VOTE ON FEINGOLD-MCCAIN INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW AMENDMENT

	We won * 54 to 46.  The Inhofe-Bond Review amendment went down 49 to 51.  So we won the first round!!!  Great job everyone.
	YES VOTES

Akaka, Alexander, Allard, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brownback, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Chafee, Clinton, Coburn, Collins, DeMint, DeWine, Dodd, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Feinstein,Graham, Gregg, Inouye, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, McCain, Menendez, Mikulsi, Murray, Nelson-FL, Obama, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Salazar, Sarbanes, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Sununu, Voinovich, Wyden


	NO VOTES

Allen, Bennett, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Chambliss, Cochran, Coleman, Conrad, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, Dayton, Dole, Domenici, Dorgan, Enzi, Frist, Grassley, Hagel, Harkin, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Lincoln, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McConnell, Murkowski, Nelson-NE, Pryor, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stevens, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Warner

Dear Folks,

Now that we have won on Independent-Peer Review and beat back BOTH
Inhofe-Bond amendments, (AMAZING!!) it is very important to thank all
the senators who voted our way.  We are hearing rumors from the Hill
about our supporters being throttled for their votes.  

PLEASE send off a thank you to any of your senators who voted yes on
Independent Peer Review.  I am including in this email a draft that you
can personalize and send in.

Best,
Pam
******************************************************************
July 24, 2006

The Honorable FNAME LASTNAME
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator LASTNAME,

On behalf of the YOUR ORGRANIZATION NAME and our NUMBER of members, I am
writing to thank you for your vote to modernize the Army Corps of
Engineers by supporting the Feingold-McCain Independent Peer Review
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act last week.  

Passage of this amendment sent a powerful message to the American public
that the Senate has learned key lessons posed by Hurricane Katrina and
that we are determined to fix a broken system.  This amendment will help
ensure that future Corps projects are based on solid engineering, are
technically and environmentally sound and are fiscally responsible.  We
truly appreciate your support for these important ideals.

We look forward to continuing to work with you on reform of the Corps of
Engineers.  

Sincerely,



FNAME LNAME
TITLE
ORGANIZATION

Independent Peer Review Myths and Facts

 
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment will delay project construction.
FACT:   The amendment includes strict deadlines for the panel to report * if they fail to report in the allotted time, the Chief of Engineers is directed to proceed with planning.   
MYTH:  The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too many projects.  
FACT:  The $40 million review trigger will on average subject about 5 projects a year to independent review.   
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment gives a handful of experts the right to dictate Corps projects, taking policy decisions away from the Corps.  
FACT:  Project recommendations remain in the hands of the Chief of Engineers, and Congress retains the ultimate decision regarding whether to authorize a project. 
MYTH:  The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project costs.
FACT: Costs associated with independent review are capped and taxpayer watchdog groups strongly support the amendment. 
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment will open the door to more litigation.  
FACT:  The Corps must give serious consideration and review to an independent panel’s findings.  If the Corps ignores an independent panel’s recommendation, they have to explain their rationale to a court.  
MYTH:     The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to already authorized projects. 
FACT:   The independent peer review applies to projects as they enter the 
feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which point the Chief's report is 
already complete. If necessary, certain already authorized critical flood control projects will get the benefits of a safety assurance review which will analyze engineering and technical aspects that are not fully defined in the feasibility study. 
MYTH: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy.
FACT: The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a workable system to address a very real problem * poorly planned and designed project that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the environment and waste taxpayer dollars. 
MYTH: The Inhofe-Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project review.
FACT: Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all.  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.  

-- 
  ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Deborah Neustadt
Des Moines, IA
Sierra Club
Water Committee, Chair
Wildlife and Endangered Species Committee, Member
Iowa Chapter, Executive Committee Member, Political Chair