[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2111-S2130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE FEDERAL ELECTION ENFORCEMENT AND DISCLOSURE REFORM ACT

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. I rise today to address the important 
issue of campaign finance reform. As we begin the 106th Congress, 
campaign finance reform continues to be an important national need. 
Therefore, I am again introducing my Federal Election Enforcement And 
Disclosure Reform Act with the hope that this will be the year that 
Congress makes positive strides towards meaningful reform.

[[Page S2112]]

  After participating in the Governmental Affairs Committee's extensive 
1997 campaign finance hearings, it was apparent to me that there is a 
critical need for reform of our entire campaign finance system. What I 
witnessed, heard and read made me even more convinced that we must 
strengthen our campaign financing laws, and provide strong enforcement 
through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, or risk seeing 
our election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money. In spite 
of public support, and positive action in the House, the Senate failed 
last year to enact meaningful legislation addressing these problems, 
and we have now gone through yet another election cycle in which the 
abuses continued to persist. With the record high of $1 billion spent 
in pursuit of federal office in 1996--a 73 percent increase since 1992, 
I had hoped that the 1998 election would at least reflect a natural 
decline from the grossly inflated figures. However, post-election 
reports filed with the FEC show that spending in Senate general 
election campaigns went from $220.8 million in 1996, to $244.3 in 1998, 
an 11% increase. It has been estimated that if these trends continue, 
by 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an average Senate 
campaign. This absurd trend cannot continue.
  Although the Senate failed last year to enact meaningful reform, I am 
hopeful that, with a new Congress, we will take up this important issue 
in earnest. The legislation I am re-introducing today, the Federal 
Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act, addresses one of the 
most serious problems with our current system, the inability of the 
Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately enforce our existing 
campaign laws. I recently read a compelling article entitled ``No Cop 
on the Beat,'' which appeared in the January 23, 1999 issue of the 
National Journal. The author, Eliza Newlin Carney, perhaps summarizes 
best the current judgment on the effectiveness of the FEC when she 
states that ``[a] long-standing joke around town is that the commission 
is a government success story: It is precisely the weak and ineffective 
agency that Congress intended it to be.''
  The article was written following a December 1998 FEC hearing on the 
1996 elections during which FEC auditors alleged that the national 
campaign committees of both major parties violated campaign finance 
rules with respect to broadcast advertising. Although party leaders 
maintained that the advertisements in question were legitimate 
``issue'' ads appropriately paid for by millions of dollars in ``soft'' 
money, based on their investigation, the FEC auditors alleged that they 
were illegal ads which caused both major party Presidential campaigns 
to exceed the federal spending limit and, more importantly, allowed 
both campaigns to ``essentially bilk . . . the federal Treasury out of 
no less than $25 million.'' The auditors recommended that the campaigns 
repay the money. However, the commissioners unanimously rejected these 
recommendations and refused to specifically address the alleged 
grievous violations of federal campaign laws.
  Although the author of the National Journal piece is very critical of 
the enforcement system, her criticism correctly does not end with the 
FEC. ``[T]he FEC isn't the only cop that seems to have deserted the 
beat.'' According to the author, the FEC's refusal to enforce the 
campaign regulations has also had a chilling effect on the Justice 
Department's willingness to complete thorough investigations of the 
abuses in the 1996 election cycle. Furthermore, she points out that 
last year Congress again failed to enact new campaign finance laws to 
help correct the problems. She concludes by mentioning the movement by 
some politicians to totally deregulate the system--``By default, the 
no-holds-barred camp seems to be winning. Their deregulation model is 
starting to look an awful lot like the system we have today.''
  As we can see in the preliminary preparations already underway, the 
2000 election cycle is likely to be heading in the same direction and I 
believe that this is the optimal time for us to act in order to prevent 
such abuses. Although my bill will not address all of the campaign 
finance system problems, it will revitalize the Federal Election 
Commission to enable it to more effectively enforce current campaign 
finance laws, and to close some loopholes in current campaign 
disclosure requirements in order to provide the American people with 
more comprehensive and more timely information on campaign finances.
  As I made clear last year, I do not intend my legislation to fix all 
of the problems with the campaign finance system. It is my 
understanding that Senators McCain and Feingold also intend to re-
introduce their important legislation, which I intend to again co-
sponsor. I continue to believe that enactment of McCain-Feingold or 
similar legislation is an essential step for the Senate to take this 
year in beginning the process of repairing a campaign finance system 
which is totally out of control. Banning soft money and imposing 
disclosure and contribution requirements on sham issue ads aired close 
to an election, as provided for under McCain-Feingold, are absolutely 
vital reforms, without which the campaign finance system will only grow 
less accountable, and more vulnerable to the appearance, if not the 
fact, of undue influence by big money.
  However, I want to broaden the scope of debate, and to begin the 
process of seeking common ground on important reforms which go beyond 
the problems of soft money and issue ads. As previously discussed, one 
of the most glaring deficiencies in our current federal campaign system 
is the ineffectiveness of its supposed referee, the Federal Election 
Commission. The FEC, whether by design or through circumstance, has 
been beset by partisan gridlock, uncertain and insufficient resources, 
and lengthy proceedings which offer no hope of timely resolution of 
charges of campaign violations.
  Thus, the first major element of my bill is to strengthen the ability 
of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial 
enforcer of federal campaign laws. Among the most significant FEC-
related changes I am proposing are the following:
  Alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan 
gridlock by establishing a 7-member Commission, appointed by the 
President based on qualifications, for single 7-year terms. The 
Commission would be composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, one 
third party member, and two members nominated by the Supreme Court.
  Give the FEC independent litigating authority, including before the 
Supreme Court, and establish a right of private civil action to seek 
court enforcement in cases where the FEC fails to act, both of which 
should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of the 
law.
  Provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source independent of 
Congressional intervention by the imposition of filing fees on federal 
candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet the needs of the 
Commission--estimated to be $50 million a year.
  A second major component of the Federal Election Enforcement and 
Disclosure Reform Act is to create a new Advisory Committee on Federal 
Campaign Reform to provide for a body outside of Congress to 
continually review and recommend changes in our federal campaign 
system. The Committee would be charged, ``to study the laws (including 
regulations) that affect how election campaigns for Federal office are 
conducted and the implementation of such laws and may make 
recommendations for change,'' which are to be submitted to Congress by 
April 15 of every odd-numbered year. As with the FEC, the Advisory 
Committee would receive independent and sufficient funding via the new 
federal candidate filing fees.
  The impetus for the Advisory Committee is two-fold: (1) to build a 
``continuous improvement'' mechanism into the Federal campaign system, 
and (2) to address the demonstrable fact that Congress responds slowly, 
if at all, to the need for changes and updates in our campaign laws. In 
both instances, the conclusion is the same: we cannot afford to wait 
twenty-five years or until a major scandal develops to adapt our 
campaign finance system to changing circumstances.
  The final section of my bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of 
campaign

[[Page S2113]]

contribution disclosure requirements. As Justice Brandeis observed, 
``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial 
diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric 
light the most effective policeman.'' This is certainly true in the 
realm of campaign finance, and perhaps the most enduring legacy of the 
Watergate Reforms of a quarter-century ago is the expanded campaign and 
financial disclosure requirements which emerged. By and large, they 
have served us well, but as with everything else, they need to be 
periodically reviewed and updated in light of experience. Therefore, 
based in part on testimony I heard during the 1997 Governmental Affairs 
Committee investigation and in part on the FEC's own recommendations 
for improved disclosure, my bill will make several changes in current 
disclosure requirements.
  Specifically, I am recommending two reforms which will make it more 
difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to 
current disclosure requirements by, first, preventing a campaign from 
depositing a contribution until all of the requisite disclosure 
information is provided; and second, requiring those who contribute 
$200 or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution 
is not from a foreign national, and is not the result of a contribution 
in the name of another person.
  In addition, my legislation adopts a number of disclosure 
recommendations made by the FEC in its 1997 report to Congress, 
including provisions: requiring all reports to be filed by the due date 
of the report; requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to 
be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year 
cycle; and mandating monthly reporting for multi candidate committees 
which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising or spending, in 
excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle.
  It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform 
efforts especially after last year's inaction by the Senate. The public 
and the media are certainly expecting Congress to fail to take 
significant action to clean up the scandalous campaign system under 
which we now run. But ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I suggest 
that we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think we will 
be able to win the next re-election because the level of outrage and 
the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our political 
system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. But I am confident 
that it is only a matter of time, and perhaps the next election cycle--
which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft money, more sham 
issue ads of unknown parentage, more circumvention of the spirit and in 
some cases the letter of current campaign finance law--before the 
scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform.
  We will have campaign finance reform. The only question is whether 
this Congress will step up to the plate, and fulfill its 
responsibilities, to give the American people a campaign system they 
can have faith in and which can preserve and protect our noble 
democracy as we enter a new century.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Summary of Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act


