of New Orleans came from the MRGO. I was in both of those parishes 10 days ago, and that is exactly what the National Guard and other people and experts indicated to me while I was physically looking at this destruction.

Only 52 of the 28,000 structures in St. Bernard Parish escaped unscathed from Katrina. For years, community leaders, including the St. Bernard Parish Council, activists, and scientists warned that the MRGO was a hurricane highway and called for closing the outlet. This is not merely an after-the-fact recognition that something was wrong. People who lived and some who died in these communities were warning about this potential disaster before it occurred.

Why is this relevant? Under the Inhofe-Bond limited review, the other amendment, a panel would not have been able to examine the full implications of constructing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet or MRGO in New Orleans. While reviewers would have been able to assess whether the Corps properly calculated the wetlands impact of the MRGO, they would not have been able to comment on the fact that the recommended plan would put New Orleans at risk by destroying wetlands vital for buffering storm surge and by creating a funneling effect that would intensify the storm surge. The Inhofe-Bond review also would not have allowed any comment on the appropriateness of proceeding with the MRGO in light of the increased danger to the city and the fact that traffic projections were vastly overstated.

I think we can all agree that this example shows what can be at stake if we don't allow reviewers some flexibility to bring up important issues. This isn't the only example of where the Inhofe-Bond amendment falls short, but I will try to say more about that later. This is a timely and very serious example of the dramatic difference between the amendment that Senator McCain and I have offered and the, frankly, inadequate amendment that is offered as an alternative.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I am pleased to yield 12 minutes to one of our strong supporters and cosponsors of the amendment, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California in support of our amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of arguments in the debate. How much time remains on our side?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I heard the comment from some of my colleagues on the other side offering the alternative amendment that somehow this independent peer review will create a bureaucracy. I find that a little ironic because to me the definition of ``bureaucracy'' is an agency, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, that has $68 billion in authorized projects that apparently would take 35 years to build if everything was done in a sort of rational manner. That is how long it would take. It is sort of the definition of a bureaucracy that has gone awry, where there are not priorities, where there isn't clarity, where there really isn't any sense of what is more important than something else or what situation is more dangerous than another situation, what is more threatening to people's lives than another situation.

The notion that an independent peer review would not be binding, to have experts give us guidance as to what is more important as opposed to what is less important to fix or change, to me, is the opposite of bureaucracy. It is bringing rationality and a good government approach to what is currently a very troubled and in-need-of-reform bureaucracy.

I certainly expected the other side would try to raise the notion that somehow our amendment, our new system of independent review, would lead to more litigation. Of course, that is a standard argument against everything, and sometimes it is true, but here it is not.

The judicial deference provision makes it clear that the Corps must give serious consideration and review to an independent panel's findings. Unless that happens, independent review will just be another box to be checked off in project planning and will not result in better and safer projects.

The Corps, unfortunately, has a history of ignoring independent panel recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the Corps, and that is unacceptable.

To ensure the independent review process is meaningful and produces real improvements for project planning, the amendment gives the recommendations of a panel equal deference with the Corps's recommendation in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's finding without good cause.

That is what it does, and that is all it does. It provides an alternative view that the Corps can consider, but there is the key point. The judicial deference provision clearly does not--does not-- create any new cause of action. It does not create a new basis for somebody to litigate. So it is false that somehow this creates the opportunity for new litigation. It does not even anticipate that projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court.

The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has rejected an expert panel finding for a valid reason, good cause--not a difficult judicial standard to meet.

If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the panel and the Corps's recommendations.

So just as the argument that we are creating somehow a new bureaucracy is just the opposite of the fact, there is no basis, no validity whatsoever to the notion that this creates some new legal cause of action that didn't exist before.

I have two more points with regard to independence. I have heard the manager of the bill and the Senator from Missouri indicate that they are for some kind of independent review and that their alternative provides for it. But, of course, it is only in the most narrow of circumstances, only in projects that are over $100 million. That is essentially wiping out independent review on almost every single project.

Our view is this probably involves, maybe on average of less than one project a year that would receive that kind of independent review. We compromised to make sure that our figure would be acceptable to the body. We started with $25 million and went up as high as $41 million. But $100 million essentially makes a mockery of the whole idea of independent review because it would only apply in the most rare cases.

Finally, of course, the argument is, apart from the notion that somehow this creates new litigation, which is not the case, somehow this will cause things to take longer in terms of approving projects and reviewing projects.

That also is incorrect. The Senator from Missouri is incorrect about our amendment and the timing of review. To quote from page 8:

Panels may be established as early in the planning process

as deemed appropriate by the director of independent review.

So this whole idea that he indicated of somehow waiting until the eighth grade for somebody who needs help in the first grade--I heard that analogy--is not true. The Director has the power to do this whenever he deems this appropriate. He has that discretion. He has that flexibility, so it is not some kind of a locked-in delay at the end of the process review.

I encourage my colleagues to read the text of the bill on each of these points which I think will bear out the validity of the arguments I made.

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself some additional time.

When you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps reform, sometimes people don't always understand your intentions and maybe, in some cases, mischaracterize them.

But I am astonished at the extent to which my opponents, those who like the status quo, those who benefit from the status quo, are saying about the Feingold-McCain-Lieberman-Carper-Jeffords-Collins Independent Peer Review Amendment. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the myths I have heard and set the record straight.

Myth No. 1: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment will delay project construction.

This just is not true. Our amendment will not delay projects. We agree, projects do take some time. That's why we were very sensitive to ensure that independent peer review of Army Corps feasibility studies overlays with the existing process. Furthermore, our amendment includes strict deadlines for the panel to report and, if they fail to report in the allotted time, the Chief of Engineers is directed to proceed with planning. In fact, the Inhofe-Bond amendment uses some of the same timing criteria.

Independent review will ensure that communities will actually get the projects they are being told they will get. The independent review can start as early in the process as deemed appropriate, and for projects costing more than $40 million, must end within 90 days after the close of the public comment period.

Under the most ideal circumstances the Corps takes 11 to 12 months from the close of the public comment period to the time it issues a Chief's report for a project. And under current law, the Corps must take into account all the public and agency comment submitted during the public comment period. For large and controversial projects the time from draft feasibility study to final Chief's report takes much longer. So the independent review of feasibility studies in our amendment, which balances the absolute need to allow for a thorough review with the need to move forward in a timely fashion, fits well within the current timelines and will not delay project planning. The Nation will get better projects under this amendment.

Myth No. 2: The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too many projects.

Mr. President, the $40 million review trigger in our amendment will, on average, subject about five projects a year to independent review. This is a highly valuable use of resources. And, I believe it will promote better and more efficient studies for Corps projects throughout all of the Corps' 38 domestic districts.

Just this March, the GAO testified to the House Committee on Government Reform that:

GAO's recent reviews of four Corps civil works projects and

actions found that the planning studies conducted by the

Corps . . . were fraught with errors, mistakes, and

miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated

data.

GAO went on to note that the planning studies:

did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making.

Later in its report, GAO even says:

The Corps' track record for providing reliable information

that can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.

This is simply unacceptable for a Federal agency and it should get the attention of every Member of this body.

Given the Corps' track record, we really should be requiring reviews of all studies until the agency improves its record. The $40 million trigger, however, is a reasonable and appropriate compromise that will sweep in the largest and costliest Corps projects. The other triggers will ensure that any less costly projects that could be very problematic do not fall through the cracks in the study process. We must be able to rely on the integrity of Corps project studies and their recommendations to Congress. And unfortunately, right now we cannot.

