[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11322-H11330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 640 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 640) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
September 25, 1996, at page H11158.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Borski] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on S. 640, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996, is a comprehensive authorization of 
the water resources programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. It 
represents 4 years of bipartisan effort to preserve and develop the 
water infrastructure that is vital to the Nation's safety and economic 
well-being.
  First, let me thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their vision and tireless 
efforts in helping move this legislation. I want to give special thanks 
to Committee Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman, 
Sherwood Boehlert, and the Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Borski. 
Their leadership and contributions have been outstanding.
  These Members, and ranking Republican on the committee Don Young, 
also served with me as House conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 103d Congress, the House overwhelmingly passed 
H.R. 4460, a bill that should have become the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1994. Unfortunately, that bill did not become law, 
and for the first time since 1986, Congress was unable to enact WRDA 
legislation.
  During the 104th Congress, we committed to restoring certainty to the 
process and fulfilling or commitment to non-Federal project sponsors, 
most of whom had already committed substantial funds to projects.
  We conducted 4 days of hearings, receiving testimony from over 90 
witnesses, including numerous Members of Congress, the administration, 
project sponsors, national water resources and environmental 
organizations, and State and local officials.
  The bill we bring to the floor today truly represents a fair and 
balanced proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 640 accomplishes three important objectives:
  First, it reflects the committee's continued commitment to improving 
the Nation's water infrastructure.
  Second, it responds to policy initiatives to modernize Corps of 
Engineers activities and to achieve programmatic reforms.
  Third, and this is very important, it takes advantage of Corps 
capabilities and recognizes evolving national priorities by expanding 
and creating new authorities for protecting and enhancing the 
environment.
  In developing this bill, we and the Senate conferees have tried hard 
to be responsive to Member's requests; however, in today's tight fiscal 
climate, we simple had to establish and adhere to reasonable review 
criteria, such as the cost-sharing rules established in 1986.
  In fact, in the area of flood control, we have actually increased the 
non-Federal share for future projects. In another area--dredging for 
navigation projects--we have revised the rules to assure consistency 
and fairness in selecting methods for the disposal of dredged material.
  Mr. Speaker, a few remarks on section 586 of the conference report 
are warranted. This section is intended to remove impediments to the 
``privatizaation'' of wastewater infrastructure assets through leases 
and concessions. The conferees included certain conditions and 
limitations to address potential concerns about the exercise of this 
new authority. This pilot program does not impose, nor is it intended 
to impose, any conditions or limitations on leases, concessions, or 
other approaches to privatizing infrastructure assets under other 
authorities. The conferees encourage EPA to make use of this section 
and other authorities to promote privatization of infrastructure assets 
funded under the Clean Water Act, as well as the Safe Drinking Water 
Act and other water infrastructure programs.
  S. 640 is a strong bipartisan bill. It reflects a balanced, 
responsible approach to developing water infrastructure, preserving and 
enhancing the environment, and strengthening Federal-State-and-local 
partnerships.
  I want to commend my colleague, Senator John Chafee and the other 
Senate conferees, as well as the Senate staff, on their diligence in 
helping make S. 640 a reality.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, a monumental amount of effort has gone into the final 
development of this bill. The staff of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee the staff have devoted over 80 hours of effort to this bill. 
While it will be impossible to mention everyone who has made this bill 
a success, I would like to mention several key members of our staff 
that contributed to this fine legislation: Lee Forsgren, Ben Grumbles, 
Donna Campbell, Ken Kopocis, Art Chan, Pam Keller and Mike Strachn from 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and Dan Delich, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, Linda Jordan, and Ann Loomis of the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee. In addition, the role of the House and Senate 
legislative counsel offices was instrumental in writing the 
legislation. I especially want to recognize David Mendelsohn of House 
legislative counsel and Janine Johnson of Senate legislative counsel 
for their efforts. Finally, I want to acknowledge the technical support 
provided by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Jim Rausch provided timely, 
expert advice on technical matters relating to Corps of Engineers 
projects and policies and played a key role in conference discussions. 
In addition, Milton Rider, Gary Campbell, John Anderson, Bill Schmitz, 
Jeff Groska, Juanita Guin, Philomena Herasingh provided valuable 
assistance. We owe these professionals our gratitude.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remark.)
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support for the conference 
report on S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, which 
authorizes important infrastructure related projects throughout the 
Nation.
  First, I want to pay my compliments to Chairman Shuster and Chairman 
Boehlert for the absolutely fair and bipartisan way in which this bill 
was handled. WRDA 1996 has been a bipartisan process from start to 
finish.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the 
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, for his help on the 
bill.
  I also want to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment, especially Ken Kopocis of the Democratic staff, Mike 
Strachn of the Republican staff and David

[[Page H11323]]