                             i. fec reform

       A. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be 
     restructured as follows:
       The Commission will be composed of 7 members appointed by 
     the President who are specially qualified to serve on the 
     Commission by reason of relevant knowledge: two Republican 
     members appointed by the President; two Democratic members 
     appointed by the President; one member appointed by the 
     President from among all other political parties whose 
     candidates received at least 3% of the national popular vote 
     in the most recent Presidential or U.S. House or U.S. Senate 
     elections; in the event no third party reached this 
     threshold, the President may consider all third parties in 
     making this appointment; and two members appointed by the 
     President from among 10 nominees submitted by the U.S. 
     Supreme Court. One of these two members would be chosen by 
     the Commission to serve as Chairman.
       Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for 
     appointment to the FEC) is defined to include:
       A higher education degree in government, politics, or 
     public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant 
     work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
       A minimum of two years experience in working on or in 
     relation to Federal election law or other Federal electoral 
     issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
       Commissioners will be limited to one 7 year term.
       B. The FEC would be given the following additional powers:
       Electronic filing of all reports required to be filed with 
     the FEC would be mandatory, with a waiver permitted for 
     candidates or other entities whose total expenditures or 
     receipts fall below a threshold amount set by the Commission. 
     The requirement for the submission of hard (paper) copies of 
     such reports would be continued.
       The Commission would be authorized to conduct random audits 
     and investigations in order to increase voluntary compliance 
     with campaign finance laws.
       The FEC would be authorized to seek court enforcement when 
     the Commission believes a substantial violation is occurring, 
     failure to act will result in ``irreparable harm'' to an 
     affected party, expeditious action will not cause ``undue 
     harm'' to the interests of other parties, and the public 
     interest would best be served by the issuance of an 
     injunction.
       The Commission would be authorized to implement expedited 
     procedures for complaints filed within 60 days of a general 
     election.
       Penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act would be increased.
       The Commission would be expressly granted independent 
     litigating authority, including before the Supreme Court.
       Private individuals or groups would be authorized to 
     independently seek court enforcement when the FCC fails to 
     act within 120 days of when a complaint is filed. A ``loser 
     pays'' standard would apply in such proceedings.
       The Commission would be authorized to levy fines, not to 
     exceed $5,000, for minor reporting violations, and to publish 
     a schedule for fines for such violations.
       Candidates for the Senate would be required to file with 
     the FEC rather than the Secretary of the Senate.
       C. The FEC would be provided with resources in the 
     following manner:
       Consistent with its expanded duties, the FEC would be 
     authorized to receive $50 million in FY2000 and FY2001, with 
     this amount indexed for inflation thereafter.
       The funding would be derived from a ``user fee'' imposed on 
     federal candidate and party committees. The FEC would 
     establish a fee schedule and determine the requisite fee 
     level to fund the operations of the FEC and the new Advisory 
     Committee on Federal Campaign Reform. This determination will 
     include a waiver for the first $50,000 raised by campaigns.


           ii. advisory committee on federal campaign reform

       A. A new Advisory Committee on Federal Campaign Reform 
     would be created.
       B. The Committee would be composed of 9 members, who are 
     specially qualified to serve on the Committee by reason of 
     relevant knowledge, to be appointed as follows: 1 appointed 
     by the President of the United States, 1 appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House, 1 each appointed by the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, 1 appointed by 
     the Supreme Court, 1 appointed by the Reform Party (or 
     whatever third party's candidate for President received the 
     largest number of popular votes in the most recent 
     Presidential election), and 1 appointed by the American 
     Political Science Association. Committee members would elect 
     the Chairman.
       C. Committee members would each serve four-year terms, and 
     would be limited to two consecutive terms.
       D. The appointees by the Supreme Court, the Reform Party 
     (or other third party), and the American Political Science 
     Association must be individuals who, during the five years 
     before their appointment, have not held elective office as a 
     member of the Democratic or Republican Parties, have not 
     received any wages or salaries from the Democratic or 
     Republican Parties, or have not provided substantial 
     volunteer services or made any substantial contribution to 
     the Democratic or Republican Parties, or to a Democratic or 
     Republican party public office-holder or candidate for 
     office.
       E. Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for 
     appointment to the Committee) is defined to include:
       A higher education degree in government, politics, or 
     public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant 
     work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
       A minimum of two years experience in working on or in 
     relation to national campaign finance or other electoral 
     issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
       F. The Committee would be authorized to spend $1 million a 
     year in its first year, indexed for inflation thereafter. 
     Funding would be provided by the new campaign user fee 
     discussed above.
       G. The Committee would be required to monitor the operation 
     of federal election laws and to submit a report, including 
     recommended changes in law, to Congress by April 15 of every 
     odd numbered year.
       H. Congress would be required to consider the Committee's 
     recommendations under ``fast track'' procedures to guarantee 
     expeditious consideration in both houses of Congress.

[[Page S2114]]

               iii. enhanced campaign finance disclosure

       A. Campaign would be prohibited from putting contributions 
     which lack all requisite contributor information into any 
     account other than an escrow account from which money cannot 
     be spent. Contributions placed in such an account would not 
     be subject to the current ten-day maximum holding period on 
     checks.
       B. A new requirement would be placed on contributions in 
     excess of $200 (aggregate): a written certification by the 
     contributor that the contribution is not derived from any 
     foreign income source, and is not the result of a 
     reimbursement by another party.
       C. The current option to file reports submitted by 
     registered or certified mail based on postmark date would be 
     deleted, thus requiring all reports to be filed by the due 
     date of the report.
       D. Authorized candidate committee reports would be required 
     to be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a 
     calendar year cycle.
       E. Monthly reporting would be mandated for multi candidate 
     committees which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising 
     or spending, in excess of $100,000 in the current election 
     cycle.
       F. The requirement for filing of last-minute independent 
     expenditures would be clarified to make clear that such 
     report must be received within 24 hours after the independent 
     expenditure is made.
       G. Campaign disbursements to secondary payees who are 
     independent subcontractors would have to be reported.
       H. Political committees, other than authorized candidate 
     committees, which have received or spent, or anticipate 
     receiving or spending, $100,000 or more in the current 
     election cycle would be subjected to the same ``last minute'' 
     contribution reporting requirements as candidate committees. 
     (Under current law, all contributions of $1,000 or more 
     received after the 205th day, but before 48 hours, before an 
     election must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours.)
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 506. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the provisions which allow nonrefundable personal 
credits to be fully allowed against regular tax liability; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  THE WORKING FAMILIES TAX RELIEF ACT