Myth No. 3: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project costs.

Independenter peer review is a critical taxpayer investment. The country cannot afford to have costly mistakes like the levee failures in the aftermath of Katrina. The Corps, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences have all said that faulty design and construction by the Corps resulted in the levee failures. We cannot afford any more examples like what we saw in New Orleans. We also cannot afford to build projects based on economic or engineering errors. We have tight water resource budgets, thus we must spend every dime wisely and judiciously. I believe, and my cosponsors agree, independent peer review will help us do that.

Myth No. 4: The Feingold-McCain amendment will open the door to more litigation.

The Corps must give serious consideration and review to an independent peer review panel's findings. Without that hook, the concept is useless. We do not want independent review to be just another box to be checked off in project planning, for I think we can all agree that doing so will not yield better or safer projects. The Corps unfortunately has a history of ignoring independent panel recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the Corps. This can happen no longer.

To ensure that the independent review process is meaningful and produces real improvements to project planning, the amendment gives the recommendations of an independent peer review panel equal deference with the Corps' recommendations in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's findings without good cause.

The judicial deference provision clearly does not create any new cause of action, and it does not even anticipate that projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court. The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has rejected an expert panel's findings for a valid reason. If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the panel's and the Corps' recommendations.

Myth No. 5: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to all projects, even those that are already authorized.

The independent peer review of Corps studies applies to projects as they enter the feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which point the Chief's report is already complete. However, my amendment will ensure that flood control projects whose failure could endanger people and communities will be properly designed and constructed with adequate review. If such a project is in the post authorization design phase or construction phase it will receive the benefit of the safety assurance review required by the amendment. This comes directly from the recommendations of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Katrina report, and I am sure my colleagues will agree that we need to make sure key flood control projects are designed and built properly.

Myth No. 6: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy.

The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a workable system to address a very real problem--poorly planned and designed projects that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the environment and waste taxpayer dollars.

I would like to address one final myth, and that is that the Inhofe- Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project review.

Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. This is like puttingy the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Corps gets to select the reviewers, and there are no criteria at all for ensuring independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control over whether, how, and who will review projects.

As you can see, the naysayers want to keep saying no, but we need to move beyond this game and start implementing policy that has a real chance of improving a broken system, protecting lives and property, and restoring integrity to a Federal agency

charged with providing the first line of defense against storms, charged with protecting and restoring some of our most precious natural resources and charged with providing efficient commerce.

Let me say a bit about what editorials from across the country have said. It has been just an overwhelming response. They are from communities large and small, but they all have the same message: Congress must reform the Corps. I don't have every editorial ever written about a need for a change in the Corps. I do have a good number.

I ask unanimous consent they be printed following my remarks.

Let me ask again, how much time do I have remaining?

In the Northeast, the New York Times and the Washington Post have been leaders in calling for reform. While some Members will jokingly say they don't read the New York Times or the Washington Post, maybe they have heard of some of the others--the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire, the Delaware News Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Moving to the South, in Florida alone, a State with numerous Corps projects, including projects to help restore the Everglades, five papers have called for enactment of the reforms the Senator from Arizona and I are offering today. In addition, the Winston-Salem Journal, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Most importantly, in my regard, the New Orleans Times-Picayune has called not only for passage of our reform amendments but flatout rejection of the competing amendments that will be offered today.

In the Midwest, where I hail from, the editorial boards for the Wisconsin State Journal, the Star Tribune in Minnesota, the Chicago Tribune, the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Let me repeat that: the St. Louis Post Dispatch has editorialized on the need for modernization of the Corps of Engineers.

Those of us familiar with the players on this issue in the Senate will be interested to note that in fact the St. Louis Post Dispatch ran an editorial today, supporting the Feingold-McCain amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Winston-Salem Journal:

After Hurricane Katrina, to vote with Inhofe and Bond to

block reform of the Corps would be downright reckless.

The Miami Herald:

A bipartisan Senate proposal to overhaul the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers deserves approval to eliminate some of

Congress' most nefarious pork-barrel spending and improve the

process that determines which projects are worthwhile.

San Francisco Chronicle:

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

saving lives.

The Commercial Appeal--Tennessee:

At the very least, evaluations of proposed corps projects,

their environmental impact and especially their cost and

benefits, should be in independent and impartial hands.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

This singular study of failure no doubt will become a

standard reference work in engineering school libraries. It

should be cross-referenced, as well, to those who study

political science and philosophy, for between its lines it

reveals a government authority in which a region's trust was

misplaced, and a hubris in the face of the inevitable that

cost more than 1,200 lives and as-yet uncounted billions of

dollars in damage. Congress must read it, too, for it

describes flaws in corps management that demand fixing before

the next levee fails.

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

Exhibit 1

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

Counting on Corps Reform

Louisiana urgently needs hurricane protection and coastal

restoration projects contained in the Water Resources

Development Act, and for that reason alone it's critical for

Congress to move on this long-delayed measure.

But Louisiana's fortunes are also tied, for better or

worse, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Efforts to reform

the agency are critical for this state, which--after the

levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the

poster child for the corps' shortcomings.

Congress is four years overdue in adopting a new water

resources bill, in part because of disagreements over corps

reform. But the Senate is expected to vote on the measure

this week, and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter need to

do more than push for crucial Louisiana projects. They need

to push for changes that will make the corps a better, more

responsible agency in the future.

The best chance for changing the way the corps operates is

through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ

Feingold. They're offering two amendments to the water

resources bill. One would establish independent review of

corps projects from planning and design to construction. The

other would require corps projects to be ranked in importance

based on three national priorities: flood and storm damage

reduction, navigation and environmental restoration.

While the McCain-Feingold amendments won't fix everything

that's wrong with the corps, Louisiana stands to benefit from

both proposed changes.

The catastrophic failure during Katrina of canal floodwalls

built by the corps is Exhibit A in the case for independent

review. If such a process had been in place, surely

subsidence wouldn't have been discounted when New Orleans'

levee system was being built, and research on soil strength

wouldn't have been ignored.

Louisiana also should fare better under a system that uses

criteria other than political clout to decide which projects

should be done. The corps already has a $58 billion project

backlog--an amount that will grow by another $10 billion if

the water resources bill is adopted. That means competition

for the $2 billion per year that the corps gets for projects

is intense.

Without a rational system for prioritizing that work,

there's no guarantee that Louisiana's critically needed flood

control project will prevail even over less-needed or

justified projects. While there's a danger that a Louisiana

project could be pushed aside in a priority-based system,

this state is helped by the fact that the McCain-Feingold

approach favors projects that reduce flood damage and restore

the environment.

The effectiveness of the proposed changes will depend on

details. If an independent review panel isn't given adequate

time to evaluate a project, for example, the benefit of

oversight could be lost. Conversely, a cumbersome review

process could end up further delaying badly needed projects.

But an independent review process that works, combined with

a ranking policy that makes sense, should result in a better-

performing agency.

Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in

changing the way the corps does business. The McCain-Feingold

amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the

main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe

and Kit Bond.

What those senators offer as reform is meaningless,

however. The Inhofe-Bond review process would be controlled

by the corps and would only apply to projects that exceed

$100 million, compared to a $40 million threshold in the

McCain-Feingold measures. The Inhofe-Bond amendments also

call for prioritization, but their system would simply

measure projects against a set of national priorities without

actually ranking them.