Smallen of my personal staff, for all their hard work in putting this 
bill together.
  S. 640 demonstrates the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's 
continuing strong commitment to investment in the Nation's 
infrastructure. S. 640 is infrastructure legislation that is badly 
needed.
  That need has been clearly shown by the dozens of requests we have 
received from Members seeking authorization for port development, 
inland waterway, flood control, beach erosion, and other types of 
projects.
  The committee has done its absolute best to meet all of those needs 
within the limits imposed by budget constraints and the restrictions on 
the role of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  We have also recognized that the failure of the last Congress to pass 
a Water Resources Development Act in 1994 left us with a lot to do this 
year. Harbor deepening, inland waterway improvements, and flood control 
are vital cornerstones of our Nation's economic vitality.
  The ports of America are the doors that link our Nation to billions 
of dollars of international trade. In Philadelphia, our port supports 
50,000 jobs--making a vital contribution to our regional economy. The 
11,000 mile inland waterway system provides crucial transportation for 
bulk farm products, coal, and other materials. It is absolutely 
essential that we continue to provide funding for these important port 
and inland waterway projects. Ports and inland waterways must be 
maintained and improved as significant parts of our Nation's intermodal 
transportation system.
  S. 640 also continues the expansion of the mission of the Corps of 
Engineers to include improvement of the environment. While the 
expansion in this bill is not as great as I would have liked, it is a 
step in the right direction.
  We should be aggressive in using the talents and abilities of the 
Corps of Engineers to meet our huge environmental infrastructure needs.
  In flood control, this bill makes important changes that I support.
  We have proposed to increase the requirements for mitigation planning 
before structural flood control projects are built.
  An upgraded mitigation program will save us money from start to 
finish. We will be able to reduce the cost of project construction and 
it is likely that we will reduce disaster relief costs.
  We are also increasing the non-Federal cost sharing for flood control 
projects from the current minimum of 25 to 35 percent.
  This small increase is a simple recognition of our Federal budget 
situation. We have dwindling resources available for these essential 
programs.
  An increase in the local share will help spread Federal dollars to 
more projects and will help focus resources on more worthy projects.
  The administration proposed a 50-percent non-Federal share which 
would have done even more to spread scarce Federal dollars.
  With restrictions on discretionary spending becoming tighter each 
year, the 50-percent cost sharing is something we should consider in 
the future.
  I cannot emphasize too strongly that the Corps of Engineers program 
of infrastructure improvement for ports, inland waterways, and flood 
control will be subject to more and more budget cuts every year.
  We are on a path to reduce funds for these important infrastructure 
improvements and I question whether that is the right direction for our 
country.
  We are using a shortsighted approach that will ultimately mean 
reduced economic growth and less job creation.
  I hope that at sometime in the future--sooner rather than later--we 
will reverse our current path and seek ways to increase our 
infrastructure investment.
  We must work together on a bipartisan basis to ensure that, while we 
are getting our Federal fiscal house in order, programs to invest in 
critical infrastructure needs are protected.
  I hope to work with Chairman Shuster, Chairman Boehlert, and ranking 
member Oberstar in that effort in the same bipartisan manner in which 
we drafted the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
  I urge support for this conference report.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, before anything, I would like to 
compliment the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for the outstanding cooperation that 
was evident.
  It was music to my ears to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Borski] talk about the fairness and bipartisan nature of the process. 
We pride ourselves on that in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and we intend to continue in that vein.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a major step forward in 
developing and preserving the Nation's water resources. Almost one-
quarter of the bill's costs are for projects and activities that are 
solely or primarily for protection and restoration of the environment. 
This is a conservative estimate.
  Let me give the Members some examples of major environmental 
provisions in this measure. There is a requirement for flood plain 
management plans for flood control projects. There is broadening of 
existing authority to modify Corps projects to benefit the environment.
  We broaden the scope of existing environmental dredging. We create 
new aquatic ecosystem restoration programs. There are several 
provisions to address contaminated river and harbor sediments, 
including the Great Lakes and the New York-New Jersey Harbor.
  We do great work in terms of the Chesapeake Bay habitat Restoration 
Program and the salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest. There is a 
major program to restore the Florida Everglades, and we also do some 
significant restoration work in the New York City Watershed.
  I think the Members get the point. This is the greenest Water 
Resources Development Act in the history of this body. I proudly 
identify with it. It is not just me and those of us on the committee 
that are saying good things about this bill. Let me share with the 
Members a few excerpts from a letter authored by representatives of 
American Rivers, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife 
Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
  They say,

       We believe that the conference report . . . makes 
     significant improvements over earlier versions and includes 
     important provisions which reform national flood control 
     policies and expand the U.S. Corps of Engineers environmental 
     restoration programs.
       Conference members have required that cost-benefit and 
     environmental studies be completed for authorized projects 
     . . . What good work that is. . . . deleted a provision that 
     would support Missouri River navigation at the expense of 
     recreation, and reduced the federal cost of the bill to $3.8 
     billion.

  It goes on to say more very complimentary things about this bill, and 
concludes,

       H.R. 3592/S. 640 includes reform of our nation's flood 
     control policies, restores Florida's Everglades and expands 
     the Corps' growing environmental restoration program. We are 
     glad to see positive improvements in the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 and look forward to working with you 
     to continue these reforms.

  This is a letter that was addressed to me, to the chairmen, to the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, everybody, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Borski. We are all chairmen in this instance, because we have 
worked so hard to make this a reality.
  Let me close by saying no bill of this magnitude gets to the floor of 
this House with such unanimous endorsement without the hard work of 
people like Mike Strachn, Ken Kopocis, and Jeff More, and all the 
people on the staff who did such good work. I urge strong support for 
the measure.

[[Page H11324]]

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3592, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996. I would like to thank the chairman 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster, and 
the ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, for the opportunity to speak on 
behalf of this important legislation. I would also like to thank the 
subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boehlert, and ranking member, Mr. Borski, 
for their assistance on two vital initiatives in this conference report 
that will promote economic development and provide better flood control 
in southeast Texas.
  The Houston Ship Channel widening and dredging project will provide 
the first major expansion of the Port of Houston in 30 years. It will 
expand the capabilities of the Port to meet the challenges of expanding 
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major 
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second 
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst 
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion 
annually and providing 200,000 jobs. The Ship Channel expansion project 
will preserve the Port of Houston's status as one of the premier deep-
channel Gulf ports and one of the top transit points for cargo in the 
world. The project also is unique in that it is supported by a 
coalition of community and environmental groups, to help reverse 
decades of environmental degradation of Galveston Bay.