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
ensure that middle income working families receive the tax credits that 
Congress intended for them.
  There are many absurdities in our tax code, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to reform and simplify our entire tax 
system. Today, however, I offer a small first step toward making our 
tax laws sensible. The legislation I am introducing will protect 
millions of working families by allowing taxpayers to deduct their 
nonrefundable personal credits without having to include those credits 
in any determination of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) liability. Tax 
laws created to deal with wealthy folks who overuse tax shelters simply 
should not apply to middle income families. This legislation is 
necessary, and it will actually remove language from the tax code 
making it more simple and more user friendly.
  Imagine for a moment two working parents in Arkansas making $33,800. 
They work hard to spread their incomes far enough to pay their mortgage 
and care for their two school-age children and one in college. It may 
surprise you to know that this family falls under a tax burden that was 
created to ensure that the very wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. 
This family would have to pay the AMT.
  While the threshold income limits of the AMT have been set since 
1986, incomes have slowly crept up due to inflation. This, coupled with 
the inclusion of family tax credits in AMT liability determination, has 
led to the ironic situation that my legislation seeks to correct. The 
Alternative Minimum Tax must be changed so that a family will not be 
strapped with an added tax burden simply because they choose to have 
children or educate them.
  Not only must we change the AMT, we must change it permanently. Last 
year, Congress provided a one year provision which removed the 
nonrefundable personal credits from AMT liability determination. I was 
pleased to see the President extend this provision for two more years 
in his budget. But we need to fix this problem permanently rather than 
using a band-aid approach of year-to-year alterations.
  The AMT is a looming peril for a massive number of middle-income 
Americans. Two Treasury Department economists recently projected that 
the number of households earning from $30,000 to $50,000 that are 
subjected to the AMT will more than triple in the coming decade. 
Because the individual AMT parameters are not indexed for inflation, 
2.8 million taxpayers will completely lose these important family 
credits by 2008. On top of this injustice, many unwitting taxpayers 
will owe penalties and interest on underpaid taxes. Such a situation 
cannot be allowed to exist. While Congress must soon address the issue 
of indexing the AMT for inflation, permanently removing the 
nonrefundable personal credits from the reach of the AMT is the first 
step to ensuring that America's middle-income taxpayers will receive 
the financial relief they deserve while avoiding the confusion and 
frustration of year-to-year tax legislation.
  American families were given a child tax credit to help them raise 
their kids. Education credits were created to help make a college 
education more affordable for all Americans. These tax credits are good 
for families. They are important to working people and they are great 
for the long term future of our economy. As our law currently stands, 
however, many middle-income families will not be able to use these 
credits because they will be either totally eliminated or significantly 
reduced by the AMT. The education and child credits are not, however, 
the only credits that stand to be voided by the growing menace of the 
AMT. People who bring children into their homes will lose the value of 
the adoption credit. The credit for the elderly and the disabled will 
lose its value, and the dependant care credit will be effectively 
canceled by the AMT. This is absurd and the problem must be rectified.
  I would like to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senate Moynihan, and his very capable staffer, Stan Fendley, for 
working with me on this legislation. And I'd like to thank Senators 
Moynihan, Cochran, Breaux, Kerrey, and Landrieu for signing on as 
original co-sponsors. I encourage our colleagues to join us in this 
common sense approach to helping working families.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in 
the Record with these comments as well as the January 10, 1999 New York 
Times article by David Cay Johnston titled ``Funny, They Don't Look 
Like Fat Cats.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 506

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS FULLY ALLOWED 
                   AGAINST REGULAR TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 26(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to limitation based on amount of tax) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate 
     amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable 
     year shall not exceed the taxpayer's regular tax liability 
     for the taxable year.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 24(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraphs (2) 
     and by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1999]

                  Funny, They Don't Look Like Fat Cats

                        (By David Cay Johnston)

       Three decades ago, Congress, embarrassed by the disclosure 
     that 155 wealthy Americans had paid no Federal income taxes, 
     enacted legislation aimed at preventing the very rich from 
     shielding their wealth in tax shelters.
       Today, that legislation, creating the alternative minimum 
     tax, is instead snaring a rapidly growing number of middle-
     class taxpayers, forcing them to pay additional tax or to 
     lose some of their tax breaks.
       Of the more than two million taxpayers who will be subject 
     this year to the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., about 
     half have incomes of $30,000 to $100,000. Some are single 
     parents with jobs; some are people making as little as $527 a 
     week. Over all, the number of people affected by the tax is 
     expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade.
       But many of the wealthy will not be among them. Even with 
     the A.M.T., the number of taxpayers making more than $200,000 
     who pay no taxes has risen to more than 2,000 each year.
       How a 1969 law aimed at the tax-shy rich became a growing 
     burden on moderate earners illustrates how tax policy in 
     Washington can be a fall of mirrors.

[[Page S2115]]

