Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers As Prepared for Delivery from the Senate Floor July 19, 2006 Listen to Senator Feingold's Statement 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 this body knows, I have long worked 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 Sen. McCain in these efforts and I want to thank him for his dedication to helping me bring attention to the need for Congressional leadership to address what many have noted are 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 want to get this agency back on track to serve the interests of all Americans. That’s what this is about. Period. As many have noted over the past few days, I have been working to bring attention to Corps Reform for quite some time. In fact, Mr. President, I have waited 6 long years to come down here to the floor of the United States 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 plague 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 Congress, we are still trying to enact such a mechanism. Mr. President, I would just like to note that I am thrilled to see my friend from Montana managing this bill on the floor today, particularly given the role he played in 2000. I only hope that after six years of work on this issue, we can go home tonight knowing that we did right by the taxpayers, by 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 proudly 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 Sen. Daschle and Sen. 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, earlier 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 my friend, the Senator from Arizona, and I will be offering. Mr. President, some say that I hate the Corps and that I have an axe to grind with the Corps. But the reason why I am dedicated to improving this embattled agency is that I care about the Corps. My home state of Wisconsin and numerous other states across our nation rely on the Corps. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aids to navigation, environmental restoration, flood control, and 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 predictions. 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 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. Many of those discussions have centered on the Federal Emergency Management Authority. Well, 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. Mr. President, 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 visited New Orleans a little over a week ago and I can attest that the sentiment toward the Corps is anything but cordial. There’s a lot of anger toward the Corps down there, and we have a responsibility here 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-Picyane recently said the following: “Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, are critical for this state, which -- after the levee failures during Hurricane Katrina -- could serve as 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 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 that this body must accept as we look to the future and reflect on the past. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in demonstrating that the United States Senate can respond to over ten years of government reports – from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the Army Inspector General – and the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and provide the leadership needed to move the Army Corps into the 21st century. I want to publicly recognize the EPW Chairman and Ranking Member, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, as well as the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member, Senators Bond and Baucus. Late this spring, those offices approached Senator McCain and myself and indicated a willingness to talk about some of our interests with respect to the Corps. From those discussions came real compromise – on both sides – and the result is that the underlying WRDA bill includes 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 leadership standing by the language we agreed on – and that is included in this underlying bill in section 2006 and section 2008 – so that it is included in any bill that comes out of conference. With that, Mr. President, I would like to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I offer this Independent Peer Review amendment on behalf of myself, Sen. McCain, Sen. Carper, Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Jeffords, and Sen. Collins. As we all know, Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman – through their leadership on 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 the amendment. Additionally, Sen. Jeffords has consistently pushed, through his position as Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many of the provisions in this amendment and I publicly thank him for all of his attention to this matter. Finally, Sen. Carper has seen the need for our Independent 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 effort. Mr. President, more than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, 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, the report titled “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System Draft Final Report of 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 some sections to be as much as 2 feet lower than other parts. 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 re-examine 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, in 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’s 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 cosponsor of our independent peer review amendment, and Senator Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and another cosponsor of our amendment. That report recommends independent peer review of levee systems that protect population centers throughout the country. I do not know if Senator Collins or Senator Lieberman will have time to elaborate more on the thorough investigations the 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 in 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. Mr. President, I can go on…and I will. Because I want my colleagues to know what’s at stake. In March 2006, the Government Accountability Office testified that “the Corps’ track record for 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 decision-making.” 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.” In fact, I would like to ask that this damning testimony be submitted for the Record following my remarks. 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 elsewhere in the nation” including external peer review of the Corps’ design process for critical life-safety structures. In September of 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 FY 2003 and 2004, the Corps reprogrammed funds over 7,000 times and moved over $2.1 billion among projects within the investigations and constructions accounts. In September of 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: “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: a New Opportunity for Service” recommends modernizing the Corps’ 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 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” and planning guidance policies. In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission, “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 I got 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. In one of the most disturbing of the numerous reports on the Corps and the problems that are endemic in this agency, in November 2000 the Department of the Army Inspector General issued a report, “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. 12 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, Brig. Gen 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 non-structural flood damage reduction alternatives, requiring periodic reviews of completed Corps projects, adopting floodplain management guidelines that would minimize impacts to floodplains and reduce vulnerabilities to population centers and critical infrastructure, and reinstituting the Water Resources Council to facilitate improvements in federal water resources planning. Lastly, Mr. President, 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 nonstructural measures in benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat projects; and examine the feasibility of improving economic incentives for marine habitat restoration. There you have it. 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. It – 1) 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. 2) Ensures truly independent review panels by implementing National Academy of Sciences criteria about who would be eligible to provide expert review. 3) 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 decision makers. 4) 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. 5) 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. 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. 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 #1: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment will delay project construction. Mr. President, 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 that 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 #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 5 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 (Subcommittee on Energy and Resources) 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.” (GAO-06-529T, March 14, 2006). 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 #3: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project costs. Independent 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, Mr. President, and my cosponsors agree, Independent Peer Review will help us do that. Myth #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 #5: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to all projects, even those that 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 #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. Mr. President, 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 putting 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, charged with providing efficient commerce. Let me tell you what editorials from across the country have said – it has been quite an overwhelming response. They are from communities large and small, but they all have the same message: Congress must reform the Corps. While I don’t have every editorial ever written on the need for change at the Corps, I do have a good number and I ask that they be submitted following my remarks. But just to name a few: 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 New 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 flat out 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. Let’s look at some of the recommendations from these papers: 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 (TN): “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. From my home state, the Wisconsin State Journal: 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 Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz. The Feingold-McCain proposal would improve the public's ability to make sure limited federal resources are spent on cost-effective projects for flood control, navigation, environmental protection and related goals, rather than on boondoggles. At stake is how the Corps spends its $12-billion-a- year budget, which includes nearly $5 billion for civil works projects, from levees to canals to coastal restoration. Analyses of last year's hurricane disaster in New Orleans helped to expose costly even deadly flaws in how the Corps decides where to spend the public's money. For example, before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina breached the levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Corps had begun a $748 million project at that exact spot. The project, however, was not flood control but rather a new lock for the canal. The lock, favored by local politicians, was supposed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge traffic on the canal, however, was decreasing. The New Orleans experience highlighted the Corps' long history of mutual back-scratching with members of Congress: The Corps caters to pet projects, even if their costs far outweigh the benefits, and Congress in return makes sure the Corps gets a big fat budget all at the expense of fiscal responsibility and long-term water resource strategy. The Feingold-McCain proposal would modernize the Corps' cost-benefit analysis to make it more about project merit and less about political influence. One provision would require independent review of any project estimated to cost more than $40 million, requested by a governor, determined to have significant adverse impact, or judged by the secretary of the Army to be controversial. Another provision would require a cabinet-level committee to work with the secretary of the Army to annually establish a list of water resource project priorities to give Congress guidance. Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Congress limits the influence of pork-barrel politics in the Army Corps of Engineers. So would Corps projects affecting the state, from the modernization of the Mississippi River's lock-and-dam system to efforts to keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. The state's congressional delegation should support the Feingold-McCain reforms.” Mr. President, I could go on. There are more editorials coming on-line everyday. 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. But 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. Let me also briefly touch on the amazing support for our Independent Review amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letters from all of the following groups and individuals be included in the record following my remarks: 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 US 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. 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 yield the floor.

# # #