  This legislation also constructively addresses the issue of Federal 
flood control reform. As Congress seeks to balance the budget, the 
scarcity of Federal dollars for flood control threatens hundreds of 
projects in southeast Texas and around the country. That is why I have 
been working with this committee and my fellow Texan, Majority Whip Tom 
DeLay, to allow local entities to plan and construct Federal flood 
control projects. Giving local agencies, such as the Harris County 
Flood Control District, the ability to construct and manage these 
projects will save lives and property, cut Federal administrative costs 
and better protect the environment. It will also reduce Federal 
disaster assistance needed to bail out communities in our area each 
time it floods.
  This legislation includes language designating Harris County Texas, 
as a test site for allowing local control over flood control. Under 
this plan, the Federal Government would remain a partner in flood 
control, but local governments would gain the authority to respond more 
quickly and innovatively to their communities' flood control needs. 
Federal flood control policy must adapt to meet increasing budgetary 
constraints without sacrificing public safety and envrionmental 
protection. The bottomline will be safer communities and savings for 
the taxpayers.
  This legislation meets the challenges of protecting the environment, 
promoting economic development, and providing safe and efficient flood 
control throughout the Houston area. I strongly support the Water 
Resources Development Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting in favor of this conference report.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that this legislation 
includes a provision which renames the important Uniontown Lock and Dam 
on the Ohio river in Indiana and Kentucky, and it shall be known as and 
designated as the John T. Myers Lock and Dam, named in recognition of 
the extraordinary contributions to our country by the gentleman from 
Indiana, the honorable John T. Myers, who is retiring, and who will be 
sorely missed in this body. We are just very, very pleased to include 
this provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], chairman of the full committee, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], for working on this bill for many, many months, and creating 
an excellent piece of legislation in truly a bipartisan fashion. When I 
say an excellent piece of legislation, this is an economic stimulator 
for the country, and it is an environmentally sound piece of 
legislation.
  Five quick comments I want to make. It truly does stimulate the 
economy, imports and exports, as far as this Nation is concerned and 
its waterways. In Maryland alone, it is directly connected to 18,000 
jobs, and many more that are spinoffs, and directly related to $2 
billion annual sales as a result of the Baltimore Harbor.
  It goes a long way in understanding the nature of sediment control as 
far as the marine ecosystem is concerned. It has environmental 
alternatives to disposing of dredged material. It enhances wildlife 
habitat, which is another $1 billion to the Maryland economy. It goes a 
long way to understanding the important of eliminating persistent toxic 
chemicals. This is a great piece of legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of the 
Water Resource Development Act of 1996 conference report. I would like 
to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and our 
ranking Democrats, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for their dedication to 
getting this bill passed in the 104th Congress.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues the gentlemen from New 
Jersey, Bob Franks and Bob Menendez, for their efforts on behalf of the 
Jersey shore and the Port of New York and New Jersey.
  This long-awaited bill contains several provisions that are vital to 
stopping ocean dumping of contaminated dredged materials in New Jersey 
while protecting jobs in the Port of New York and New Jersey. With this 
bill, we finally have Federal-local cost sharing of confined disposal 
facilities, so ports can be dredged and the sediments disposed of in a 
safe environmental manner.
  In addition, this bill reauthorizes a cutting edge sediment 
decontamination project for the New York-New Jersey Harbor area.
  Finally, and very important, thanks to the efforts of the House 
Coastal Caucus as well as the Senate Coastal Coalition, and the support 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this bill also 
maintains the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in much needed shore 
protection. These are projects that are important to the millions of 
Americans who live on the coast and whose livelihoods are dependent on 
the coastal tourism industry.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee, who has done such an 
outstanding job not just on this bill, but on leading the Democrats in 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman especially for those kind words, 
Mr. Speaker, and I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] for the steadfast dedication he has devoted 
on our side to the complex issues of clean water, the Clean Water Act, 
the Water Resources Development Act, and the many other issues that 
have come before that subcommittee.
  I would also express my very great appreciation to our chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], who has led us through many 
complex issues in the course of this Congress. There will be other 
bills on which I will also be saying the same thing as we go through 
these last hours of this Congress, but we have worked together in the 
time-honored tradition of this committee, the buildings committee of 
the Congress.

[[Page H11325]]

  I would say to the gentleman, I appreciate the leadership that he has 
provided for us, particularly on this legislation and that of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who has worked very diligently 
and exercised visionary leadership on these important issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the committee for the consideration he gave to me on a 
matter of importance in my district. Although we could not resolve it 
satisfactorily, there was a partnership and an understanding that I 
shall long cherish.

  Mr. Speaker, we should support this legislation, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996. We deal here with the oldest infrastructure 
programs of the whole country. In fact, after the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the first committee established by the Congress in 1789, the 
Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, or committee was created, which later 
became a subcommittee of this full committee; recognizing, as the 
Congress did, that to grow as a nation, we needed to develop means of 
transportation.
  Ports were our first cities. America grew up along the water, as 75 
percent of our people still live along the water. The first project 
authorized by the parent and predecessor committee of our Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure was the Fort Henry Lighthouse, 
guiding navigation.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years of development and expansion of the 
Nation, water resources have been fundamental to our development and 
growth as an economy and as a people, and as a means of safety and 
navigation. Today, we continue that grand tradition, that more than 
200-year-old tradition of taking the next steps. We continue the 
development of water-related infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, virtually every 2 years this committee comes to the 
House with legislation based on the work of the Corps of Engineers to 
respond to the needs of carrying goods to market in the most cost-
efficient and energy-efficient means, by water; to protect people from 
floods, from disasters; to restore our shorelines; to deepen the 
harbors of our great ports and improve the navigation channels.
  In 1986, we first called this legislation the Water Resources 
Development Act. Since then we have come every 2 years, with one 
exception, in the last Congress, when we passed legislation in the 
House, having again done our work, and sent the bill to the other body, 
where, unfortunately, it languished and did not pass.

                              {time}  1630

  So this is 4 years, not just 2 years, of accumulated legislative 
needs, and we have done our work, again I think in a responsible 
manner, responding to the usual assortment of flood damage reduction, 
navigation, storm damage reduction and to continue the work of this 
committee in emphasizing environmental improvement within the Corps 
program, environmental restoration and environmental enhancement.
  One of the great initiative that we undertook was the great river 
improvement program, an initiative undertaken by the predecessor of the 
gentleman in the chair today. Mr. Quie and I together worked on the 
great river improvement program so that the Corps would be required to 
contemporaneously undertake the environmental improvements at the same 
time it was doing the navigation improvements, so that we would not 
have the navigation first and the environmental damage later. The two, 
environmental protection and enhancement, worked hand in hand and that 
is a great legacy to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, years ago, 
but again within the ambit of the Corps of Engineers programs. The 
Corps often takes a rap for effects on the environment, and I just want 
to take that moment to point out how the Corps has done such wonderful 
work to protect the environment.
  This legislation does raise the minimum non-Federal share of protect 
costs from 25 to 35 percent. It does not go as far as the 
administration bill requested, but it is a responsible step and I think 
the chairman has sensitively understood the needs of communities that 
have already made commitments and made plans, that to go beyond 35 
percent would put unreasonable financial burdens.
  The legislation also addresses the concerns of our committee and our 
colleagues to provide meaningful ability to pay relief for lower-income 
communities, and this legislation will provide that kind of help that 
was envisioned when the 1986 WRDA act was first enacted for helping 
lower-income communities.
  For the Great Lakes I am particularly pleased that we continue the 
important sharing of costs on confined disposal facilities for dredge 
materials to protect those extremely sensitive waters of the Great 
Lakes which represent one-fifth of all fresh water on the face of the 
earth.
  The conference report, however, is not perfect. The bill, I feel, 
does not go far enough in adequately balancing structural and 
nonstructural options in the Federal flood control program. I am 
troubled by provisions that have the effect of legislatively 
interfering in the 404 wetlands permitting program under the Clean 
Water Act and the implementation of the national flood insurance 
program. Both of those provisions, I think, are an unnecessary 
intrusion and should not be considered precedent for future 
legislation.

