Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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

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

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take less than a minute to tell colleagues where we are. I thank the majority leader for his assistance on the WRDA bill. Our understanding is that we have a managers' package with several amendments. There may be only one or two that are contentious. Our goal for tomorrow, once we complete the Iraq votes, is to go to the managers' package without the contentious one or two amendments in it. By the way, I don't think any of them are contentious, but one Senator is saying they are. We will adopt that managers' package hopefully by a voice vote, and then if it is necessary to have a recorded vote on these one or two additional amendments, we will do that and then move to final passage of WRDA, something we can be very proud of after 7 long years of not having a bill. I thank my colleagues in advance for their cooperation. To the Senator who may have a problem with one or two of these amendments, please take another hard look because they are noncontroversial, and I hope that Senator can join with us. We can finish this bill tomorrow in the very early afternoon or the late morning, and both sides can be very proud. Again, this is a bill that is endorsed by just about everyone in the country. I say to my colleagues, our intention is to conclude this bill tomorrow. Senator Inhofe and I are very strongly interested in concluding it tomorrow. The bipartisan members of the committee are very strongly interested. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Agenda: Hearing on ``Green Buildings: Benefits to Health, the Environment, and the Bottom Line.''

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

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 553, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 800, to establish the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York; S. 916, to modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 1057, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the New River in the States of North Carolina and Virginia as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1209, to provide for the continued administration of Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service; S. 128l, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain rivers and streams of the headwaters of the Snake River System as additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System; H.R. 161, to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial in Bainbridge Island, Washington; H.R. 247, to designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the Willamette National Forest in the State of Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver, a former Member of the House of Representatives; and H.R. 376, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefields and related sites of the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, during the Civil War as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating the battlefields and related sites as a separate unit of the National Park System.