Sham reform won't do anything to restore confidence in the

corps, and Congress must do better. The public should be able

to rely on the agency that builds levees and dams to do work

that will stand up to independent scrutiny. Taxpayers

shouldn't have to wonder if there's a rational basis for

spending billions of dollars.

And Louisianians should be able to believe that the corps,

which is rebuilding our levee system and restoring our

coastline, is a wiser, better managed and more reliable

agency than the one that failed us when Hurricane Katrina

came to town.

Mr. President, continuing the debate, I appreciate the Senator mentioning my home State of Wisconsin. I think that is an opportunity to quote from one of the leading newspapers in our State, the Wisconsin State Journal. It in the past has not always agreed with me on this issue. But they have come down strongly this year, and I would like to read what they said.

The title of the editorial is ``Protect taxpayers from boondoggles,'' and I am going to read it in its entirety.

If the United States is to rein in the billions of dollars

misspent on pork-barrel projects each year, a top priority

should be reforming the way the Army Corps of Engineers does

business.

That's why Congress should pass the Army Corps reforms

proposed by Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain,

R-Ariz. The Feingold-McCain proposal would improve the

public's ability to make sure limited federal resources are

spent on cost-effective projects for flood control,

navigation, environmental protection and related goals,

rather than on boondoggles.

At stake is how the Corps spends its $12-billion-a-year

budget, which includes nearly $5 billion for civil works

projects, from levees to canals to coastal restoration.

Analyses of last year's hurricane disaster in New Orleans

helped to expose costly, even deadly flaws in how the Corps

decides where to spend the public's money. For example,

before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina breached the levee

on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Corps had begun a

$748 million project at that exact spot.

The project, however, was not flood control but rather a

new lock for the canal. The lock, favored by local

politicians, was supposed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge

traffic on the canal, however, was decreasing.

The New Orleans experience highlighted the Corps' long

history of mutual back-scratching with members of Congress:

The Corps caters to pet projects, even if their costs far

outweigh the benefits, and Congress in return makes sure the

Corps gets a big fat budget all at the expense of fiscal

responsibility and long-term water resource strategy.

The Feingold-McCain proposal would modernize the Corps'

cost-benefit analysis to make it more about project merit and

less about political influence. One provision would require

independent review of any project estimated to cost more than

$40 million, requested by a governor, determined to have

significant adverse impact, or judged by the secretary of the

Army to be controversial.

Another provision would require a cabinet-level committee

to work with the secretary of the Army to annually establish

a list of water source project priorities to give Congress

guidance.

Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Congress limits the

influence of pork-barrel politics in the Army Corps of

Engineers. So would Corps projects affecting the state, from

the modernization of the Mississippi River's lock-and-dam

system to efforts to keep invasive species out of the Great

Lakes.

The State's congressional delegation should support the

Feingold-McCain reforms.

I could go on.

There are more editorials coming online every day. These editorials are coming from States that have projects in this bill, projects that would be subject to the prioritization amendment, projects that would be subject to the independent peer review amendment. These editorials are coming from small States and large cities. Yet they still support reform. And I believe that is because any State that might be the non- Federal cosponsor of a project should want these reforms to ensure that their investment is a wise one.

As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned some of the groups that support his position, let me also briefly touch on the amazing support for our independent review amendment. There are letters of support from all of the following groups and individuals: League of Conservation Voters; Taxpayers for Common Sense; American Rivers; National Taxpayers Union; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense; the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Republicans for Environmental Protection; Defenders of Wildlife; Louisiana Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; the Garden Club of America; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Earthjustice; the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; the Isaak Walton League of America; World Wildlife Fund; Friends of the Earth; The John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; a letter from G. Paul Kemp, a professor at Louisiana State University and a member of the Louisiana Forensics Team investigating the Corps' engineering failures; more Great Lakes groups than I can describe here, including Great Lakes United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Lake Erie Region Conservancy, the Ohio Environmental Council, Environment Michigan, and the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy; Columbia River Fisherman's Protective Union and Columbia Riverkeeper; Environment Maine; National Audubon Society; and finally, a letter that is signed by over 120 grassroots groups from across the country that supports our stand-alone bill, from which today's Feingold and McCain amendments come. The States represented on the letter are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and, of course, Wisconsin.

I ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the need for change could not be more clear, and I hope that today the Senate will adopt the Feingold-McCain- Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins independent peer review amendment and reject the Inhofe-Bond counter amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be equally divided during the quorum.

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 yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Iowa. He is going to speak as in morning business, but I understand it will be charged against my time.

Mr. President, the amendment cosponsored by Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, Jeffords and Collins will ensure independent review of Army Corps projects that are costly, controversial or critical to public safety. The amendment responds to over 10 years of studies, including analysis of the Katrina disaster, documenting serious problems with planning and design of Army Corps projects. We owe it to the people of New Orleans, and to all of our constituents, to ensure close scrutiny of critical flood control projects, as recommended by the Homeland Security Committee. That is what our amendment does.

Despite any outcome on my amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``nay'' on the Inhofe-Bond amendment which maintains the unacceptable status quo.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 4682

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I yield myself time off of the McCain-Feingold prioritization amendment.

I rise in strong support of the McCain-Feingold prioritization amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. As Senator McCain points out, it recognizes we must respond to the tragedy of Katrina and to our current flawed planning process by making sure that limited taxpayer dollars go to the most worthy water resources projects.

That doesn't sound like a lot to ask. As we all know, our Nation is staring down deficits that just a few years ago were unimaginable. We have a backlog of $58 billion in projects that are authorized but not built, and that number will be closer to $70 billion when this bill passes. Clearly, we need some way of identifying projects that are most needed.

Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative priority of the current massive backlog of unauthorized projects, and we don't have any way of evaluating the relative priority of the new projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in their States or districts but no information about which projects are most important to the country's economic development or transportation systems or our ability to protect our citizens and our property from natural disasters.

Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. The McCain amendment would make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decisionmaking. It does so by utilizing an interagency task force set up in the underlying bill, the Water Resources Coordinating Committee, to evaluate likely Corps projects in three different categories: flood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. The committee will establish broad national priorities to apply to those projects.

The amendment sets out minimum requirements that projects in each category have to meet, so that, for example, flood reduction projects must be evaluated in part whether they reduce the risk of loss of life. But the committee is free to consider other factors as long as it is clear about which factors it is considering.

Projects in each of these project types will be placed in tiers based on how great a priority they represent, and this information will be provided to Congress and the public in a nonbinding annual report. That is it. Congress and the public get information to help them make decisions involving millions--or even billions--of dollars. Surely that isn't too much to ask.

Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency that is plagued by public skepticism in the wake of Katrina. The Corps has admitted serious design flaws in the levees it built in New Orleans, and it is clear that the Corps' mistakes contributed significantly to the damage New Orleans suffered.

I can tell you, when I was down in New Orleans just last week, even more than complaints about FEMA, I heard complaints about the Corps. And just as we have worked as a body to improve FEMA, we need to work to improve the Corps. Our constituents and the people of New Orleans deserve no less.

The Corps does important work. The real problem, as the senior Senator

from Arizona points out, that this amendment seeks to get at is us in Congress. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. If we want to change our ways, we can start by passing the McCain prioritization amendment which will help us make sure the Corps continues to contribute to our safety, environment, and economy, without wasting taxpayer dollars.