  The conference report also has language included at the insistence of 
the other body that abrogates, in the case of one project, cost-sharing 
rules, cost-sharing rules that were insisted upon by the other body 
many years ago. For one project, they were required to provide land 
easements and right of way but no cash in a matching basis for its 
project. We have steadfastly opposed repeal of cost-sharing rules for 
any project, and we should not do that in this case.
  Those shortcomings mentioned and noted, I think, for the record, this 
is a good bill. This is good, solid legislation. Ninety-eight percent 
of this bill is good policy, good initiative, good for the country, 
good for the community is serves and will stand as a legacy to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] who has labored so hard. I 
urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my good friend 
for his comments and emphasize that indeed on the very important 
project in Minnesota, there will be another day and we shall be back 
together working hard to make it come true.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my friends, Mr. Boehlert and 
Chairman Shuster, for their dedicated work. The citizens of Florida's 
southwest coast recognize the importance of maintaining proper 
stewardship of our water resources. I am very pleased that this bill 
contains vital Everglades restoration provisions to promote the 
innovative partnership that has formed between the State of Florida and 
the Army Corps of Engineers; speeding up the restoration process by 
many years through proactively reducing bureaucratic red tape and 
formalizing the joint Federal-State working group. I am also pleased 
this bill includes legislation introduced by my Florida colleague Clay 
Shaw that will overturn an unfortunate Presidential policy and ensure 
the continued involvement of the corps in worthwhile beach restoration 
projects. Overall, this is a good bill for Florida's citizens and 
Florida's environment as it is for all America and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], a valuable member of the 
committee.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], our ranking member, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. They are true examples of what, working 
together, Republicans and Democrats can do to move this country 
forward.
  Infrastructure is vital to this country. The infrastructure in this 
bill will move a lot of our areas forward. I want to point out 
particularly how important it was to get the $229 million authorization 
that is in this bill for the

[[Page H11326]]

Marmet locks and dam upgrade project. This is a project, a lock and dam 
that moves the second largest amount of traffic in our country right 
behind the Winfield lock and dams which is presently being upgraded. 
And most significantly why this is so important to those people in the 
Belle region, because for years they have known that this was coming 
but without this authorization, a couple of hundred families could not 
make the necessary decisions about what to do with their lives and 
their property. Happily this now provides the authorization for the 
Corps of Engineers to move forward. We still need to get the 
appropriation, the budget money for it, but now we know that this 
project is going to be built. And so we will be able to move large 
jumbo barges through whereas before we could only move the smaller 
barges and suffer the delays as a result. Likewise, for central West 
Virginia which has been hard hit in flooding, the language in here 
could greatly help the Moorefield residents which were hard hit in 
January and even devastated further in the floods of September. This 
gives us the vehicle to move forward with the Corps of Engineers and 
move those flood control projects forward, too, in a way that is 
beneficial to the community.
  I just want to thank those who have made this bill possible. This 
bill is moving now, it is going to pass, it is going to go to the 
President, and we can get about the business of building America even 
more.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant], the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Public Buildings and Economic Development.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and commend him for the fine job he has done 
in representing the interests of many of the Democrats in some of the 
important projects they had on this bill as well as the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for 
being fair to all concerns. But I would like to say this: that there 
are many of us who did not join this committee for cerebral 
stimulation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation must improve its infrastructure and I 
believe that there is much more that we can and should be doing, and I 
think that public works is most important. It will help to put people 
to work in our country, and improve the quality of life.
  Specifically I want to thank the committee for three projects that 
will be happening in my district. First, the Army Corps to plan and 
assist with a regional water system for our valley, absolutely 
necessary; to make improvements to the Gerard Lake and in fact make 
repairs at that spillway; and finally, the environmental dredging 
program for the Mahoning River that cuts right through the city of 
Youngstown from the Beaver River on up through all that old steel mill 
property that has been polluted for years. This will help to clean up 
the city of Youngstown.
  So I am hoping that in the future all this business of being afraid 
of earmarks, being afraid of pork barrels, keep this in mind. These are 
taxpayer dollars that come from our communities, put back into our 
communities, and I would hope that our venerable leader, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], will continue to push hard for the 
inclusion of these projects for both Democrats and Republicans. I also 
want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has been 
a war horse as well, and without these two fellows specifically, I 
think a lot of improvements to our Nation's infrastructure would never 
have been made with some of the so-called new philosophy we have around 
here.
  I like the old-fashioned take care of our own, take care of America, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], a 
Pitt man, for his help and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the great former 
quarterback from the University of Pittsburgh for his kind comments.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. 640 to emphasize a 
provision that strengthens our commitment to one of America's greatest 
natural treasures--the Florida Everglades.
  This legislation contains measures that will expedite restoration of 
this endangered ecosystem, authorize critical new resources, and cut 
through bureaucratic redtape. Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Army 
Corps of Engineers to complete its comprehensive Everglades restoration 
plan and report this plan to Congress by July 1, 1999. The bill also 
codifies the partnership between the Federal, State, and local agencies 
which are involved with this effort. This will facilitate better 
cooperation and information sharing so we can finish the job as soon as 
possible. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are many critical projects which 
must be completed now. Accordingly, this bill authorizes $75 million in 
new resources to construct projects which are critical to restoration.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this bipartisan accomplishment, 
and I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to particularly recognize Mike Strachn and Ken Kopocis who 
have really been the lead staffers on both sides of the aisle for the 
tremendous job they have done on this legislation.
  Finally and very importantly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a 
moment to recognize the extraordinary service to the House and most 
particularly to our committee of Erla Youmans. Erla, the committee 
administrator, is retiring at the end of this Congress.
  She began her career in the House when she went to work for 
Congressman Gordon Scherer in 1958. She went to work for the Public 
Works Committee in 1962 and since then has worked for 7 senior 
Republican Members.
  After a number of years serving as the committee minority 
administrator, Erla finally had the opportunity in 1995 to become the 
majority administrator. Erla has provided invaluable service to the 
Members on both sides of the aisle throughout her career, but most 
particularly in the last 2 years in ensuring that the committee has run 
smoothly and efficiently.
  I am sure all of the members of the committee join me in thanking 
Erla Youmans for her outstanding contribution and in wishing her well 
in her retirement for many, many years in the future.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with him in recognizing 
Erla Youmans and paying tribute to her.
  She started with the committee a year before I did, in 1963, is when 
I came then to work for my predecessor, John Blatnik. But I started on 
the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee as what was quaintly known as a 
clerk in those days, and Erla was there. She has been there all through 
the years since then, and worked in such a bipartisan manner, years 
later that I realized she worked for the Republican side of the 
committee. We did not know the distinction.
  She gave 38 years to government service, 36 of them with the 
committee on Public Works and then Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, now Transportation and Infrastructure. We served 6 
years together, those first 2 years as I worked on the subcommittee and 
then 4 years when I was administrator of the Public Works Committee 
staff. In every respect, Erla was a thorough-going professional.
  I just kind of looked it up the other day. If she had been a Member 
all these years, she would rank third in seniority, having begun her 
service in the 85th Congress. That is a long and dedicated career. She 
has made such a lasting contribution. Many Members come through here, 
they might get a bill passed, they might even get an amendment passed, 
they might even have something become law. Erla has presided over many 
bills, many laws, too numerous to mention, provided enormous service. A 
person of great patience, devotion, deep professionalism, and now she, 
as the chairman said, had the opportunity, which I am very happy for 
her, to have served as the majority staff person and run a very smooth 
and efficient operation.