       While some Republican Congressmen favor eliminating the 
     tax, other lawmakers say such a move would be an expensive 
     tax break for the wealthy--or at lest would be perceived that 
     way, and thus would be politically unpalatable. And any 
     overhaul of the system would need to compensate for the $6.6 
     billion that individuals now pay under the A.M.T. This year, 
     such payments will account for almost 1 percent of all 
     individual income tax revenue.
       ``This is a classic case of both Congress and the 
     Administration agreeing that the tax doesn't make much sense, 
     but not being able to agree on doing anything about it,'' 
     said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban 
     Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
       Mr. Steuerle was a Treasury Department tax official in 
     1986, when an overhaul of the tax code set the stage for 
     drawing the middle class into the A.M.T.
       In eliminating most tax shelters for the wealthy, Congress 
     decided to treat exemptions for children and deductions for 
     medical expenses just like special credits for investors in 
     oil wells, in they cut too deeply into a household's taxable 
     income.
       Congress decided that once these ``tax preferences'' 
     exceeded certain amounts--$40,000 for a married couple, for 
     example--people would be moved out of the regular income tax 
     and into the alternative minimum tax. At the time, the 
     threshold was high enough to affect virtually no one but the 
     rich. But it has since been raised only once--by 12.5 
     percent, to $45,000 for a married couple--while the cost of 
     living has risen 43 percent. And so the limits have sneaked 
     up on growing numbers of taxpayers of more modest means.
       ``Everyone knew back then that it had problems that had to 
     be fixed,'' Mr. Steuerle recalled. ``They just said, `next 
     year.' ''
       But ``next year'' has never come--and it is unlikely to 
     arrive in 1999, either. While tax policy experts have known 
     for years that the middle class would be drawn into the 
     A.M.T., few taxpayers have been clamoring for change.
       Among those few, however, are David and Margaret Klaassen 
     of Marquette, Kan. Mr. Klaassen, a lawyer who lives and works 
     out of a farmhouse, made $89,751.07 in 1997 and paid $5,989 
     in Federal income taxes. Four weeks ago, the Internal Revenue 
     Service sent the Klaassens a notice demanding $3,761 more 
     under the alternative minimum tax, including a penalty 
     because the I.R.S. said the Klaassens knew they owed the 
     A.M.T.
       Mr. Klaassen acknowledges that he knew the I.R.S. would 
     assert that he was subject to the A.M.T., but he says the law 
     was not meant to apply to his family. ``I've never invested 
     in a tax shelter,'' he said. ``I don't even have municipal 
     bonds.''
       The Klaassens do, however, have 13 children and their 
     attendant medical expenses--including the costs of caring for 
     their second son, Aaron, 17, who has battled leukemia for 
     years. It was those exemptions and deductions that subjected 
     them to the A.M.T.
       ``What kind of policy taxes you for spending money to save 
     your child's life?'' Mr. Klaassen asked.
       The tax affects taxpayers in three ways. Some, like the 
     Klaassens, pay the tax at either a 26 percent or a 28 percent 
     rate because they have more than $45,000 in exemptions and 
     deductions. Others do not pay the A.M.T. itself, but they 
     cannot take the full tax breaks they would have received 
     under the regular income tax system without running up 
     against limits set by the A.M.T. The A.M.T. can also convert 
     tax-exempt income from certain bonds and from exercising 
     incentive stock options into taxable income.
       It may be useful to think of the alternative minimum tax as 
     a parallel universe to the regular income tax system, similar 
     in some ways but more complex and with its own 
     classifications of deductions, its own rates and its own 
     paperwork. The idea was that taxpayers who had escaped the 
     regular tax universe by piling on credits and deductions 
     would enter this new universe to pay their fair share. 
     (Likewise, there is a corporate A.M.T. that parallels the 
     corporate income tax.)
       At first, the burden of the A.M.T. fell mainly on the 
     shoulders of business owners and investors, said Robert S. 
     McIntyre, executive director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a 
     nonprofit group in Washington that says the tax system favors 
     the rich. Based on I.R.S. data, Mr. McIntyre said he found 
     that 37 percent of A.M.T. revenue in 1990 was a result of 
     business owners using losses from previous years to reduce 
     their regular income taxes; an additional 18 percent was 
     because of big deductions for state and local taxes.
       But that has begun to shift, largely as a result of the 
     1986 changes, which eliminated most tax shelters and lowered 
     tax rates.
       When President Reagan and Congress were overhauling the tax 
     code, they could not make the projected revenues under the 
     new rules equal those under the old system. Huge, and 
     growing, budget deficits made it politically essential for 
     the official estimates to show that after tax reform, the 
     same amount of money would flow to Washington.
       One solution, said Mr. Steuerle, the former Treasury 
     official, was to count personal and dependent exemptions and 
     some medical expenses as preferences to be reduced or ignored 
     under the A.M.T., just as special credits for petroleum 
     investments and other tax shelters are.
       Mortgage interest and charitable gifts were not counted as 
     preferences, according to tax policy experts who worked on 
     the legislation, because they generated more money than was 
     needed.
       But the A.M.T. has not stayed ``revenue neutral,'' in 
     Washington parlance.
       The regular income tax was indexed for inflation in 1984, 
     so that taxpayers would not get pushed into higher tax 
     brackets simply because their income kept pace with the cost 
     of living.
       The A.M.T. limits, however, have not been indexed. The 
     total allowable exemptions before the tax kicks in have been 
     fixed since 1993 at $45,000 for a married couple filing 
     jointly. For unmarried people, the total amount is now 
     $33,750, and for married people filing separately, it is 
     $22,500.
       If the limit had been indexed since 1986, when the A.M.T. 
     was overhauled, it would be about $57,000 for married couples 
     filing jointly--and most middle-income households would still 
     be exempt.
       Mr. Steuerle said he warned at the time that including 
     ``normal, routine deductions and exemptions that everyone 
     takes'' in the list of preferences would eventually turn the 
     A.M.T. into a tax on the middle class.
       That appears to be exactly what has happened.
       For example, a married person who makes just $527 a week 
     and files her tax return separately can be subject to the 
     tax, said David S. Hulse, an assistant professor of 
     accounting at the University of Kentucky.
       And the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which allows a $500-a-
     child tax credit as well as education credits, may make even 
     more middle-class families subject to the A.M.T. by reducing 
     the value of those credits.
       Two Treasury Department economists recently calculated that 
     largely because of the new credits, the number of households 
     making $30,000 to $50,000 who must pay the alternative 
     minimum tax will more than triple in the coming decade. The 
     economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski, also 
     calculated that for households making $15,000 to $30,000 
     annually, A.M.T. payments will grow 25-fold, to $1.2 billion, 
     by 2008.
       Last year, many more people would have been subject to the 
     A.M.T. if Congress had not made a last-minute fix pushed by 
     Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, 
     that--for 1998 only--exempted the new child and education 
     credits. The move came after I.R.S. officials told Congress 
     that the credits added enormous complexity to calculating tax 
     liability. Figuring out how much the A.M.T. would reduce the 
     credits was beyond the capacity of most taxpayers and even 
     many paid tax preparers, the I.R.S. officials said.
       EVEN if Congress makes a permanent fix to the problems 
     created by the child and education credits, it will put only 
     a minor drag on the spread of the A.M.T. as long as the tax 
     is not indexed for inflation. The two Treasury economists 
     calculated that revenues from the tax would climb to $25 
     billion in 2008 without a fix, or to $21.9 billion with one.
       In 1999, if there is no exemption for the credits, a single 
     parent who does not itemize deductions but who makes $50,000 
     and takes a credit for the costs of caring for two children 
     while he works, will be subject to the A.M.T., estimated 
     Jeffrey Pretsfelder, an editor at RIA Group, a publisher of 
     tax information for professionals.
       If the tax laws are not changed, 8.8 million taxpayers will 
     have to pay the A.M.T. a decade from now, the Congressional 
     Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last month. Add in the 
     taxpayers who will not receive the full value of their 
     deductions because they run up against the limits set by the 
     A.M.T., and the total grows to 11.6 million taxpayers--92 
     percent of whom have incomes of less than $200,000, the two 
     Treasury economists estimated.
       While many lawmakers and Treasury officials have criticized 
     the impact of the tax on middle-class taxpayers, there are 
     few signs of change, as Republicans and the Administration 
     talk past each others.
       Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who as the 
     chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is the chief 
     tax writer, said the A.M.T. should be eliminated in the next 
     budget.
       ``Unfortunately, the A.M.T. tax can penalize large 
     families, which is part of the reason why Republicans for 
     years have tried to eliminate it or at least reduce it,'' Mr. 
     Archer said. ``Unfortunately, President Clinton blocked our 
     efforts each time.''
       Lawrence H. Summers, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, said 
     the Administration was ``very concerned that the A.M.T. has a 
     growing impact on middle-class families, including by 
     diluting the child credit, education credits and other 
     crucial tax benefits, and we hope to address this issue in 
     the President's budget.
       ``Subject to budget constraints, we look forward to working 
     with Congress on this important issue,'' he continued.
       That revenue concerns have thwarted exempting the middle 
     class runs counter to the reason Congress initially imposed 
     the tax.
       ``You need an A.M.T. because people who make a lot of money 
     should pay some income taxes,'' said Mr. McIntrye, of 
     Citizens for Tax Justice. ``If you believe, like Mr. Archer 
     and a lot of Republicans do, that the more you make the less 
     in taxes you should pay, then of course you are against the 
     A.M.T. But somehow I don't think some people see it that 
     way.''
       The Klaassens, meanwhile, are challenging the A.M.T. in 
     Federal Court. The United

[[Page S2116]]

     States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is scheduled to 
     hear arguments in March on their claim that the tax infringes 
     their religious freedom. The Klaassens, who are 
     Presbyterians, said they believe children ``are a blessing 
     from God, and so we do not practice birth control,'' Mr. 
     Klaassen said.
       When Mr. Klaassen wrote to an I.R.S. official complaining 
     that a $1,085 bill for the A.M.T. for 1994 resulted from the 
     size of his family, he got back a curt letter saying that his 
     ``analysis of the alternative minimum tax's effect on large 
     families was interesting but inappropriate'' and advising him 
     that it was medical deductions, not family size, that 
     subjected him to the A.M.T.
       Under the regular tax system, medical expenses above 7.5 
     percent of adjusted gross income--the last line on the front 
     page of Form 1040--are deductible. Under the A.M.T., the 
     threshold is raised to 10 percent.
       Still doubting the I.S.R.'s math, Mr. Klaassen decided to 
     test what would have happened had he filed the same tax 
     return, changing only the number of children he claimed as 
     dependents. He found that if he has seven or fewer children, 
     the A.M.T. would not have applied in 1994.
       But the eighth child set off the A.M.T., at a cost of $223. 
     Having nine children raised the bill to $717. And 10 
     children, the number he had in 1994, increased that sum to 
     $1,085--the amount the I.R.S. said was due.
       ``We love this country and we believe in paying taxes,'' 
     Mr. Klaassen said. ``But we cannot believe that Congress ever 
     intended to apply this tax to our family solely because of 
     how many children we  choose to have. And I have shown that 
     we are subject to the AMT solely because we have chosen 
     not to limit the size of our family.''
       The IRS, in papers opposing the Klaassens, noted that tax 
     deductions are not a right but a matter of ``legislative 
     grace.''
       Mr. Klaassen turned to the Federal courts after losing in 
     Tax court. The opinion by Tax Court Judge Robert N. Armen Jr. 
     was summed up this way by Tax Notes, a magazine that 
     critiques tax policy: ``Congress intended the alternative 
     minimum tax to affect large families when it made personal 
     exemptions a preference item.''
       Several tax experts said that Mr. Klaassen had little 
     chance of success in the courts because the statute treating 
     children as tax preferences was clear. They also said that 
     nothing in the AMT laws was specifically aimed at his 
     religious beliefs.
       Meanwhile, for people who make $200,000 or more, the AMT 
     will be less of a burden this year because of the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997, which included a provision lowering the 
     maximum tax rate on capital gains for both the regular tax 
     and the AMT to 20 percent.
       Mr. Rebelein and Mr. Tempalski, the Treasury Department 
     economists, calculated recently that people making more than 
     $200,000 would pay a total of 4 percent less in AMT for 1998 
     because of the 1997 law. By 2008, their savings will be 9 
     percent, largely as a result of lower capital gains rates and 
     changed accounting rules for business owners.
       ``This law was passed to catch people who use tax shelters 
     to avoid their obligations,'' Mr. Klaassen said. ``But 
     instead of catching them it hits people like me. This is just 
     nuts.''