The Inhofe-Bond so-called prioritization amendment does not accomplish that. In fact, that competing amendment would do nothing more than create a bureaucratic nightmare. It would require every project in the $58 billion backlog to be rated. Even the Corps admits there are many projects in the backlog that will never be built. Some of the projects being deauthorized in this WRDA bill were first authorized in the 19th century. So why would we expend such time and resources evaluating projects that have no chance of being built? We can prioritize in a smarter, more manageable way.

Their amendment creates an ill-defined relative rating system for criteria but doesn't require any final analysis or ranking. How is that going to help us decide where to allocate taxpayer dollars? It won't. The relative rating system is nothing more than a throwaway single line with no substance.

What is most telling is that there is no provision to allow for the information to be made available to the public so they can look over our shoulders and make sense of whether our decisions about national water resource priorities make sense.

Furthermore, their amendment, rather than using impartial criteria on which to weigh projects, would use criteria which would be applied across project types and which appear to be reverse-engineered to elevate inland navigation projects: for example, criteria such as ``availability cost alternate transportation methods relating to the project''; ``[R]eduction of dependence on foreign oil associated with using water as a method of transportation of goods''; ``pollution reduction benefits associated with using water as a method of transportation of goods.''

These criteria serve to elevate generically inland navigation projects at the expense of flood and storm damage reduction projects and environmental restoration projects.

Obviously, I do not have an issue with inland navigation projects.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may continue under the remaining time on the bill.

I thank my colleagues.

The Mississippi River is a critical artery for Wisconsin and national commerce, and many other rivers serve the same role. However, I do take issue with the process that uses broadly applied criteria that will obviously only be met by a small subset of projects at the expense of other valuable project types that fall within the mission area of the Corps of Engineers.

Lastly, if any of my colleagues are tempted to vote for the Inhofe- Bond alternative, I encourage them to take a close look at it. It is clearly designed to look more substantial than it really is because in a nine-page amendment, four pages are dedicated to simply reinserting the same language on a fiscal transparency report that the amendment initially deleted.

Unfortunately, the existing inadequate, opaque funding process is better than the prioritization process created by the Inhofe-Bond amendment. A deliberately flawed and skewed prioritization system would be more harmful than the current ineffective one. As such, whatever one's position may be on the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman-Feinstein amendment, I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the Inhofe-Bond prioritization amendment.

I certainly thank my colleagues for the additional time, and I yield the floor.

Senator Nelson, I am familiar with the excellent peer review system that has been established for the comprehensive Everglades project. In many ways, that peer review system is a model for this amendment. There is nothing in this amendment that would keep the Director of Independent Peer Review from determining that the Everglades peer review is the functional equivalent of the peer review or substitute for the peer review required by this amendment and satisfies this requirement. In many ways, the Everglades peer review goes beyond that required by this amendment, and works smoothly with the requirements of this amendment.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, when a bill like this one comes to the floor, especially after 6 years, there are so many people to thank. First, I want to thank the support of my principal cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who has worked with me since the 108th Congress.

I know he shares my view that future Corps projects should no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, should stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, should not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and should be built in an environmentally compatible way.

He saw the importance of ensuring that the Corps does a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. He and his staffer, Becky Jensen, deserve commendation.

I am particularly grateful for the help and support of the chairman of the committee, Mr. Inhofe. He directed his staff to work closely with mine, and Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Steven Aaron did so ably, and I thank them, and the majority staff director, Andy Wheeler.

I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support of another former EPW chairman, the former Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith. It was he who brought conservative groups and taxpayer groups to the table on these issues, honored my request for a hearing in 2002 along with then-Ranking Member Baucus, and I am deeply grateful.

I want to thank our current esteemed and retiring ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. This may be the committee's last major bill this Congress, and he is to be commended for his leadership.

He and I have spoken personally about my interests in improving the Corps, and I am grateful for his support.

Several of the minority staff of the committee have been working on the issues I am raising in my amendments since my first independent review amendment on the 2000 WRDA bill. At the time, Jo-Ellen Darcy worked on the committee for the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who was then the ranking member, and she has followed my interest in these issues for Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and now Senator Jeffords.

I also want to acknowledge the help and support of several others on the minority staff, Catharine Ransom, Alison Taylor, Ken Connolly, and Mary Frances Repko, who worked for me until 2003, and provided invaluable help to me with my first Corps reform bill in the 107th Congress and the WRDA amendment that preceded it.

I also have a long history working with the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, on Corps issues. I appreciate the effort that he, and his staffers, Brian Klippenstein and Letmon Lee, have made to improve the Corps' performance.

Our work together goes back to 1999. The reauthorization of the Environmental Management Program in the

Upper Mississippi was the only permanent authorization in WRDA 99. Included in the final EMP provisions was a requirement that Senator Bond and I developed to have the Corps create an independent technical advisory committee to review EMP projects, monitoring plans, and habitat and natural resource needs assessments. Our work helped to cement the Environment Committee's commitment to secure outside technical advice in Corps habitat restoration programs, like the EMP.

The amendments I offered to the WRDA bill are widely supported in the environmental and taxpayer community, and several individuals have worked hard for this day, including Chelsea Maxwell, former staffer to the retired Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and now with National Wildlife Federation, Adam Kolton, David Conrad and Tim Eder with National Wildlife Federation, Joan Mulhern with Earth Justice, Melissa Samet with American Rivers, Steve Ellis and Jill Lancelot with Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tim Searchinger with Environmental Defense, and Pete Sepp and Kristina Rasmussen with the National Taxpayers Union.

Finally, I want to thank my own staff. My staffer, Jessica Maher, has worked tirelessly on this legislation. She has talked to countless offices and constituents, and has worked to address their concerns and questions with grace and good humor, as has Mike Schmidt, another member of my staff. I am deeply grateful to Jess and to her predecessor, Heather White.

Mr. President, I am deeply troubled that violence in Darfur continues. It is disheartening to learn that the Government of Sudan continues to serve as an obstacle to the deployment of U.N. peacekeeping forces that could bolster the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS. While AMIS has conducted its mission to the best of its ability, it is clear that it has neither the resources nor the mandate to stop the violence that is affecting the lives of millions of innocent people. It remains critical that an international peacekeeping force be allowed to deploy to Darfur to augment the African Union Mission in Sudan and to establish a lasting and sustainable peace.

Peace in Darfur has been elusive, but it is not unattainable. The Government of Sudan must be a willing partner for peace; it must work with the international community to find an acceptable and expedient plan to introduce peacekeeping forces to that region. Until a more robust peacekeeping force can deploy to Darfur, it is important that the international community support continuing AMIS efforts there. Finally, parties to the conflict in Darfur must also abide by the recently agreed upon Darfur Peace Agreement, DPA, although it is apparent that this peace agreement is showing signs of strain.

Peace in Darfur is critical for establishing a lasting and comprehensive peace throughout Sudan and the region. That said, we must not ignore the continuing need to press for progress on the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement, CPA. The U.S. Government, with the international community and the United Nations, must continue to press for progress in implementing the CPA between the north and the south of Sudan. Unfortunately, well over a year from the signing of the CPA, it has become painfully clear that various important elements of the agreement have yet to be implemented, let alone completed. Key issues concerning land tenure rights, critical border agreements, oil revenue sharing, and armed militias in southern Sudan have yet to be settled or addressed fully.