[[Page H11327]]

  I am going to miss Erla. Always a ready smile, always a warm word, 
always a kind person, and always a professional.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my good friend for his comments.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a 
particular provision contained in the Water Resources Development Act 
conference report. This provision directs the Secretary of the Army to 
convey a parcel of land under the jurisdiction of the Corps of 
Engineers to the Village of Mariemont, OH.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important to Mariemont because 
it will enable the village to relocate its maintenance facility to the 
former Army Corps land, and move MariElders, a center for older adults 
that has been displaced from its site, to the refurbished maintenance 
facility.
  This legislation also makes good fiscal sense. The Army Corps land 
has an appraised value of $85,000. Mr. Speaker, the conference report 
transfers the land to Mariemont for the appraised amount and will put 
the property to productive use. In addition, the property has been 
screened by the General Services Administration [GSA] and no other 
Federal agency has expressed interest in the site.
  I commend chairman Shuster, chairman Boehlert, and the conferees for 
incorporating this provision in the conference report, and urge all my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation which will put to an end a long and very contentious 
chapter in the history of North Bonneville.
  This legislation would resolve a long-standing dispute between the 
city of North Bonneville and the Federal Government that occurred when 
the city was relocated in the 1970's. It would be a vital step forward 
in the recovery of a community that has been severely impacted by this 
relocation.
  This community has been economically devastated through a combination 
of factors outside their control, particularly the downturn of the 
timber industry. This legislation will convey key parcels of land to 
the city that will create jobs by giving the county a land base to 
attract businesses to the area. In fact, this might be the most 
important jobs bill this county has seen in a long time because for 
many years, the city has not had industrial land that could bring in 
family-wage jobs.
  I want to thank public officials in the community of North Bonneville 
for their support of this legislation. I particularly want to commend 
Mayor Keith Chamberlain for being a strong advocate of this 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 
640, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] of 1996. Once again, 
the 104th Congress is on the verge of an accomplishment that eluded its 
predecessor, passage of a measure that authorizes and reauthorizes a 
number of important water-related projects in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  One such project deserves particular mention by this Member, not just 
because it is in his congressional district, but due to the 
environmental and economic benefits it can provide to many places 
around the country in the future. I refer specifically to the Des 
Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP] adjacent to 
Wadsworth in northern Illinois. Since its inception over a decade ago, 
this internationally recognized research effort has produced, and 
continues to produce, invaluable data that will facilitate the 
rehabilitation, restoration, maintenance and/or expansion of our 
nation's wetlands. In the process, information has been, and is being, 
developed that has significant and positive implications for habitat 
conservation, species enhancement and flood control efforts as well. In 
addition, the success of two wetlands mitigation banks at the DPRWDP is 
providing further evidence that environmental protection imperatives 
can, indeed, be reconciled with the manifestations of economic growth. 
But, for all these potential benefits to be fully realized, additional 
funds are needed to complete the research and to prepare a how to 
manual that will enable interested parties to put the findings to good 
use.

  To date, almost $9 million has been contributed to the research work 
at the DPRWDP, only $1.9 million of which has come from the Federal 
Government. However, another $2.2 million in Federal funds was 
authorized by the 1988 WRDA, only $125,000 of which has actually been 
expended. Enactment of this conference report would once again give the 
DPRWDP an equal chance to compete for the rest of those monies, which 
is all one can ask in this era of tight budget constraints. That being 
the case, I urge my colleagues to give this project, and the conference 
report in which it is reauthorized, their support. Both will redound to 
the future benefit of America.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference 
report and salute the hard work of chairman Shuster and ranking member 
Oberstar.
  I believe this bill to be one of the most important that we undertake 
in this Congress. The wise use of America's water resources is critical 
to the environmental and economic well-being of this Nation. This fact 
is evident in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, which I 
represent. The first district is one of the most productive 
agricultural district in the Nation, ranking No. 1 in the production of 
rice, No. 3 in soybeans, and No. 6 in cotton. Our water supply is vital 
to the production of agricultural commodities as well as their 
transportation to market.
  Messrs. Shuster and Oberstar were kind enough to work with me on 
three projects that are vital to the first district. The first is the 
Grand Prairie-Bayou Meto project that lies in the heart of Arkansas' 
rice production. The alluvial aquifer that supports this area is 
rapidly being depleted and unless something is done by 2015 the area 
stands to suffer irreparable economic damage and the Nation would lose 
a large percentage of its domestic rice supply. The project 
reauthorized in this bill will allow work on this vital project to 
begin so that the aquifer can be restored without economic or 
environmental damage to our State.
  The second project is the White River Navigation Project. The White 
River is a 255-mile river that flows from the Ozark Mountain to the 
Mississippi River through the heart of the Arkansas Delta. It flows 
through the Grand Prairie of which I just spoke, and is a great 
resource for agricultural and industrial commerce, but only part of the 
year. The commercial channel of the river has only a 5-foot depth which 
is inadequate to accommodate the standard 9-foot draft barges employed 
around the country today. The reauthorization project that is included 
in this bill will allow development of a commercially viable 9-foot 
channel that can be utilized during the entire year.
  I was also very pleased that members of the conference saw fit to 
include language which would ensure that new cost sharing requirements 
on Corps projects would not apply to works which have already been 
authorized, but on which construction has yet to begin. The Helena and 
Vicinity flood control project in the town of Helena, Arkansas on the 
Mississippi was first authorized by this Congress in 1986. However, the 
local community contribution was not worked out until a year ago, 
delaying the beginning of construction. It would have been patently 
unfair to raise the bar on this type of project after years of hard 
work by local citizens and the Corps of Engineers. I am very pleased 
that the drafters of this bill had the foresight to impose the new 
cost-sharing requirements only on projects authorized in this bill and 
beyond.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the conference report for H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. I commend Chairman Bud Shuster and Chairman Sherwood 
Boehlert for their diligent work in writing this important legislation.
  This bill contains several provisions that I introduced in 
legislation earlier this year to help our Nation's ports. First, this 
bill provides for a Federal cost-sharing mechanism for the upland 
disposal of dredged material. This updates the current cost-sharing 
mechanism that provides for only ocean disposal of dredged material. 
Second, this bill allows ports to take advantage of the $600 million 
surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by allowing the fund to be 
used for the Federal share of upland disposal, and for the construction 
of containment facilities that are needed to hold contaminated 
material. Third, this bill doubles the funding authorization for the 
EPA's sediment decontamination pilot study, which will allow for the 
environmental restoration of harbor floors.
  In addition, this legislation contains a provision I have worked on 
for several years regarding flood control projects. Currently, the 
prevention of the loss of life is not one of the principal criteria 
used in deciding whether to proceed with a particular water resources 
project. H.R. 3592 will elevate the criteria of saving human life, 
rather than economic benefit, in the prioritization of these projects.
  I would also like to commend the chairman for including language that 
calls for a greater utilization of private industry to perform the 
Corps' hopper dredge work. I would have preferred a much broader 
provision than what is contained in the bill, but I am pleased that the 
Committee is taking an important first step toward reaping the economic 
benefits that greater reliance on the private sector will yield. I 
intend to work closely with the committee leadership to evaluate the 
results of this study and to push forward for greater privatization if, 
as I suspect, the results are promising.
  I have enjoyed working with the committee on this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
the Water Resources Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert, and all other 
committee members and staff who