                three ways to deal with a taxing problem

       President Clinton, his tax policy advisers and the 
     Republicans who control the tax writing committees in 
     Congress all agree that the alternative minimum tax is a 
     growing problem for the middle class. But there is no 
     agreement on what to do. Here are some options that have been 
     discussed.
       Raise the exemption--Representative Bill Archer, the Texas 
     Republican who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means 
     Committee, two years ago proposed raising the $45,000 AMT 
     exemption for a married couple by $1,000. But that would 
     leave many middle-class families subject to the tax, because 
     it would not fully account for inflation. To do that would 
     require an exemption of about $57,000, followed by automatic 
     inflation adjustments. That is the most widely favored 
     approach, drawing support from people like J.D. Foster, 
     executive director of the Tax Foundation, a group supported 
     by corporations, and Robert S. McIntyre, executive director 
     of Citizens for Tax Justice, which is financed in part by 
     unions and contends that the tax system favors the rich.
       Exempt child and education credits--For 1998 only, Congress 
     exempted the child tax credit and the education tax credits 
     from the AMT. But millions of taxpayers will lose these 
     credits, or get only part of them, unless Congress makes a 
     fix each year or permanently exempts them.
       Eliminate it--Mr. Archer and other Republicans want to get 
     rid of the AMT but have not proposed how to make up for the 
     lost revenue, which in a decade is expected to grow to $25 
     billion annually. Recently, however, Mr. Archer has said that 
     in a period of Federal budget surpluses, it may be time to 
     scrap the budget rules that require paying for tax cuts with 
     reduced spending or tax increases elsewhere.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Bennett, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 507. A bill 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; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


              the water resources development act of 1999

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today 
legislation to reauthorize the civil works mission of the Corps of 
Engineers.
  I am joined today by the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and 
Pubic Works, Senator Chafee; the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator 
Baucus; the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Senator Voinovich; Senator Bennett, Senator Lautenberg, 
and Senator Boxer in cosponsoring this legislation.
  Since 1986, it has been the policy and practice of the Congress to 
reauthorize Corps of Engineers civil works activities--projects for 
flood control, navigation, hurricane protection and erosion control, 
and environmental restoration--on a two-year cycle. Last year, the 
Senate passed S. 2131 by unanimous consent. Regrettably, the House was 
unable to consider companion legislation.
  In an effort to keep these critically needed projects on schedule, I 
am pleased that the Chairman Chafee and Majority Leader Lott have 
indicated their strong support for promptly considering this bill this 
year. The bill I am introducing today mirrors S. 2131 passed last year 
with updated cost estimates and project revisions provided by the Corps 
of Engineers.
  This legislation authorizes the construction of 37 new flood control, 
navigation, environmental restoration, hurricane protection and 
shoreline erosion control and recreation projects. It modifies 43 
previously authorized projects and calls on the Corps of Engineers to 
conduct 29 studies to determine the economic justification of future 
water resource projects.
  Mr. President, the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
established the principle of cost-sharing of economically justified 
projects that have a federal interest. Local interests are required to 
share 35 percent of the cost of construction of flood control and 
hurricane protection and shoreline erosion control projects. The non-
federal financial requirements for navigation projects depend on the 
depth of the project and range from 25 percent to 50 percent of the 
cost of construction.
  The legislation we are introducing today is consistent with the cost 
sharing provisions of prior water resource laws. Also, the Committee 
has been consistent in requiring that every new construction project 
receive a cmpleted project report by the Chief of Engineers before it 
is included in this legislation.
  As the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I commend Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus for 
standing firm in support of these cost-sharing and economic benefits 
tests. These policies have proven effective in authorizing projects 
that are worthy of federal investment and have the strong support of 
local sponsors. No other approach has been more effective in weeding 
out questionable projects than requiring either a state or the local 
government to contribute to the cost of engineering, design and 
construction of a project.
  I am pleased that this financial commitments from local sponsors, 
that have been thoroughly evaluated and received a report from the 
Chief of Engineers, and have demonstrated that the economic benefits to 
be achieved by the project exceed the federal costs.
  These fundamental requirements are applied to each project and only 
those that meet all of these tests are included in this legislation.
  Mr. President, this legislation is critically important to many 
communities who have already contributed significant resources to 
prepare these projects for authorization. There is ample evidence to 
confirm that the federal investment in water resource projects is a 
wise investment of taxpayer dollars. In 1997 alone, Corps flood control 
projects prevented approximately $45.2 billion in damages. The 
continued maintenance and deepening of our commercial waterways remains 
critical to the U.S. successfully competing in a one-world marketplace. 
The value of commerce on these waterways

[[Page S2117]]

totaled over $600 billion in 1996, generating 15.9 million jobs.
  It is important for the Committee to enact this bill prior to the 
appropriations cycle this year. I pledge to work with my colleagues so 
that the full Senate can soon consider this bill.
  At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 507

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Project modifications.
Sec. 103. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 104. Studies.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Flood hazard mitigation and riverine ecosystem restoration 
              program.
Sec. 202. Shore protection.
Sec. 203. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 204. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating 
              information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 205. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 206. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 207. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 208. Voluntary contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 209. Recreation user fees.
Sec. 210. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 211. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 212. Outer Continental Shelf.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 214. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included in benefit-
              cost analysis.
Sec. 215. Control of aquatic plant growth.
Sec. 216. Environmental infrastructure.
Sec. 217. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 218. Lakes program.
Sec. 219. Sediments decontamination policy.
Sec. 220. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
Sec. 221. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 222. Reimbursement of non-Federal interest.
Sec. 223. National Contaminated Sediment Task Force.
Sec. 224. Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 225. Projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 226. Water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish and 
              wildlife, flood control, and navigation.
Sec. 227. Irrigation diversion protection and fisheries enhancement 
              assistance.
Sec. 228. Small storm damage reduction projects.
Sec. 229. Shore damage prevention or mitigation.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island.
Sec. 302. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 303. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 304. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 305. Streambank protection projects.
Sec. 306. Aquatic ecosystem restoration, Springfield, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 308. Francis Bland Floodway Ditch.
Sec. 309. Caloosahatchee River basin, Florida.
Sec. 310. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation.
Sec. 311. City of Miami Beach, Florida.
Sec. 312. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 313. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois waterway system 
              navigation modernization.
Sec. 314. Upper Mississippi River management.
Sec. 315. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake 
              Rivers salmon survival.
Sec. 316. Nine Mile Run habitat restoration, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 317. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 318. Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System.
Sec. 319. Study regarding innovative financing for small and medium-
              sized ports.
Sec. 320. Candy Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma.
Sec. 321. Salcha River and Piledriver Slough, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sec. 322. Eyak River, Cordova, Alaska.
Sec. 323. North Padre Island storm damage reduction and environmental 
              restoration project.
Sec. 324. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 325. New York City watershed.
Sec. 326. City of Charlevoix reimbursement, Michigan.
Sec. 327. Hamilton Dam flood control project, Michigan.
Sec. 328. Holes Creek flood control project, Ohio.
Sec. 329. Overflow management facility, Rhode Island.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects 
     for water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to 
     the conditions, described in the respective reports 
     designated in this section:
       (1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $4,796,000.
       (2) Rio salado (salt river), arizona.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Rio Salado (Salt River), Arizona: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $56,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
       (3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, 
     Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of $29,900,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
       (4) American river watershed, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction 
     described as the Folsom Stepped Release Plan in the Corps of 
     Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the American 
     River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a 
     total cost of $505,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $329,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $176,100,000.
       (B) Implementation.--
       (i) In general.--Implementation of the measures by the 
     Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be undertaken 
     after completion of the levee stabilization and strengthening 
     and flood warning features authorized by section 101(a)(1) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).
       (ii) Folsom dam and reservoir.--The Secretary may undertake 
     measures at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir authorized under 
     subparagraph (A) only after reviewing the design of such 
     measures to determine if modifications are necessary to 
     account for changed hydrologic conditions and any other 
     changed conditions in the project area, including operational 
     and construction impacts that have occurred since completion 
     of the report referred to in subparagraph (A). The Secretary 
     shall conduct the review and develop the modifications to the 
     Folsom Dam and Reservoir with the full participation of the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (iii) Remaining downstream elements.--