While much of the lack of progress relating to the CPA relates to the complexity of the peace agreement, much of it relates to the limited capacity of the Government of Southern Sudan, GOSS, to provide effective governance, services, and protection of its citizens. There remain serious obstacles to the establishment of a viable and strong GOSS, including a continuing lack of sufficient infrastructure throughout the south and sporadic violence that disrupts various parts of the region. The international community must continue its support of Sudan's CPA, which means addressing the capacity that parties to the agreement have to implement the agreement.

The U.S. Government and the international community need to be sustained, coordinated, and comprehensive. We cannot dismiss the significance of the linkages and impact that each of these agreements have on one another, nor their significance for developing a solid foundation for addressing conflict throughout the region. Successful implementation of both the CPA and DPA will provide significant benefits to all communities in Sudan and will set the stage for a new era of peace for the entire country and region.

Mr. President, as we debate this important legislation regarding stem cell research, we are reminded of the millions of patients and families across America who await treatment and cures for our most deadly and tragic diseases. As of Friday afternoon, over 92,000 Americans were on waiting lists for organ transplant. Seventeen of these people will die every day waiting for a vital organ. Scientists believe that over half of Americans over 85 may suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and at least half a million Americans currently have Parkinson's disease. As we all know, these kinds of serious diagnoses affect not only the patient, but that patient's family, friends, and community. Illness is a burden we all share.

Fortunately, over the past century, science has turned many of our worst medical fears into manageable chronic conditions, sometimes into mere nuisances, and, in some instances, has erased them entirely.

Today we stand at the threshold of a new era of scientific achievement. Stem cell research has vast potential for curing diseases and saving lives. We must recognize the enormous potential of this research for discovering new cures and therapies for disease such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Millions of patients and their families across the Nation

cannot afford to wait any longer for enactment of this urgently needed legislation.

I am a strong supporter and proud cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I have heard from many of my constituents in Wisconsin in support of this legislation, and I am glad that the Senate is addressing this today and responding to the requests of millions across the country. As the Senator from Oregon eloquently said a few minutes ago, for many people this is a deeply personal issue. When an individual or loved one suffers from an incurable disease or medical condition, it can be devastating. Everyone knows someone who has suffered from diabetes, Alzheimer's Parkinson's, or another debilitating disease, and we all know the physical and emotional pain inflicted as a result. It is vitally important that we move this legislation into law as expeditiously as possible and provide the resources that scientists need to develop treatments and cures for these diseases.

Researchers can unlock enormous potential in stem cell research if Congress will only give them the key. At the University of Wisconsin in 1998, Dr. James Thomson became the first scientist to break into this new frontier by isolating human embryonic stem cells. Since then, researchers at the university have been able to coax embryonic stem cells to develop into mature blood cells, which could provide treatments and cures for people with a range of currently incurable diseases. By further examining the potential of stem cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin have also successfully developed neural cells, and they have even transferred these cells successfully into mice, where the cells continued to thrive. The possibilities here are clear: If technology such as this is able to expand, those with neurological disorders and bleak prognoses may now have hope.

Despite its incredible promise, this research has unfortunately been limited by the President since 2001. It is time for Congress to take the necessary action to provide more stem cell lines to scientists so that this research can go forward, without the Federal Government standing in the way.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federally funded research to be conducted on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization, IVF, that are no longer needed and are donated by couples for research. It is estimated that there are more than 400,000 embryos that were created for fertility treatments and are likely to be destroyed.

There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the role that embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of the most troubling medical diseases and conditions that affect so many Americans. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will help our Nation's researchers get closer to unlocking what this research holds by increasing the quantity and quality of stem cell lines available for research.

Embryonic stem cell research is very important to me and to Wisconsin. I am proud that the University of Wisconsin has played a prominent role in stem cell research in this country. I know that my constituents, and Americans across the country, are eagerly awaiting the benefits that this research will provide.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this incredibly important science which would expand our research horizons and bring hope to so many people.

Mr. President, I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

The first steps toward establishing peace must begin with the unconditional and immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and countries throughout the region must also condemn the actions of and cease all forms of support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups committed to blocking or derailing the pursuit of peace. These countries must take strong actions immediately to return stability to the region.

Any sustainable peace depends on the cessation of support for terrorist organizations. U.N. resolutions have clearly articulated obligations and requirements of countries throughout the region. Iran and Syria must stop all support for Hezbollah and Hamas immediately.

That said, all sides to this conflict must show as much restraint as possible. It is in the long-term interest of peace that parties to this conflict find an end to this current crisis without damaging the prospects for a sustained and permanent solution to this conflict.

Mr. President, I recently made a brief visit to New Orleans to see for myself where things stand now, not quite 11 months after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast. Katrina, of course, was the first of two major hurricanes to ravage that area last year. I only had the chance to see a small part of the area hit by that first storm, but what I did see was striking.

The news reports cannot fully convey the devastation or the enormity of the problems the region faces in trying to put things back in working order. One problem feeds into another. Businesses can't get back up and running without employees. Workers don't want to return without a safe place to live, without a school for their children, and without health care and other essential services upon which we all rely. Hospitals and other health providers face the same staffing shortages that businesses face. The neighborhood schools face challenges both in the physical infrastructure--providing a safe place in which kids can learn--and staffing shortages. All of these issues must be addressed.

Housing is an overarching challenge. I saw neighborhood after neighborhood still empty and unlivable. The outside shell of some homes was still standing, but the inside was uninhabitable because of the flood of toxic liquid filth that soaked into those houses.

I also saw lots where homes had stood but where now there was nothing but a slab of concrete. While many are living in the notorious FEMA trailers, many others, I understand, are having a hard time getting approval for a trailer. I was pleased to learn a little bit more about the so-called Katrina cottages that might be an alternative to the trailers, and I look forward to learning still more about them.

So much still needs to be done that one can be overwhelmed by the size of the task that remains. I have a great deal of respect for those who have made the commitment to remain in or move back to the city, for those who are working to make the neighborhoods habitable again, for the State and local law enforcement, the National Guard, and all the other dedicated individuals who are working so hard to bring the region back.

I still have a lot to learn about the particulars of what is needed in New Orleans and the other areas ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--what is working, what has not worked, what Congress can still do to help. My central message today is that people from other parts of the country should not think that the gulf coast has recovered from those two hurricanes. That simply isn't the case. People are making progress, but there is still a very long way to go.

To put it in perspective, I will compare it to another place I visited earlier this year: Banda Aceh, Indonesia. I was there in February, a little more

than a year after it was devastated by the tsunami in late 2004. Having been to both places, I was struck by what the people in Banda Aceh and New Orleans had in common, both because of what they went through and because of the incredible resilience they have shown in the wake of those tragedies. But I was just as struck by how those places differed--especially how, in many ways, New Orleans seemed worse off than Banda Aceh did a year after the disaster.

When I visited Banda Aceh in February 2006--a little over a year after the original tsunami hit--though many of the reconstruction programs had yet to be completed, there was visible progress being made, thanks in large part to the generosity of the American taxpayer. I saw homes, roads, buildings, and bridges being built with funds that the American Government generously gave to the victims of the tsunami.

I strongly support the aid we have given to those in Banda Aceh and others who were the victims of the tsunami in 2004, and no one disputes that we have responsibility to help them rebuild. But we cannot let the disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita be forgotten. We have a special duty to the people of the Gulf Coast who still need us. Almost a year later, after more than 1,500 people were killed and countless lives were disrupted, our fellow Americans do still need us. We still need to stand by them as they rebuild their lives, and I know the people of Wisconsin stand ready to help.