[[Page H11328]]

worked tirelessly to put together a fair and economically responsible 
WRDA bill.
  This bill has carefully balanced the interests of environmentalists 
with those in the business community and provided the language that 
will enable our ports to once again flourish, our citizens to be 
protected from flooding, our environment to be protected, and our 
taxpayers' dollars to be wisely and not frivolously spent.
  I would like to specifically mention a couple of provisions in the 
bill that are of great importance to the citizens in my district. The 
Water Resources Development Act includes authorized funds for a buyout 
alternative to the Passaic River Flood Tunnel.
  Back in 1994 when I was first running for Congress, I recognized the 
importance of flood protection to the citizens of the Eighth 
Congressional District in New Jersey. In addition, I recognized that 
there must be a more economically and environmentally sound flood 
control alternative to an authorized flood tunnel with a price tag of 
$1.9 billion that would have extensive negative affects on area 
wetlands and the existing ecosystems.
  By authorizing $194 million for the buyout alternative, we are taking 
great strides towards both flood protection for our citizens and 
environmental protection for the Passaic River, while saving the 
taxpayer money.
  Also included in the bill is continued authorization for the Molly 
Ann's Brook flood protection project. I am pleased that the committee 
treated this project with the urgency and priority that it deserves. 
This project will provide critical flood protection to many residents 
of Haledon, Prospect Park and the city of Paterson.
  Once again, I extend my thanks to the committee. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 is a clear example of the 104th making things 
happen and protecting the interests of not only the citizens of New 
Jersey, but the interests of all Americans.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairmen Shuster and 
Boehlert, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, for all their hand 
work on this bill, and rise in strong support of this legislation. I 
came to the floor earlier this summer when the bill first came through 
the House to discuss two provisions critical to the Houston area, and 
am very pleased that these provisions remain in this final conference 
report.
  One of these is the authorization of funding to deepen and widen the 
Houston Ship Channel. These improvements are essential to the economic 
development not only of the region, but of the country generally, as 
the Houston Ship Channel is a critical economic lifeline between our 
Nation and the rest of the world.
  The improvements authorized are also consistent with the Port's and 
my enduring commitment to the environment. The dredged material from 
the Ship Channel project will be used to create over 4,000 acres of 
additional marsh land to be used in developing bird islands, boater 
destinations, and shoreline erosion projects.
  The second provision in this bill allows certain flood control 
districts to carry out flood control projects with far greater 
flexibility than ever before.
  Although still subject to the high standards set by the Corps of 
Engineers, my Harris County Flood Control District officials will now 
be able to plan, study, design and construct these projects with 
greater independence and more input from the local community.
  I am convinced that Harris County will demonstrate that it can design 
and construct flood projects faster and cheaper when it is not burdened 
by Federal redtape.
  In fact, I am told that the Harris County projects will not only be 
completed much sooner than projected by the Corps, they will be 
completed at a total cost that is as much as 35 percent less than that 
projected by the Corps.
  Again, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
support it, as well.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. 
I would just like to point out one clarification to Section 
101(a)(1)(D) of the conference report, which relates to the cost-
sharing associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom 
Dam and Reservoir.
  Specifically, it is the intent of this provision that the local, non-
Federal share of the costs of the variable flood control operation of 
Folsom Dam not exceed 25 percent. It is also the intent of the 
conference agreement that the remaining 75 percent of the costs 
associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and 
Reservoir be the responsibility of the United States and that such 
costs shall be considered a nonreimbursable expense. In other words, 
these costs should not be passed onto the water and power ratepayers of 
California.
  It is the intent of this provision that the costs associated with the 
variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir be shared 
between the non-Federal project and sponsor and the Federal Government. 
It was not the intent of the conferees that Californians' be required 
to assume the full burden of the provision of interim flood protection 
to the citizens of Sacramento.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for S. 640, the Water 
Resources Development Act, contains several important provisions for 
the area that I represent. There is no doubt that these steps will 
improve the flood control system for the city of Sacramento and afford 
a level of additional safety to the citizens of my district.
  Despite the inclusion of these provisions, I would note with grave 
disappointment that with the final approval of this conference report, 
another Corps of Engineers authorization will have passed the Congress 
without inclusion of a comprehensive plan to address the severe flood 
threat facing the Sacramento area. As a result, 400,000 people in 
Sacramento will continue to face an unacceptable threat of flooding. 
Our flood control system will be able to achieve the 100-year 
protection level established as an actuarial baseline by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. Nonetheless, it will be far short of what 
is tolerable for a highly urbanized area like Sacramento.
  Given the very short warning period that Sacramento would have before 
a flood event occurred, this threat is more than just a matter of 
tremendous economic risk for our region. Lives will continue to be 
unnecessarily at risk until a comprehensive plan for protecting 
Sacramento from the American River is authorized and constructed. I am 
deeply committed to working for a comprehensive solution to this 
problem, and I am anxious to continue to build upon the progress toward 
such a result embodied in this bill.
  I would also like to take an opportunity to address one specific 
aspect of the conference report. Section 101(a)(1)(D) of the conference 
report directs that the non-Federal participant in the project for the 
American River Watershed shall bear only a 25-percent share of the 
costs associated with the variable flood control operation 
(reoperation) of Folsom Dam and Reservoir for a 4-year period. This 
provision modifies similar language in H.R. 3592 as passed by the 
House.
  I would like to underscore that it was the clear intent of the 
Sacramento delegation, in working with the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on this provision, that the Federal share of 
reoperation costs would be nonreimbursable--in other words, that these 
costs could not be passed along to California water and power 
ratepayers. Only in this way will we actually limit the non-Federal 
share of costs associated with the variable flood control operation of 
Folsom Dam and Reservoir to 25 percent, as called for by the conference 
report.
  Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, particularly Chairman Bud Shuster and the 
ranking member, James Oberstar, as well as Sherwood Boehlert and Robert 
Borski, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Without their assistance, we 
certainly would not have been able to take the important steps forward 
for Sacramento that were included in this bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Boehlert and 
Ranking Democrat Borski on a job well done. The Water Resources 
Development Act was perhaps the most bipartisan effort of the 104th 
Congress.
  I am particularly pleased because this bill will enable major 
projects in my congressional district in Connecticut to move forward.
  The bill eliminates federal jurisdiction over three local channel 
projects that are currently on hold in my district. In one case, a 
deauthorization will enable a state financed bridge project to be 
constructed--at no additional cost to taxpayers.
  I also want to commend my colleagues for authorizing the construction 
of an erosion barrier for Faulkner's Island, a federally owned wildlife 
refuge in the Long Island Sound. This refuge is a migratory resting 
site for over 300 species of birds, including threatened and endangered 
species. It also encompasses a working light house commissioned by 
Thomas Jefferson that would fall into the Sound in 15 years if the 
erosion is not stopped.
  Thank you again for your work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
pass this measure.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 640, the conference 
agreement on the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The House 
version of this bill, H.R. 3592, passed this body on July 29 of this 
year.
  The enactment of this legislation is overdue. Many places of the 
country, such as West Virginia, continue to be subjected to severe 
flooding. In fact, many places of my Congressional District have spent 
a good part of this last year under federal disaster declarations.
  With this said, while I am pleased that we are finally gaining the 
enactment of this legislation, I would have preferred to see many of 
the provisions of the version as passed by the House have remained 
unmodified by the Senate. In this respect, this conference agreement at 
the insistence of the Senate Conferees scaled back certain House 
provisions such as the one relating to flood control in the