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

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1065. It is an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I see my leader is here, but before he starts, I wish to also call up the Feingold amendment No. 1086, and ask that be brought up and laid aside and considered as read.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Before the leader leaves, I hope I can get the attention of the floor staff, to make sure--my understanding is you have now offered the amendments on Iraq to the underlying bill, but the text that is before us is clean of the Iraq amendments? I think it is a good thing to do because we can move on here with WRDA, as the amendments were applied to the underlying text, not to the amendment we are working on. I thank my colleague for thinking it through. I am proud he is with us in wanting to move this WRDA bill forward. Let a message go out we are going to move this bill forward. One of the reasons I say to my friend, thank you--I don't want to keep him here, I just want to thank him. We have received a letter from the National Construction Alliance. It is the Laborers International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America. The reason I am bringing this up is they are very strong supporters of WRDA. I think their letter lays out why, so I am actually going to read it so it goes into the Record at this point. It says: Dear Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe: The National Construction Alliance, representing the three leading construction unions advocating for robust federal infrastructure investment, endorses the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization. This vital Federal infrastructure legislation should be considered and passed by the United States Senate. Our three constituent unions, the Laborers, Operating Engineers and the Carpenters, commend you both for your strong, bipartisan leadership on this legislation. This gets to the heart of why Senator Inhofe and I and all on the committee believe so strongly about the bill. The $13.9 billion authorization of Corps of Engineers projects is an important and necessary step in addressing our country's serious backlog of water projects. From harbor improvement to flood protection, to lock and dam construction, dredging and environmental infrastructure, your bill will immeasurably strengthen America's water resources. As labor unions representing nearly one million skilled construction workers, we recognize that this WRDA reauthorization will create tens of thousands of good paying construction jobs. We strongly urge the Senate to pass your legislation in an expeditious manner so that America's critical water infrastructure needs can be addressed. I say to the President--who is sitting in the chair today, as opposed to the President of the United States--he has so long been speaking about the problem of our loss of middle-class jobs. What is so important about this particular bill is that while we are doing things the Nation must have in order to grow and in order to protect itself from the ravages of Mother Nature, as we saw in Katrina--in the course of doing the right thing we are creating good jobs. It is a wonderful winner for everybody. That is why we have more letters I want to share with colleagues. The American Society of Civil Engineers has added its voice to all these unions, to both Senator Inhofe and myself, saying they are very pleased with this bill, they are very pleased with the levee system fixes; they believe this is overdue legislation and that it ensures we have learned the lessons from Hurricane Katrina. It ``goes far toward protecting human life and property in flood-prone areas.'' They ask us if the American Society of Civil Engineers can be of more assistance, please call them. We may, because we want everybody to weigh in here and help us. We have a letter from the Audubon Society. You have heard from the business side, the union side, now the environmental side. They have a million members. They say, please, let's have prompt consideration of WRDA because it restores America's natural resources. It includes: . . . Corps modernization provisions, including independent review of costly or controversial Corps projects and ensuring that mitigation for Corps projects is consistent with stricter State laws. This refers to the Corps' formula in the last bill which is embedded in this bill. Audubon also talks about: . . . two crucial Everglades restoration projects--Indian River lagoon and Picayune Strand--that would mitigate harmful federal drainage projects, restore more than 160,000 acres of wetlands and significant estuarine habitat, and help secure Florida's tourism and outdoor recreation economy. They also cite the upper Mississippi River restoration program, in its first 15-year increment, will preserve 105,000 acres of habitat; protect 35,000 acres of floodplain habitat in five States along the river. The Coastal Louisiana restoration program will begin to reverse the devastating pattern of land loss, protecting important habitat for birds and fish and other wildlife as well as the region's economy and quality of life. The bill permanently authorizes the Asian Carp Barrier to protect the Great Lakes from this looming threat. The Audubon Society, which is so well respected on both sides of the aisle, closes and says that ecosystem restoration projects for the Everglades, the Mississippi, Louisiana's coastal wetlands, and the Great Lakes are overdue, as is Corps modernization. Then I will add to these letters, Mr. President, a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers. I mean, this is one of those bills that gets