Because all amendments that can be considered to S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act of 2006, had to be filed prior to the bill coming to the floor, I would like to inquire of the bill managers whether or not they would agree with me that reasonable modifications by the authors to their amendments would be acceptable as is the normal Senate practice.

I thank the managers and agree with them.

Mr. President, I join the city of Milwaukee and the entire State of Wisconsin in mourning the loss of Mayor Frank Zeidler. When he passed away on July 7, Wisconsin lost one of its most principled and progressive leaders.

Mayor Zeidler was born in 1912 in Milwaukee, WI, and lived there throughout his life. He grew up in the Merrill Park neighborhood on the city's west side and attended Marquette University and the University of Chicago. In addition to his long career in public service to the city of Milwaukee, Zeidler read relentlessly, loved statistics, collected fossils, and rewrote Shakespeare.

Mayor Zeidler served in public office for more than 20 years and is widely known as Milwaukee's last socialist mayor. His career in public service began in 1938 when he was first elected to public office as county surveyor, and he then went on to serve for 7 years on the Milwaukee School Board.

Then, in 1948, he was elected to serve as mayor of the city of Milwaukee, a position he would hold for over a decade. When he took office, his goal was

to act in ``the public welfare'' and he did so by presiding over Milwaukee during a period of growth and prosperity.

Under Mayor Zeidler's leadership, Milwaukee reached new heights, as he improved city services and led Milwaukee in a time of strong economic growth. During his 12 years in office, Mayor Zeidler presided over a period of great development and prosperity: Milwaukee factories were booming, poverty and crime remained low, and the city's population peaked at over 740,000. He also revamped and expanded a wide array of city services.

It has been said that Mayor Zeidler was the ``opposite of a politician in it for the money.'' In 1953, when he earned $16,500 as the mayor of Milwaukee, he gave $2,400 of it back to the city. By 1983, when he was 70 years old, it was reported that he received Social Security but did not take a pension. He also took the bus for most of his life.

Zeidler was an expert on the history of Milwaukee and a man of unquestioned personal integrity. This is what made him one of Milwaukee's most respected political figures and local institutions. In 1985, the Greater Milwaukee Conference on Religion and Urban Affairs began awarding a Frank Zeidler Award for contributions to social concerns in the religious community. Then, in 1995, the Milwaukee government office building immediately east of City Hall was named the Frank Zeidler Municipal Building.

Throughout his life, Mayor Zeidler remained an active and respected member of the Milwaukee community. Wisconsin will always be grateful for what he achieved, and for who he was--a man dedicated to principle, progressive ideas, and public service.

Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee recently had an opportunity to mark up historic legislation that would permit civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. I say historic because such cooperation will dramatically shift 30 years of nonproliferation policy towards India and potentially set the United States-India relationship on a new foundation.

Our relationship with India is one of our most important. As we look ahead to the coming decades, it is clear that United States-India relations will be crucial to establishing a secure, sustainable, and prosperous global system. But as we consider a fundamental shift in the international nonproliferation regime, we must also make sure we have adequate protections in place to guard against the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

I appreciate the fact that the legislation we were asked to mark up represented a substantial amount of work from Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden, and their staffs. This bill was a substantial improvement over the original proposal, which would have removed any meaningful congressional oversight from consideration of a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and which had virtually no protections for nonproliferation concerns.

However, I remain concerned with the broader implications of this legislation. My primary concern is this: the threat of nuclear weapons to the United States and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the gravest dangers that our country faces. It is crucial to our national security that the nuclear nonproliferation framework remains strong. I want to make sure that the United States, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

That is why I offered an amendment that would simply spell out in greater detail that this deal will be only civilian in nature and that none of the assistance the United States provides to India will be used for strengthening or further developing India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This is something we are already committed to under article 1 of the NPT. The amendment would have required the President to certify that he had received sufficient assurances that U.S. assistance would not contribute directly or indirectly to the development of India's nuclear weapons arsenal.

This should not have been a controversial requirement, but unfortunately my amendment was defeated during markup. However, I was pleased to have four of my Democratic colleagues vote in favor of my amendment. They recognized that this is an important, legitimate concern and that a Presidential determination along these lines would have provided protections against the diversion of U.S. technology, equipment, and fuel toward a nuclear weapons program. In the absence of such protections, I was compelled to vote against this legislation.

My ``no'' vote does not mean that I am opposed to the entire deal. I will work with my colleagues to ensure that the final version of this bill contains adequate protections against the spread of nuclear weapons technology.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I strongly oppose S.J. Res. 12. Make no mistake, we are talking here today about modifying the Constitution of the United States to permit the Government to criminalize conduct that all of us find offensive and wrong, but that is protected by the first amendment. This amendment would, for the first time, amend the Bill of Rights. I cannot support this course.

Let me make one thing clear at the outset. Not a single Senator who opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, as I do, supports burning or otherwise showing disrespect to the flag. Not a single one. None of us think it is ``OK'' to burn the flag. None of us view the flag as ``just a piece of cloth.'' On those rare occasions when some malcontent defiles or burns our flag, I join everyone in this Chamber in condemning that action.

But we must also defend the right of all Americans to express their views about their Government, however hateful or spiteful or disrespectful those views may be, without fear of their Government putting them in jail for those views. America is not simply a Nation of symbols, it is a Nation of principles. And the most important principle of all, the principle that has made this country a beacon of hope and inspiration for oppressed peoples throughout the world, is the right of free expression. This amendment threatens that right, so I must oppose it.

We have heard at various times over the years that this amendment has been debated that permitting protestors to burn the American flag sends the wrong message to our children about patriotism and respect for our country. I couldn't disagree more with that argument. We can send no better, no stronger, no more meaningful message to our children about the principles and the values of this country than if we oppose efforts to undermine freedom of expression, even expression that is undeniably offensive. When we uphold first amendment freedoms despite the efforts of misguided and despicable people who want to provoke our wrath, we explain what America is really about. Our country and our people are far too strong to be threatened by those who burn the flag. That is a lesson we should proudly teach our children.

Amending the first amendment so we can bring the full reach of the criminal law and the power of the state down on political dissenters will only encourage more people who want to grandstand their dissent and imagine themselves ``martyrs for the cause.'' Indeed, we all know what will happen the minute this amendment goes into force--more flag burnings and other outrageous acts of disrespect of the flag, not fewer. Will the amendment make these acts any more despicable than they are now? Certainly not. Will it make us love the flag any more than we do today? Absolutely not.

It has been almost exactly 17 years since the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a form of political speech protected by the first amendment. Proposals to amend the Constitution arose almost immediately and have continued unabated. But while the interest of politicians in this course of action seems as strong as ever, public interest in it seems to be waning. Opinion polls show support for the amendment has fallen. Amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration is just not the foremost thing on the minds of the American people. Perhaps that is because it is long since clear that our Republic can survive quite well without this amendment. Nearly a generation has passed since the Texas v. Johnson decision, and our Nation is still standing strong. That alone shows that this amendment is a huge overreaction and an entirely unnecessary step.

The last time that the full Senate voted on, and rejected, this constitutional amendment was in the year 2000. I think it is fair to say that patriotism since then has not only survived without this amendment, it has flourished, and in very difficult times, much more difficult than the country faced in 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration statutes, or in 1995 when I first voted on the amendment in the Judiciary Committee.