[[Page H11329]]

Greenbrier Basin of West Virginia that I sponsored. The fight we have 
had in gaining approval of this provision, which does not include the 
construction of a main-stem dam, illustrates that it would be virtually 
impossible for supporters of a dam on this river to be successful. In 
effect, in this bill we have been reduced to a $12 million 
authorization for non-dam alternatives. It is, as such, highly 
improbable that anyone could have succeeded in obtaining over $100 
million for a dam in an era when the Congress is simply not approving 
new main-stem flood control dams.
  Following is an explanation of those provisions I sponsored in this 
legislation.


     sec. 579. greenbrier river basin, west virginia, flood control

       The subject of providing flood control along the Greenbrier 
     River Basin in West Virginia has been considered for many 
     years. At some point in the 1930s, a main-stem dam was 
     authorized, known as the Big Bend project. However, in 1974, 
     at the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers, this project 
     was deauthorized. This lack of interest in providing flood 
     control protections for the Greenbrier was short-lived. In 
     1978, the Huntington District of the Corps of Engineers 
     undertook a flood control study for the basin. The study was 
     ready for release in 1985. However, in that year, a flood of 
     record occurred which the caused the Corps to look into other 
     methods of flood control. Prior to 1985, the Corps was ready 
     to recommend channel improvements in the area of Marlinton 
     (Pocahontas County) as a means of flood control.
       In 1994, preliminary findings of the study indicated that a 
     single-purpose flood control dam on the Greenbrier River 
     upstream from Marlinton may offer the greatest potential for 
     providing flood protections against a reoccurrence of the 
     1985 flood. This type of project, however, had a low cost-
     benefit ratio and the Huntington District decided to evaluate 
     a non-structural flood plain management approach. Meanwhile, 
     earlier this year, in January, the area experienced a flood 
     which exceed the one in 1985. The Corps decided not to 
     release its study, but rather, to update it with the data 
     from the January 1996 event. In May, the Greenbrier River 
     once again left its banks and in certain areas, exceeded the 
     flood level experienced in January.
       The communities along the river have been divided on the 
     question of the proposed main-stem dam. With the defeat of 
     the proposed Auburn Dam during the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure's consideration of H.R. 
     3592, and the fact that the cost-benefit ratio associated 
     with any type of Greenbrier River dam even with an updated 
     study would not pass Corps let alone Congressional muster, it 
     became apparent that some type of alternative flood control 
     protections should be pursued for the Greenbrier Basin.
       The provision which passed the House of Representatives as 
     section 580 of H.R. 3592 would have authorized $20 million 
     for the Corps of Engineers to design and implement a flood 
     damage reduction program for the Greenbrier River Basin in 
     the vicinity of Durbin, Cass, Marlinton, Renick, Ronceverte 
     and Alderson. In consultation with these communities, flood 
     control activities that could be undertaken includes levees, 
     floodwalls, channelization, small tributary stream 
     impoundments and nonstructural measures such as individual 
     flood proofing. In addition, also authorized are floodplain 
     relocations, floodplain evacuations, and a comprehensive 
     river corridor management plan.
       In Conference with the Senate, the House provision was 
     modified by reducing the $20 million authorization to $12 
     million. Further, the innovative cost-benefit considerations 
     included in the House-passed bill were objected to by the 
     Senate, and this provision was dropped.


       sec. 359. southern west virginia environmental restoration

       Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     authorized an environmental restoration infrastructure and 
     resource protection development pilot program in southern 
     West Virginia. Under this provision, the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers is to provide design and construction assistance 
     for publicly owned projects such as wastewater treatment and 
     water supply facilities through local cooperation agreements 
     with non-Federal entities such as, for example, a county 
     commission or public service district. In addition, 
     appropriated amounts for the pilot program must be matched on 
     a 75% federal/25% local basis.
       To date, the full $5 million authorized for the program in 
     1992 has been appropriated and the Huntington District of the 
     Corps of Engineers is engaged in two projects: a wastewater 
     system in Gilbert and a water supply system in Summers/Mercer 
     Counties. However, the authorized level of $5 million is 
     unduly restrictive and will serve to limit the potential 
     benefits this demonstration project has for the Nation.
       H.R. 3592 as passed by the House would increase the 
     authorization to $25 million and make sundry technical 
     amendments which the Corps' has identified as facilitating 
     the implementation of the program. In Conference with the 
     Senate, the $25 million authorization increase was modified 
     to $20 million.