everybody's support. It is something that is important for everyone. They say: On behalf of more than 14 million manufacturing employees in the U.S., they are thanking us for our leadership, and they are saying: Let's move forward with WRDA. It is important. They say that: America's water resources infrastructure needs to be reliable and productive. They applaud our efforts and they say how vitally needed WRDA is, including the modernization of locks, harbors, canals, and other key infrastructure that is vital to America's competitiveness. They say: WRDA will authorize many of these needs. So that is the National Association of Manufacturers. So it goes on and on. The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association has a similar letter that is very important to us. The American Farm Bureau. The American Farm Bureau has entered this, and they have written us saying it is a good bill, urging us to support WRDA, and they oppose any amendment that would hinder our progress in moving forward. The corn growers of America, they have weighed in and they say: It is important. They have sent a letter to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, our leaders, saying we need to have this bill. They need to have efficient transportation networks and so on. This is a very important letter, I think. They say that continued development of our water resources in an environmentally sound manner will contribute mightily to our Nation's well-being. Congress needs to act now to address issues such as environmental restoration, navigation, flood control, hurricane protection, water supply, irrigation, beach nourishment, and recreation. So that is yet another letter. The American Public Works Association has sent us a letter. They have a similar message: With adequate dredging, our ports and waterways are the backbone of our transportation system, ensuring domestic and international trade opportunities and low-cost, environmentally sensitive goods movements. It goes on. Now, I have already placed some of those letters in the Record, and I am going to do it again today because I think every day, as colleagues will look at the Record, they will see their importance. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. The reason I like to share these letters is that it shows the breadth of support this bill has. We know we come to the floor with a lot of legislation that is contentious, that is contentious between the parties, that is contentious with people throughout America, one group supports it. For example, the labor unions might but the bosses do not. This is a place where everybody comes together. I think that is very important. So colleagues know what is happening today, you know we do not have votes today. But we are going to try to debate some amendments today. We have already debated the Feingold amendment, so that is ready to be voted on tomorrow. I understand that Senator Coburn is on his way over to offer at least the one--we are hoping three amendments. He can debate today, and then we can have votes on those as we agree between the sides. The way we have decided to handle this bill, because it has been such a delicate balance, is the following: We are working across party lines to come up with amendments we can agree to. We have taken the amendments that have been submitted thus far, and we are sort of categorizing those amendments in what is easy for us to agree to, what is more difficult. We are going to try to work through the easier amendments, and the more contentious ones we will have to have votes. Now, what we call the big four of the committee, the Chairman of the full committee, the Chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking members of both the full committee and the subcommittee, we have made an agreement that we will oppose all amendments. Why are we doing this? Believe me, that is not an easy thing for us to do. We feel we have worked so closely, in a bipartisan fashion, we want to keep this bill totally bipartisan. We are trying to keep the most contentious items out of the bill to make sure it gets to the President's desk and he signs it. Now, the good news is we have a score on the bill. That means how much the bill is scored at. It is $13.9 billion. It makes it lower than the House bill. This is very good news because we want to be fiscally responsible. We also want to make sure all the projects in this bill meet certain criteria, that they have been studied, they have been looked at, that there is a fair cost share, unless there is an usual circumstance. So Senator Inhofe has been very strong on conditions. I expect him to come to the floor very soon. He actually had a weekend trip to Iraq. I do appreciate the fact that he has gone and that he is going to be here, we believe, at about 3:30--as a matter of fact, in about 10 minutes--at which point I hope he will make some of his comments on this bill. But the way we have set the bill up is we now have the committee substitute pending in the form of an amendment. Leader Reid has sent forward two amendments, but they are not to the substitute bill, they are to the underlying bill about Iraq, as a way to expedite the consideration of the Iraq supplemental. He has done that with the knowledge of Senator McConnell so there are no surprises here. We have discussed this with Senator Feingold in terms of offering his amendment, which he already debated. That will be ready for a vote later. I hope we can set aside all these amendments and vote on them tomorrow morning at such time as the leader agrees. At this point, since I think I have laid out the reason why we so much need this bill, after 7 long years of not having a WRDA bill, we so much need this bill, and we are so proud of the committee that they voted this bill out in a very harmonious way and that we are still working side by side, the majority and minority side, on crafting the amendments we need to push this over the finish line. I look forward to the comments of Senator Inhofe. We also will, of course, entertain the amendments of Senator Tom Coburn when he gets to the floor. I urge anybody else who wants to lay down amendments, please, you are absolutely welcome. I understand Senator Landrieu would like the floor. So why don't I leave the floor with the understanding that if Senator Inhofe comes, would you wind down within 10 minutes so he can have the floor. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, Portland, OR, May 10, 2007. Hon. Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC Hon. James Inhofe, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC Dear Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe, We write to urge your support for the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act in 2007. WRDA is fundamentally important to the economic health of our nation and particularly important to the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California. Our region depends on international trade to a greater extent than any other region in the United States. In Washington state, one in four jobs are related to international trade. Cost-effective, efficient, and environmentally sound trade and transportation corridors are imperative to secure our place in the global economy. Delay in WRDA means exacerbated backlogs which will dull our competitive edge. The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA) membership includes nearly 100 organizations in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California. PNWA represents public port authorities on the Pacific Coast, Puget Sound, and Columbia Snake River System; public utility districts, investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives and direct service industries; irrigation districts, grain growers and upriver and export elevator companies; major manufacturers in the Pacific Northwest; forest products industry manufacturers and shippers; and tug and barge operators, steamship operators, consulting engieneers, and others involved in economic development throughout the Pacific Northwest. PNWA has a long history of working with the Committee and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on projects of regional and national importance, sharing the challenge to maintain and develop our transportation infrastructure. Our members wish to thank the Committee for its support of Pacific Northwest transportation programs and projects. Issues of particular concern to the members of our Association follow: minimum dredge fleet The federally-owned hopper drege fleet and the Corps of Engineers' dredges Essayons and Yaquina, are particularly important to the maintenance of ports and harbors in the Pacific Northwest. The goals of Congressional actions in 1978, 1993 and 1996, which limited the utilization of the of the federal dredge fleet and provided increased opportunity for industry, have been meet. Since passage of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 1993, designed to increase competition in the dredge industry, the number of private dredging contractors has declined. This is of concern because the Northwest has unique conditions such that, compared to other regions, Northwest ports depend to a greater degree on hopper dredging and on smaller class hopper dredges. The Government Accountability Office found in a March 2003 to Congress (GAO-03-382) that operating restrictions have imposed additional costs on the Corps' dredging program, but have not resulted in proven benefits to the taxpayer. PNWA strongly supports the language included in your bill to lift operating restrictions from the Essayons and Yaquina, which will enable the Corps of Engineers to utilize the Essayons and Yaquina to the maximum extent possible to maintain Northwest ports, harbors and channels, consistent with the safe and efficient performance of their missions. making section 214 permanent Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) provides the authority to the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities and to expedite the processing of permits. Section 214 has allowed local governments to move forward with vital infrastructure projects. By funding additional staff to work on specific, time-intensive permits, existing Corps staff members are able to process the significant permit application backlog much more quickly. Funding for additional Corps staff has resulted in a reduction of permit wait times not only for the funding entity, but for any individual or organization that makes an application with that District of the Corps. This authority is currently scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2008. Though PNWA has been successful in working with Congress to secure short-term extensions for several years now, the time has come to give Corps regulatory offices as well as the contributing entities the predictability that would come with a permanent authority. PNWA strongly supports language in your bill that would make Section 214 permanent. These provisions are strongly supported by PNWA's membership, and are important to improve the efficiency and cost competitiveness of Northwest ports engaging in international trade. Additional provisions that are supported by PNWA are included in the attached document, PNWA WRDA Requests. We appreciate the Committee's and Congress' attention to these important matters. Sincerely, Kristin Meira, Government Relations Director.