Indeed, outward displays of patriotism are greater today than they were in 2000. We all know why that is. Our country was viciously attack on September 11, 2001, and America responded.

We didn't need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country. They showed us how to do it by entering burning buildings to save their fellow citizens who were in danger, by standing in line for hours to give blood, by driving hundreds of miles to search through the rubble for survivors and to help in cleanup efforts, by praying in their houses of worship for the victims of the attacks and their families.

September 11 inspired our citizens to perform some of the most selfless acts of bravery and patriotism we have seen in our entire history. No constitutional amendment could ever match those acts as a demonstration of patriotism, or create similar acts in the future. We do not need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country or how to defend it from our enemies.

I know that many veterans fervently support this amendment. I deeply respect their opinions and their right to urge the Congress to pass it. But I also want the record to be clear that many of those who have served our country in battle oppose the amendment as well. In 1999, a number of veterans formed a group called the Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans, who served our country in five

different wars, strongly believe it is wrong to pass an amendment to protect the flag that takes away the freedom the flag represents. I'd like to share with my colleagues the views of these brave veterans, who, in my opinion, represent the very best of the American spirit.

Let me start with the words of a veteran of our current conflict in Iraq. SPC Eric Eliason of Englewood, CO, served as an infantryman in the Army for 3 years, including 1 year overseas as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He said:

We volunteered to go to war to protect the freedoms in this

country, not watch them be taken away. . . . I consider

myself an independent-minded conservative, and believe that

creating unnecessary amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a

betrayal of conservative principles.

Another veteran, Brady Bustany of West Hollywood, CA, who served in the Air Force during the gulf war, put it very simply. He said,

My military service was not about protecting the flag; it

was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag

amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that

should frighten us all.

A veteran of the Korean war, Jack Heyman of Fort Myers Beach, FL, whose great grandfather fought in the Civil War, whose father served in World War I, and whose son served in Vietnam, explained his opposition to the amendment this way:

I know of no American veteran who put his or her life on

the line to protect the sanctity of the flag. That was not

why we fulfilled our patriotic duty. We did so and still do

to protect our country and our way of life and to ensure that

our children enjoy the same freedoms for which we fought.

The leader of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights is Professor Gary May of the University of Southern Indiana. Professor May, whose father, father-in-law, grandfather, and brother also served our country in the Armed Forces, lost both legs in the Vietnam War on April 12, 1968, over 38 years ago. He opposes this amendment, and because of what he has sacrificed for his country, he speaks more eloquently than I could ever hope to about the danger of this amendment. Professor May testified at the last Senate hearing held on the flag amendment, which, by the way, was held more than 2 years ago, on March 10, 2004. Professor May said:

Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong

and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is

what has kept our democracy going for more than 200 years.

And it is freedom that will continue to keep it strong for my

children and the children of all the people like my father,

late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like

us who served honorably and proudly for freedom.

The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per see It

is in the principles for which it stands and the people who

have defended them. My pride and admiration is in our

country, its people and its fundamental principles. I am

grateful for the many heroes of our country--and especially

those in my family. All the sacrifices of those who went

before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to

the Constitution that cut back on our First Amendment rights

for the first time in the history of our great Nation.

Professor May also provided in his statement excerpts from letters he has received from other veterans who oppose the amendment.

One veteran, James Lubbock of St. Louis, MO, who served in World War II and has two sons who served in the Vietnam war, said:

Let's not alter the Bill of Rights to save the flag. We

should respect the flag, but we should all cherish the Bill

of Rights much, much more.

These kinds of expressions move me deeply. The service of our troops shows the awesome power of the American ideal. The willingness of our young people to serve this country, to risk their lives, and endure unimaginable hardships on our behalf is not to be taken lightly. I believe that this remarkable spirit is inspired and nurtured by the principles on which this country was founded, by our devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law. We should not trifle with those principles. Too much is at stake. We know that now more than ever.

Despite the expected close vote, it is clear that this is a political exercise in an election year. We will spend several days of precious floor time, as the legislative session winds down, debating a measure that would undermine the Constitution while affecting only a handful of miscreants each year.

As we do so, humanitarian catastrophes continue to unfold around the world, posing a direct threat to international peace and stability and affecting the lives of millions upon millions of people.

I sincerely hope we will remember what this debate today is really about--not whether flag burning is a good idea, not whether we love and respect our flag, not whether patriotism is worth encouraging and celebrating, but whether the threat to our country from those who burn the flag is so great--is so great--that we must sacrifice the power and the majesty of the first amendment to the Constitution in order to prosecute them.

In 1999--it just so happens the Presiding Officer is the son of this man--the late Senator John Chafee, one of this country's great war heroes at Guadalcanal and in the Korean war, testified before the Judiciary Committee against this amendment. He said:

[W]e cannot mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact

. . . taking steps to require citizens to respect the flag,

sullies its significance and symbolism.

Senator Chafee's words still echo in my mind. They should serve as a caution to all of us who have the responsibility to vote on this amendment. What kind of symbol of freedom and liberty will our flag be if it has to be protected from misguided protesters by a constitutional amendment?

In concluding, Mr. President, I pay tribute to you and your father. I will vote to defend our Constitution against this ill-advised effort to amend it. I urge my colleagues to vote for liberty and freedom and for the first amendment by voting no on this constitutional amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I understand the desire of my colleagues to defend the flag, and I share their outrage at the despicable conduct that some families of fallen servicemembers have had to endure as they bid farewell to their loved ones. But I cannot support the substitute amendment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois. The Supreme Court has twice held that criminalizing flag desecration violates the first amendment. Flag burning is unacceptable, but outlawing certain forms of flag destruction based on the message that the misguided person is trying to convey raises obvious first amendment problems.

The vast majority of flag desecration incidents can be prosecuted under criminal trespass, destruction of private property, and other State and local criminal statutes. We do not need a Federal statute to handle the handful of other incidents that occur each year, and we certainly should not amend the Constitution to make such a statute possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michelle Murphy, an intern in my Judiciary Committee office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S.J. Res. 12.

Mr. President, first and foremost, I want to thank the members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their service to our country. These servicemen and women are performing admirably under difficult circumstances all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, along with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our country. I am pleased to support a Defense Department authorization bill that will help these people who are serving the country with such courage.

I supported a number of good provisions in the Senate bill, such as the rejection of the President's proposal to increase TRICARE enrollment fees and co-payments, increased funding for training programs for our nation's authorized Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil- Support Teams, and increased funding for nonproliferation programs. Another aspect of the bill that I strongly support is the increased funding for force protection equipment. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites over the years that they or their deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable, and my colleagues and I have worked hard to address it. The additional $950.5 million for force protection equipment, including $559.8 million for additional up- armored humvees and $100 million for counter-IED vehicles, in this bill above what was requested in the President's proposed budget further ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground.

I am pleased that the Senate approved the Military Family Support Act amendment that I offered with Senator Jeffords. This amendment is designed to assist military families struggling with the long-term absence of a family member. Under this legislation, the Office of Personnel Management is directed to administer a pilot program authorizing Federal employees, who have been designated ``caregivers'' by a member of the Armed Forces, to use their earned leave time in a more flexible manner while a family member is deployed overseas. This amendment also encourages the Department of Labor to solicit private businesses to voluntarily offer more accommodating leave time to caregivers affected by these deployments.

This bill also authorizes funding for a provision I authored in last years' Department of Defense authorization bill establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became very clear after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that the U.S. Government has a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency which, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing over 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy. I am pleased that this bill included the CLRC pilot project.