                sec. 357. bluestone lake, west virginia

       Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 authorized and directed the Army Corps of Engineers to 
     take such measures as are technologically feasible to 
     prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters 
     downstream of Bluestone Lake project. As part of the 
     implementation of this directive, some concern has been 
     raised that the removal of all woody debris may adversely 
     affect the biological integrity of the New River. For this 
     reason, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House, and maintained in 
     the Conference Report, would provide for the release of that 
     organic matter necessary to maintain and enhance the 
     biological resources of such waters and such non-obtrusive 
     items of debris as may not be economically feasible to 
     prevent being release through the project.
       In implementing this provision, the Secretary should not 
     construe the amendment being made as allowing the release of 
     substantial amounts of accumulated drift and debris. In this 
     regard, the amendment conforms this provision of law with the 
     Secretary's responsibility under section 1110 of the National 
     Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the release 
     of water from the Bluestone Lake project in a manner to 
     facilitate protection of the biological resources of the 
     New River. I would further note that this amendment is 
     being adopted in anticipation of a Memorandum of 
     Understanding being entered into between the Corps of 
     Engineers, the National Park Service and the State of West 
     Virginia relating to river cleanup responsibilities 
     downstream of Bluestone Dam.


                sec. 580. lower mud river, west virginia

       Originally envisioned as a P.L. 83-566 watershed protection 
     and flood prevention project, the Watershed Plan and 
     Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for the 
     Lower Mud River, West Virginia, and section 401 and 404 
     permits secured. The proposed project is aimed at preventing 
     flooding in the City of Milton (Cabell County) through 
     channel work (widening and straightening the flood channel) 
     of the Lower Mud River and includes both on- and off-site 
     wetlands mitigation. In light of the fact that the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service is no longer being authorized 
     or funded to undertake projects of this nature, H.R. 3592 as 
     passed by the House and agreed to in the Conference Report 
     provides for this project to be completed by the U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers. The total project cost is $20,159,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $15,426,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $4,733,100.


             sec. 360. west virginia trail head facilities

       Section 306 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     directed the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study and 
     develop a plan for trailhead facilities connected several 
     Corps facilities in southern West Virginia. In devising the 
     report, the Corps entered into an interagency agreement with 
     the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. 
     Earlier this year, the Corps published a ``West Virginia 
     Trailhead Facility Study, Final Report.'' This report 
     constitutes a Master Plan to guide in the development, 
     management and operation of a regional system of recreational 
     trails.
       The development of the trail system will be undertaken by a 
     non-federal entity: the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation 
     Authority established by the State of West Virginia. However, 
     as part of the development and management of the trail 
     system, the Authority is seeking continued technical 
     assistance from the Corps and BLM. H.R. 3592 as passed by the 
     House, and as agreed to in the Conference Report, provides 
     for the Corps to enter into an interagency agreement with the 
     BLM for the purpose of providing on-going technical 
     assistance and oversight for the trail facilities envisioned 
     in the master plan. Under this provision, the BLM must 
     provide this assistance and oversight. It intended for this 
     assistance and oversight to be undertaken with the trail 
     Authority.


              sec. 229. marshall university, west virginia

       H.R. 3592 as passed by the House contained a provision 
     authorizing the Corps of Engineers to enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with Marshall University to provide 
     technical assistance to the Center for Environmental, 
     Geotechnical and Applied Sciences. The House bill also 
     contained a generic provision of this nature, entitled 
     ``Support of Army Civil Works Program,'' relating to 
     relationships through which the Corps could enter into with 
     colleges and universities, among other entities. In 
     Conference with the Senate, the House provision relating 
     solely to Marshall University was dropped with the intention 
     that it be covered by the generic House provision which was 
     retained by the Conference Committee and a specific reference 
     to Marshall University was included in the Statement of 
     Managers discussion of this provision.
       Under this provision, it is intended for the Corps of 
     Engineers and Marshall's Environmental Center to work 
     together in dealing with environmental contamination in the 
     Central Appalachian Region and to provide national leadership 
     in this area.
       Envisioned activities under the cooperative agreement would 
     include, among other items: (1) the development of innovative 
     technologies for all aspects of handling hazardous waste, 
     including management, treatment, remediation, restoration, 
     mitigation and disposal projects; (2) research to improve the 
     understanding of the processes of groundwater contamination 
     and subsequent

[[Page H11330]]

     migration/diffusion; (3) the development and application of 
     modern computer technologies for the collection and 
     management of large volumes of scientific and other data 
     characterizing the various environmental problems located in 
     or affecting activities within the region; (4) environmental 
     technology transfer; and (5) public education about the many 
     regional environmental issues, problems and hazards.


   sec. 539. acid mine drainage mitigation, new river, west virginia

       Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines is perhaps the 
     single most serious water quality problem in many parts of 
     the Appalachian Region. In fact, nationwide, over 12,000 
     miles of rivers and streams and over 180,000 acres of lakes 
     and reservoirs are contaminated due to acidic and toxic 
     drainage from abandoned mines. Because of the magnitude of 
     the problems associated with acid mine drainage from 
     abandoned coal mines, and the lack of progress made to date 
     in addressing this issue, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House 
     authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake certain 
     demonstration projects aimed at abatement and mitigation of 
     acid mine drainage caused by abandoned mines, as well as 
     degradation caused by the lack of sanitary wastewater 
     treatment facilities. As modified by the Conference 
     Committee, the provision is limited to the Corps providing 
     technical assistance for these projects. Under the Conference 
     Agreement, $1.5 million is authorized for the Corps to 
     provide technical assistance for projects in the New River, 
     West Virginia.
       In conducting these activities, it is intended for the 
     Corps to focus on Dunloup Creek, Manns Creek, Wolf Creek and 
     Piney Creeks of the New River watershed. In this regard, the 
     Corps is to cooperate with the Federal entity with 
     administrative jurisdiction over the lands within such 
     watersheds, the National Park Service, and if appropriate, 
     with the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that 
the House suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the 
Senate bill, S. 640.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed 
to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________