       (I) In general.--Implementation of the remaining downstream 
     elements authorized pursuant to subparagraph (A) may be 
     undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with 
     affected Federal, State, regional, and local entities, has 
     reviewed the elements to determine if modifications are 
     necessary to address changes in the hydrologic conditions, 
     any other changed conditions in the project area that have 
     occurred since completion of the report referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) and any design modifications for the Folsom 
     Dam and Reservoir made by the Secretary in implementing the 
     measures referred to in clause (ii), and has issued a report 
     on the review.
       (II) Principles and guidelines.--The review shall be 
     prepared in accordance with the economic and environmental 
     principles and guidelines for water and related land 
     resources implementation studies, and no construction may be 
     initiated unless the Secretary determines that the remaining 
     downstream elements are technically sound, environmentally 
     acceptable, and economically justified.

       (5) Llagas creek, california.--The project for completion 
     of the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service flood control project at Llagas Creek, 
     California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed 
     Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), 
     substantially in accordance with the requirements of local 
     cooperation as specified in section 4 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1004) at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     share of $23,200,000.
       (6) South sacramento county streams, california.--The 
     project for flood control, environmental restoration, and 
     recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
       (7) Upper guadalupe river, california.--Construction of the 
     locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction and 
     recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as 
     the Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     August 19, 1998, at a total

[[Page S2118]]

     cost of $137,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $93,600,000.
       (8) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost 
     of $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
       (9) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
     broadkill beach, delaware.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction and shore protection, Delaware Bay coastline: 
     Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware, Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost 
     of $9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $538,200, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $349,800 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $188,400.
       (10) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-port 
     mahon, delaware.--
       (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration and 
     shore protection, Delaware Bay coastline: Delaware and New 
     Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated September 28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $2,675,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $234,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $82,000.
       (11) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery 
     project, florida.--The project for aquifer storage and 
     recovery described in the Corps of Engineers Central and 
     Southern Florida Water Supply Study, Florida, dated April 
     1989, and in House Document 369, dated July 30, 1968, at a 
     total cost of $27,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $13,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000.
       (12) Indian river county, florida.--Notwithstanding section 
     1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 579a(a)), the project for shoreline protection, Indian 
     River County, Florida, authorized by section 501(a) of that 
     Act (100 Stat. 4134), shall remain authorized for 
     construction through December 31, 2002.
       (13) Lido key beach, sarasota, florida.--
       (A) In general.--The project for shore protection at Lido 
     Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and 
     deauthorized by operation of section 1001(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), is 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary at a total cost 
     of $5,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,380,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,820,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $602,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $391,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $211,000.
       (14) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project 
     for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $12,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,121,000.
       (15) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for 
     navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $50,717,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $32,966,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.
       (16) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $11,172,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,262,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,910,000.
       (17) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana, east baton 
     rouge parish watershed.--The project for flood damage 
     reduction and recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, 
     Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1996, at a total cost 
     of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $73,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.
       (18) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and 
     virginia.--The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor 
     Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000.
       (19) Red lake river at crookston, minnesota.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Red Lake River at Crookston, 
     Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 
     1998, at a total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $3,230,000.
       (20) New jersey shore protection, townsends inlet to cape 
     may inlet, new jersey.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, ecosystem restoration, and shore protection, New 
     Jersey coastline, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New 
     Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 
     1998, at a total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $19,776,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $2,000,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
     of $700,000.
       (21) Park river, north dakota.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the condition stated in 
     subparagraph (B), the project for flood control, Park River, 
     Grafton, North Dakota, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and 
     deauthorized under section 1001(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), at a total cost of 
     $28,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $18,265,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,835,000.
       (B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the 
     Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report 
     using current data, that the project is technically sound, 
     environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
       (22) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood 
     control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt 
     Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,520,000.
       (b) Projects Subject to a Final Report.--The following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions recommended in a final report of 
     the Chief of Engineers as approved by the Secretary, if the 
     report of the Chief is completed not later than December 31, 
     1999:
       (1) Nome harbor improvements, alaska.--The project for 
     navigation, Nome Harbor Improvements, Alaska, at a total cost 
     of $24,608,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of 
     $19,660,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of 
     $4,948,000.
       (2) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with 
     an estimated first Federal cost of $4,364,000 and an 
     estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,876,000.
       (3) Hamilton airfield wetland restoration, california.--The 
     project for environmental restoration at Hamilton Airfield, 
     California, at a total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $13,800,000.
       (4) Oakland, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation and 
     environmental restoration, Oakland, California, at a total 
     cost of $214,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $143,450,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $70,890,000.
       (B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The 
     non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other 
     local service facilities necessary for the project at an 
     estimated cost of $42,310,000.
       (5) Delaware bay coastline: delaware and new jersey-
     roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation mitigation, 
     shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     Delaware Bay coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt 
     Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $3,393,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $773,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $196,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $44,000.
       (6) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, 
     bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction and shore protection, Delaware Coast from Cape 
     Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany 
     Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,772,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $1,584,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
     of $554,000.
       (7) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--The project for 
     navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, at a total cost of 
     $26,116,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,129,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,987,000.
       (8) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The 
     project for hurricane and storm damage prevention and shore 
     protection, Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a 
     total cost of $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $3,839,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
       (9) Ponce de leon inlet, volusia county, florida.--The 
     project for navigation and recreation, Ponce de Leon Inlet, 
     Volusia County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $2,466,000.

[[Page S2119]]

       (10) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     may carry out the project for navigation, Savannah Harbor 
     expansion, Georgia, substantially in accordance with the 
     plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final 
     report of the Chief of Engineers, with such modifications as 
     the Secretary deems appropriate, at a total cost of 
     $230,174,000 (of which amount a portion is authorized for 
     implementation of the mitigation plan), with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $85,014,000.
       (B) Conditions.--The project authorized by subparagraph (A) 
     may be carried out only after--
       (i) the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, 
     State, regional, and local entities, has reviewed and 
     approved an Environmental Impact Statement that includes--

       (I) an analysis of the impacts of project depth 
     alternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48 feet; and
       (II) a selected plan for navigation and associated 
     mitigation plan as required by section 906(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); and

       (ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, with the Secretary, have approved the 
     selected plan and have determined that the mitigation plan 
     adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 
     the project.
       (C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan shall be 
     implemented in advance of or concurrently with construction 
     of the project.
       (11) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri and kansas 
     city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey 
     Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas, 
     at a total cost of $42,875,000 with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $17,279,000.
       (12) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation mitigation, 
     ecosystem restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May 
     Point, New Jersey, at a total cost of $15,952,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,834,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $1,114,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $897,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $217,000.
       (13) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great 
     egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction and shore protection, New Jersey Shore protection, 
     Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island, New 
     Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $1,740,000.
       (B) Periodic nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is 
     authorized for a 50-year period at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $465,000, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $163,000.
       (14) Memphis harbor, memphis, tennessee.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the project 
     for navigation, Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee, 
     authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized 
     under section 1001(a) of that Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)) is 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
       (B) Condition.--No construction may be initiated unless the 
     Secretary determines through a general reevaluation report 
     using current data, that the project is technically sound, 
     environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
       (15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water 
     supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, 
     Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $38,700,000.

     SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Reports.--
       (1) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for flood 
     control, San Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 
     101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3663), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     include as a part of the project streambank erosion control 
     measures to be undertaken substantially in accordance with 
     the report entitled ``Bank Stabilization Concept, Laurel 
     Street Extension'', dated April 23, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
       (2) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The project for 
     flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska, authorized 
     by section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to construct the project in accordance with the 
     Corps of Engineers report dated June 29, 1998, at a total 
     cost of $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $9,730,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.
       (3) Absecon island, new jersey.--The project for Absecon 
     Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668) is 
     amended to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-
     Federal interests for all work performed, consistent with the 
     authorized project.
       (4) Arthur kill, new york and new jersey.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, 
     New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and 
     modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified 
     to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
     total cost of $276,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $183,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $93,600,000.
       (B) Berthing areas and other local service facilities.--The 
     non-Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other 
     local service facilities necessary for the project at an 
     estimated cost of $38,900,000.
       (5) Waurika lake, oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.--
     The requirement for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy 
     District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs (including 
     interest) resulting from the October 1991 settlement of the 
     claim of the Travelers Insurance Company before the United 
     States Claims Court related to construction of the water 
     conveyance facilities authorized by the first section of 
     Public Law 88-253 (77 Stat. 841) is waived.
       (b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects 
     are modified as follows, except that no funds may be 
     obligated to carry out work under such modifications until 
     completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as 
     approved by the Secretary, finding that such work is 
     technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
     economically justified, as applicable:
       (1) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--
       (A) In general.--The Thornton Reservoir project, an element 
     of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, 
     Illinois, authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to include additional 
     permanent flood control storage attributable to the Thorn 
     Creek Reservoir project, Little Calumet River Watershed, 
     Illinois, approved under the Watershed Protection and Flood 
     Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (B) Cost sharing.--Costs for the Thornton Reservoir project 
     shall be shared in accordance with section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       (C) Transitional storage.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     cooperate with non-Federal interests to provide, on a 
     transitional basis, flood control storage for the Thorn Creek 
     Reservoir project in the west lobe of the Thornton quarry.
       (D) Crediting.--The Secretary may credit against the non-
     Federal share of the Thornton Reservoir project all design 
     and construction costs incurred by the non-Federal interests 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (E) Reevaluation report.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     credits authorized by subparagraph (D) that are integral to 
     the Thornton Reservoir project and the current total project 
     costs based on a limited reevaluation report.
       (2) Wells harbor, wells, maine.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Wells Harbor, 
     Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1960 (74 Stat. 480), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to realign the channel and anchorage areas based on 
     a harbor design capacity of 150 craft.
       (B) Deauthorization of certain portions.--The following 
     portions of the project are not authorized after the date of 
     enactment of this Act:
       (i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,992.00, 
     E394,831.00, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 
     seconds west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91, E394,820.68, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds west 
     991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 
     feet to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 seconds east 994.93 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (ii) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,778.07, 
     E394,336.96, thence running south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 
     seconds west 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53, E394,324.76, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds west 
     672.87 feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 
     feet to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 seconds east 684.70 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (iii) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82, 
     E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 15.7 
     seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,816.13, E394,126.26, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 
     9.98 feet to a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence running 
     north

[[Page S2120]]

     11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00 feet to the 
     point of origin.
       (iv) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04, 
     E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 
     seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 
     10.03 feet to a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence 
     running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00 
     feet to the point of origin.
       (C) Redesignations.--The following portions of the project 
     shall be redesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage:
       (i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,990.91, 
     E394,820.68, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 
     seconds west 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds west 
     962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 
     feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds east 991.76 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harbor settling basin 
     the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69, 
     E394,461.58, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 
     seconds west 299.99 feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 
     160 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (iii) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N178,102.26, 
     E394,751.83, thence running south 51 degrees 59 minutes 42.1 
     seconds west 526.51 feet to a point N177,778.07, E394,336.96, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.6 seconds west 
     511.83 feet to a point N177,277.01, E394,232.52, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 80.00 
     feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 seconds east 482.54 feet to 
     a point N177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence running north 51 
     degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 feet to a point 
     N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running north 11 degrees 46 
     minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89 feet to the point of origin.
       (D) Realignment.--The 6-foot anchorage area described in 
     subparagraph (C)(iii) shall be realigned to include the area 
     located south of the inner harbor settling basin in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act beginning at a point 
     with coordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running 
     north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to 
     a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 11 
     degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a point 
     N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31, 
     E394,547.78, thence running north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 
     seconds east 45 feet to the point of origin.
       (E) Relocation.--The Secretary may relocate the settling 
     basin feature of the project to the outer harbor between the 
     jetties.
       (3) New york harbor and adjacent channels, port jersey, new 
     jersey.--The project for navigation, New York Harbor and 
     Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey, authorized by 
     section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct the project at a total cost of $103,267,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $76,909,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $26,358,000.
       (c) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage 
     Reallocation.--The Secretary shall reallocate approximately 
     31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to 
     water supply storage at no cost to the Beaver Water District 
     or the Carroll-Boone Water District, except that at no time 
     shall the bottom of the conservation pool be at an elevation 
     that is less than 1,076 feet, NGVD.
       (d) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--The 
     project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 
     Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to straighten the Tolchester Channel S-turn as part 
     of project maintenance.
       (e) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Any Federal 
     costs associated with the Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, 
     Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), incurred by the 
     non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction of 
     the project, in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers, 
     shall be considered to be eligible for reimbursement by the 
     Secretary.
       (f) Rediversion Project, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, 
     South Carolina.--
       (1) In general.--The rediversion project, Cooper River, 
     Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 101 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and 
     modified by title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 517), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to pay the State of South Carolina 
     not more than $3,750,000, if the State enters into an 
     agreement with the Secretary providing that the State shall 
     perform all future operation of the St. Stephen, South 
     Carolina, fish lift (including associated studies to assess 
     the efficacy of the fish lift).
       (2) Contents.--The agreement shall specify the terms and 
     conditions under which payment will be made and the rights 
     of, and remedies available to, the Secretary to recover all 
     or a portion of the payment if the State suspends or 
     terminates operation of the fish lift or fails to perform the 
     operation in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (3) Maintenance.--Maintenance of the fish lift shall remain 
     a Federal responsibility.
       (g) Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas.--The project for 
     flood control and navigation, Trinity River and tributaries, 
     Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is modified to add environmental 
     restoration as a project purpose.
       (h) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection, 
     Virginia Beach, Virginia.--
       (1) Acceptance of funds.--In any fiscal year that the Corps 
     of Engineers does not receive appropriations sufficient to 
     meet expected project expenditures for that year, the 
     Secretary shall accept from the city of Virginia Beach, 
     Virginia, for purposes of the project for beach erosion 
     control and hurricane protection, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 
     authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4136), such funds as the 
     city may advance for the project.
       (2) Repayment.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary shall repay, without interest, 
     the amount of any advance made under paragraph (1), from 
     appropriations that may be provided by Congress for river and 
     harbor, flood control, shore protection, and related 
     projects.
       (i) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be 
     obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under 
     paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated 
     December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for 
     the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth 
     River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
       (j) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--The 
     Secretary may permit the non-Federal interests for the 
     project for flood control, Moorefield, West Virginia, to pay 
     without interest the remaining non-Federal cost over a period 
     not to exceed 30 years, to be determined by the Secretary.
       (k) Miami Dade Agricultural and Rural Land Retention Plan 
     and South Biscayne, Florida.--Section 528(b)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3768) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Credit and reimbursement of past and future 
     activities.--The Secretary may afford credit to or reimburse 
     the non-Federal sponsors (using funds authorized by 
     subparagraph (C)) for the reasonable costs of any work that 
     has been performed or will be performed in connection with a 
     study or activity meeting the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A) if--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that--

       ``(I) the work performed by the non-Federal sponsors will 
     substantially expedite completion of a critical restoration 
     project; and
       ``(II) the work is necessary for a critical restoration 
     project; and