I am also pleased that I was able to pass a Buy American Act reporting requirement for the Department of Defense. This reporting requirement is similar to the reporting requirement that I have worked to enact for the past 3 years through the appropriations process and requires the Department of Defense to report annually the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. Additionally, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to make this report publicly available to the maximum extent possible. I will continue to work to ensure a similar permanent reporting requirement is extended to all Federal agencies.

I also authored successful amendments to the bill that require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy for establishing stability and fighting terrorism in Somalia and to study of the feasibility of establishing an United States regional combatant command for Africa. In addition, the bill includes an important amendment I offered to strengthen the Special Inspector General for Iraq.

Unfortunately, I was not able to get other amendments of mine adopted. I filed a straightforward amendment that would have made life a little easier for our servicemembers and their families when they are called up to duty or transferred. When this happens now, servicemembers often face cellular phone early termination fees or the prospect of paying the monthly bill for a cell phone they cannot use until the end of their contract--up to 2

years. My amendment would have treated these cellular phone contracts the same way that we already treat residential and automobile leases-- give the servicemember the right to terminate the contract without being charged an additional fee. Despite the support of the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Military Officers Association of America, I was not able to get this amendment adopted. While I was disappointed in this result, I will continue to fight to make sure that servicemembers are not financially punished for volunteering to protect this country.

I was also disappointed that another amendment of mine was not accepted that would have extended the Department of Defense's ability to purchase fruits and vegetables from local farms. My amendment would have helped both servicemembers and schools served by the Department of Defense programs and local farms and communities benefit from the programs.

I also introduced amendments to the authorization bill that mirrored a bill I introduced last year; the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act, VETS Act. This bill includes provisions that would help ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

The VETS Act is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families, and I was pleased to honor this support by introducing the amendments to the Defense authorization bill. We should ensure that our troops receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them, and while these amendments were unfortunately not included in the final version of the bill, I will continue to work to see that these provisions become law.

I will also continue to fight for the redeployment of our forces in Iraq so that our country can refocus on fighting the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11. I offered an amendment with Senator Kerry that would have required U.S. forces in Iraq to redeploy by July 1, 2007. While the amendment failed, I was pleased to be joined by 12 of my colleagues in addressing the fact that the President's policies in Iraq are damaging our country's national security. I am glad that more and more of my colleagues are recognizing what the American people already know--that we need a plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq.

Mr. President, I must note with disappointment that this bill continues the wasteful trend of spending billions of dollars on Cold War era weapons systems while at the same time not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. I also think the Senate missed some opportunities when it rejected amendments that could have made the bill better. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I supported it.

Mr. President, I ask to be informed when I have consumed up to 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for working together with me so well on this very important amendment. We understand that we are not going to get a majority. We know we are not going to get anywhere near a majority. The Senator and I know we represent the view of a majority of the American people, which has clearly been demonstrated in every indication, whether it be conversation, polling, or town meetings that I hold in Wisconsin. The people of this country know that we have to finish this Iraq mission, that it cannot be open-ended.

To me, the most touching moment of the debate came when the senior Senator from Massachusetts quoted his own brother, Robert Kennedy, who for many of us was a central figure who inspired us to go into politics. I hope he doesn't mind my repeating Robert Kennedy's words in 1968:

Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.

That is what the Iraq situation represents. Let's be clear. Every one of us, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out last night, voted for the Afghanistan invasion. We did not think that was a mistake. I ask my colleagues on the other side, if they believe we believe in cut- and-run, why aren't we trying to cut-and-run from Afghanistan? Why is no Senator saying: Let's get the troops out of Afghanistan, as difficult as it is? Because that was not a mistake, because that was essential, because we had to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida. It was not a mistake.

What is a mistake, though, is to continue indefinitely the Iraq invasion and Iraq situation with some 138,000 troops, without any realization or recognition that it is sapping our strength, it is sapping our credibility around the world, and it is sapping the resources of our military. It is sapping the recruitment ability of our military. In other words, it is weakening America.

At the same time, as I mentioned on the floor yesterday, the situation appears to be slipping in places where we know al-Qaida was operating--such as Somalia or Mogadishu, now taken over by a radical Islamic government. We are trying to work with Indonesia's Government, but the fact is, in the area between the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia, there is an ungoverned area where groups sympathetic to al- Qaida are operating. This is a threat of the exact kind that 9/11 represents, and we know they have successfully pulled off attacks in Indonesia.

Perhaps most compelling to me is the fact that we are losing ground in Afghanistan because we have stopped paying attention to the No. 1 priority in the fight against terrorism.

Let me quote from the Washington Post article from June 20, entitled ``In Tribal Pakistan a Tide of Militancy.'' It says:

In north Waziristan, barbers are ordered not to shave off

beards, and thieves have been swiftly beheaded. In Swat,

television sets and VCRs have been burned in public. In Dir,

religious groups openly recruit teenagers to fight U.S.

forces in Afghanistan. In the Khyber area, armed squads have

burst into rooming houses, forcing people to pledge to obey

Islamic law.

. . . A tide of Islamic militancy is spreading across and

beyond the semiautonomous tribal areas of northwest Pakistan,

that hug the Afghan border.

. . . Observers say the army's aggressive efforts since

2004 have backfired, alienating the populace with heavy-

handed tactics and undermining the traditional authority of

tribal elders and officials.

How did we lose focus on those who attacked us on 9/11? Does it make sense to continue to pour virtually all our resources into an Iraq war that is not working? It is time to tell the Iraqis that we have done what we can do militarily, that we will continue to help them in many ways, and we will continue to have special operations forces capacity in that region to take on situations, such as the al-Zarqawi situation. But the notion of continuing to put all of these resources just into Iraq on the absurd notion that that is the key to the fight against al- Qaida is one of the worst mistakes in American foreign policy history. This is an enormous disservice to the American people, and it is especially a disservice to the families of those who have died, those who have been injured, and those who continue to serve. We owe it to those families to not be standing here when No. 3,000 soldier has died. It doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to be. What is happening now is a horrible situation, not the imagined problems that the other side continually suggests will occur if we have a reasonable program to bring this to a conclusion within the coming year.

Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. President, I have been a legislator for almost 25 years now. I must say, this is one of the toughest moments of my career, to see the Senate not recognize that we were falsely led into a war, that we falsely led the American people into believing this had something to do with 9/11, and that many of the things that have happened simply didn't have to happen. That is water over the dam.

What has happened after the mistake was made is that mistake after mistake has been compounded. Every day this myth that somehow Iraq is the central focus of the war on terrorism is being used as an excuse to send more and more Americans into harm's way, which is not necessary.

Iraq is not the be all and end all of our national security. Iraq is not the situation that led to 9/11. The American people know it. It is time for this body to catch up and have a reasonable plan to finish the Iraq mission so we can focus on those who attacked us on 9/11.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I oppose cutting off debate on this important bill prematurely. I have two amendments that have not been considered by the Senate--one to help service members called to active duty, the other to cancel this year's automatic pay raise for Members of Congress--that will be shut out if we invoke cloture. We should be doing all that we can to help members of our armed services who are serving so courageously. And, with the Nation's deficits and the tab for the Iraq war at alarming levels, we should not be accepting another backdoor payraise. At a minimum, the Senate should consider and vote on those worthy amendments before completing work on the Defense authorization bill.

Cloture Motion