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

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, would it be wise to have the Senator from Louisiana respond now, and then the floor would go back to the Senator for the next amendment?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I would like to lay down the reasons why. First, I do want to thank Senator Coburn because he was very accommodating to both Senator Inhofe and me by coming here on a Monday afternoon and putting these amendments down so we could begin the debate and hopefully vote on them tomorrow. I do appreciate that. It means a lot to us as managers because we worked long and hard on this bill. Before I tell my colleagues why I call this amendment the Russian roulette amendment, let me just say I have supported Senator Coburn on many of his amendments where he is looking at the fiscally responsible thing to do, and I will continue to do so when I think those amendments make sense, and I am sure there will be more. But I do want to call to the Senator's attention, if you step back from this particular amendment, which I strongly disagree with--I think it is dangerous, and I will go into that in a minute. If you step back and look at the whole picture of this bill, we should be very proud that working together, Republicans and Democrats, we took a bill that was scored at about $31 billion down to a bill that is about $13.9 billion because we really did apply some strict standards to this bill. There are no projects in this bill that are giveaways or handouts or make somebody's beachfront pretty. That is nonsense because neither side would approve of that. I also want to make a point--because I think Senator Feingold made this point very well, although I disagreed with him and we had a bit of a debate on it last week--that when colleagues use the word ``prioritize,'' that we should ``prioritize,'' and then they offer these amendments, they are putting out their priorities. That is not subjective. It is not subjective if I put out my priorities next to Senator Coburn's, next to Senator Feingold's, next to Senator Inhofe's. That is objective. I think the Presiding Officer who is now sitting in the chair knows because she sits on the committee that has jurisdiction over this bill. It is hard. We battle it out for what the right priorities should be. Now, as I told Senator Feingold last week when we had a debate, because he is offering an amendment dealing with prioritization and setting up a whole new way to prioritize this project, let's look at this process in which we are engaged because I think the Senator--the reason I believe the Senator is on weak ground is because he seems to be ignoring what has gone on before he got involved. First of all, these projects start from the local governments up, and the local governments and the communities get together and say: We have a very rough situation and we pay Federal taxes and we would like to make a partnership to protect lives and property and businesses. From there, they put up their fair share. They have to be willing to put up their fair share. So this isn't Uncle Sam paying for all this. This is a joint effort, and they have to come forward and the various committees of jurisdiction approve a study. Now, when these studies are looked at, I say to my friend, there is a cost-benefit ratio involved, and sometimes it is very tough on colleagues because they think they are going to get a project and realize it just doesn't add up. So everything before us that has passed muster, the local government, the local people, they pick up the share, and it has to be funded with a study. And that study, as I said, has to come in and show that this makes sense, and then it goes to the various committees or the administration will fund it. There is an environmental impact statement that goes along with all this. They are considered again in WRDA. I guess this is the chance for colleagues to say: We don't like this project or that, and we are having this debate. It is the Senator's absolute right to choose and pick what he thinks are not priorities. I understand. So after we pass it here, it then has to go forward and get appropriated as well. This bill has been 7 years in the making. We have cut it more than in half. I think it is a proud product. I would say to my colleague, the reason I say the amendment is playing Russian roulette is this: We don't know when a hurricane, a storm, is going to come up and hit us in the face. It may come in the northern part of my State, I say to my friend. I have a coastal State. I have a State that is beautiful. We have more beauty per square inch-- of course, I am not subjective on the point--than I think any other State. We have 37 million people. We have a real problem. The fact is, we can't just do one thing--Sacramento--and not take care of all the other things. I so appreciate my friend's coming around with us on the Sacramento issue. I cannot tell my colleagues what it means to me because, as he now knows, we have to take care of Sacramento. It is low lying. It is a potential catastrophe. He is absolutely right to call attention to the levees. We have to do all that. But the reason I say his amendment is Russian roulette is because it is essentially counting on the fact that we are not going to have this problem in Imperial Beach. I want to say this is not a beach project; this is a hurricane and storm damage reduction project. This is not about making somebody's property pretty to look at. This is serious business. And speaking of business, if we don't do this work--the locals are going to pay, in the beginning, 30 percent and then 50 percent. If we don't take care of it, business is going to get the floods and it is going to be wiped out. So I wish I could say to my friend all I need is one flood control project in Sacramento and be done with it, but with 37 million people and an economy that if we were a separate Nation would be the fifth or sixth largest in the world, obviously California needs so much. Now, we have stressed Louisiana and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Senator Inhofe and I pulled aside a lot of people and said: Look, we have to come together to help that region. But we also have a backlog of 7 years' worth of work. In the case of Imperial Beach, this project got started in 2007, and the people are waiting. The city of Imperial Beach is home to 26,000 people. Four thousand of its residents live within two to three blocks of the shoreline. It is located near San Diego, just to give everybody a picture, and the beaches and the sand dunes act as a buffer to protect residential and commercial properties. It is a defense. It is a defense against storms and storm surge. If we don't do that, we would be building walls, a very expensive way to get that hurricane damage reduction. So nature provides our coastal communities with natural protection from violent storms and the waves they produce. In the Northeast it is the high rocky cliffs. From the Mid-Atlantic around the Gulf of Mexico, it is the wide, sandy beaches. In Louisiana, it is miles of wetlands. That is why both our colleagues, Senators Vitter and Landrieu, talk a lot about wetlands restoration, which we do in this, because that is the natural flood control, just as the beaches and the bluffs are natural flood control that God gave us. The coast of my State is particularly prone to strong winter storms that blow in from the Pacific. During the El Nino years, storms can be especially dangerous. That is why I say Russian roulette. We are playing Russian roulette. This is not some project that sprung up because some individual looked out and said: You know, I want more beach in front of my house. No. It has nothing to do with that. It is a dangerous situation. The public is going to be paying for half of this. The Army Corps of Engineers said 100,000 cubic yards per year is eroding from the beach, corresponding to a shoreline retreat rate of 6 feet per year. There is adequate protection from winter coastal storms. That is what the Army Corps of Engineers said. That is not me speaking. I am not an engineer. I respect what they say. I know my friend says he is not striking this, he is just saying it is more important to do Sacramento first. We need to do all of it. We need to do this bill. We need to take care of our people in this bill wherever they live--east, west, the north of my State, the South, East or West of the country, Midwest--wherever they are, wherever they need help. At the current retreat rate, the shoreline in the northern portion of the area could reach the first line of development this year--this year. That is why this bill is so needed. It is needed now--not next year, not after they finish Sacramento or after they finish Hurricane Katrina. We shouldn't be picking and choosing. We should be having an absolutely firm commitment to making sure every one of these projects fits the benchmarks we have set in a bipartisan way, meet the benchmarks, meet the criteria, and not punish people and say, gee, you people in Imperial Beach, you are paying and we are going to pay 50 percent out, but we are stopping because a lot of miles away in another part of the country, or this State, other people need help and they are more important than you. I don't think that is right. We are Senators. We are Senators of all the people. We have to look at their needs. Absolutely, prioritizing is key. I have shown my colleague how we prioritize through this process and how we cut back the costs of this bill. The beaches, the coastline, the protective buffer is literally washing away. (Ms. Klobuchar assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. This is considered a 50-year fix.

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

Mrs. BOXER. No. The initial project consists of 1.214 million cubic meters of sand, resulting in a total beach with 32 meters beyond the existing beach line. That is the first phase. To get to your point, it is estimated that once every 10 years, over the 50-year life of the project, they would replenish, not every 5 years.