       ``(ii) the credit or reimbursement is granted pursuant to a 
     project-specific agreement that prescribes the terms and 
     conditions of the credit or reimbursement.''.
       (l) Lake Michigan, Illinois.--
       (1) In general.--The project for storm damage reduction and 
     shoreline protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, 
     Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by 
     section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to provide for 
     reimbursement for additional project work undertaken by the 
     non-Federal interest.
       (2) Credit or reimbursement.--The Secretary shall credit or 
     reimburse the non-Federal interest for the Federal share of 
     project costs incurred by the non-Federal interest in 
     designing, constructing, or reconstructing reach 2F (700 feet 
     south of Fullerton Avenue and 500 feet north of Fullerton 
     Avenue), reach 3M (Meigs Field), and segments 7 and 8 of 
     reach 4 (43rd Street to 57th Street), if the non-Federal 
     interest carries out the work in accordance with plans 
     approved by the Secretary, at an estimated total cost of 
     $83,300,000.
       (3) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
     Federal interest for the Federal share of project costs 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest in reconstructing the 
     revetment structures protecting Solidarity Drive in Chicago, 
     Illinois, before the signing of the project cooperation 
     agreement, at an estimated total cost of $7,600,000.
       (m) Measurements of Lake Michigan Diversions, Illinois.--
     Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4253) is amended by striking ``$250,000 per 
     fiscal year for each fiscal year beginning after September 
     30, 1986'' and inserting ``a total of $1,250,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2003''.
       (n) Project for Navigation, Dubuque, Iowa.--The project for 
     navigation at Dubuque, Iowa, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is modified to 
     authorize the development of a

[[Page S2121]]

     wetland demonstration area of approximately 1.5 acres to be 
     developed and operated by the Dubuque County Historical 
     Society or a successor nonprofit organization.
       (o) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.--The Secretary may 
     credit against the non-Federal share work performed in the 
     project area of the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, 
     Mississippi River, Louisiana, authorized by section 401(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117).
       (p) Jackson County, Mississippi.--The project for 
     environmental infrastructure, Jackson County, Mississippi, 
     authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and modified by 
     section 504 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     provide a credit, not to exceed $5,000,000, against the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs 
     incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors since 
     February 8, 1994, in constructing the project, if the 
     Secretary determines that such costs are for work that the 
     Secretary determines was compatible with and integral to the 
     project.
       (q) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall convey to the State of South 
     Carolina all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in the parcels of land described in subparagraph (B) that are 
     currently being managed by the South Carolina Department of 
     Natural Resources for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes 
     for the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, 
     project authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1966 and 
     modified by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
       (2) Land description.--
       (A) In general.--The parcels of land to be conveyed are 
     described in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease No. DACW21-1-
     93-0910 and associated supplemental agreements or are 
     designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License No. DACW21-3-
     85-1904, excluding all designated parcels in the license that 
     are below elevation 346 feet mean sea level or that are less 
     than 300 feet measured horizontally from the top of the power 
     pool.
       (B) Management of excluded parcels.--Management of the 
     excluded parcels shall continue in accordance with the terms 
     of Army License No. DACW21-3-85-1904 until the Secretary and 
     the State enter into an agreement under subparagraph (F).
       (C) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     land shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretary, with the cost of the survey borne by the State.
       (3) Costs of conveyance.--The State shall be responsible 
     for all costs, including real estate transaction and 
     environmental compliance costs, associated with the 
     conveyance.
       (4) Perpetual status.--
       (A) In general.--All land conveyed under this paragraph 
     shall be retained in public ownership and shall be managed in 
     perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in 
     accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary.
       (B) Reversion.--If any parcel of land is not managed for 
     fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with the 
     plan, title to the parcel shall revert to the United States.
       (5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance as the Secretary considers appropriate to 
     protect the interests of the United States.
       (6) Fish and wildlife mitigation agreement.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may pay the State of South 
     Carolina not more than $4,850,000 subject to the Secretary 
     and the State entering into a binding agreement for the State 
     to manage for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in 
     perpetuity the lands conveyed under this paragraph and 
     excluded parcels designated in Exhibit A of Army License No. 
     DACW21-3-85-1904.
       (B) Failure of performance.--The agreement shall specify 
     the terms and conditions under which payment will be made and 
     the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal 
     Government to recover all or a portion of the payment if the 
     State fails to manage any parcel in a manner satisfactory to 
     the Secretary.
       (r) Land Conveyance, Clarkston, Washington.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Port of 
     Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a portion of the land described in 
     the Department of the Army lease No. DACW68-1-97-22, 
     consisting of approximately 31 acres, the exact boundaries of 
     which shall be determined by the Secretary and the Port of 
     Clarkston.
       (2) Additional land.--The Secretary may convey to the Port 
     of Clarkston, Washington, at fair market value as determined 
     by the Secretary, such additional land located in the 
     vicinity of Clarkston, Washington, as the Secretary 
     determines to be excess to the needs of the Columbia River 
     Project and appropriate for conveyance.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances made under 
     subsections (a) and (b) shall be subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     protect the interests of the United States, including a 
     requirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all administrative 
     costs associated with the conveyances, including the cost of 
     land surveys and appraisals and costs associated with 
     compliance with applicable environmental laws (including 
     regulations).
       (4) Use of land.--The Port of Clarkston shall be required 
     to pay the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, 
     of any land conveyed pursuant to subsection (a) that is not 
     retained in public ownership or is used for other than public 
     park or recreation purposes, except that the Secretary shall 
     have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to 
     any such land.
       (s) White River, Indiana.--The project for flood control, 
     Indianapolis on West Fork of the White River, Indiana, 
     authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes'', 
     approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586, chapter 688), as 
     modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations described 
     in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated 
     February 1994, for the Canal Development (Upper Canal 
     feature) and the Beveridge Paper feature, at a total cost not 
     to exceed $25,000,000, of which $12,500,000 is the estimated 
     Federal cost and $12,500,000 is the estimated non-Federal 
     cost, except that no such alterations may be undertaken 
     unless the Secretary determines that the alterations 
     authorized by this subsection, in combination with the 
     alterations undertaken under section 323 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), are 
     economically justified.
       (t) Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode 
     Island.--The project for hurricane-flood protection, Fox 
     Point, Providence, Rhode Island, authorized by section 203 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 306) is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to undertake the necessary repairs to 
     the barrier, as identified in the Condition Survey and 
     Technical Assessment dated April 1998 with Supplement dated 
     August 1998, at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $1,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $1,050,000.

     SEC. 103. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area 9 
     feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-acre anchorage area 6 feet 
     deep, located on the west side of Johnsons River, 
     Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--
       (1) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for 
     navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, 
     under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
     U.S.C. 577) described in paragraph (2) are not authorized 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Description.--The portions of the project referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are described as follows:
       (A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, 
     E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along 
     the northern limit of the project to a point, N149061.55, 
     E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a 
     point, N148477.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly 
     about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the 
     project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly 
     about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to 
     a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running 
     northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of 
     the project to the point of origin.
       (B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the 
     project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly 
     about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence 
     running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86, 
     E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to 
     a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, 
     E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along 
     the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.
       (c) Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The project for navigation, 
     Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act of July 25, 
     1912 (37 Stat. 201, chapter 253), is not authorized after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--Section 364 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3731) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
       ``(9) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for 
     navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 
     first section of the Act entitled `An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657).''.

     SEC. 104. STUDIES.

       (a) Caddo Levee, Red River Below Denison Dam, Arizona, 
     Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking a project 
     for flood control, Caddo Levee, Red River Below Denison Dam, 
     Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, including 
     incorporating the existing levee, along Twelve Mile Bayou 
     from its juncture with the existing Red River Below Denison 
     Dam Levee approximately 26 miles upstream

[[Page S2122]]

     to its terminus at high ground in the vicinity of Black 
     Bayou, Louisiana.
       (b) Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor, California.--
     The Secretary--
       (1) shall conduct a study for the project for navigation, 
     Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California, 
     to a depth of minus 35 feet (MLLW), and for that purpose may 
     use any feasibility report prepared by the non-Federal 
     sponsor under section 203 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231) for which reimbursement of the 
     Federal share of the study is authorized subject to the 
     availability of appropriations; and
       (2) may carry out the project under section 107 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), if the 
     Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
       (c) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     restoring Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, and the 
     Federal interest in environmental restoration, conservation 
     of fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and water 
     quality.
       (d) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of 
     Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study 
     to determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to 
     construct the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the 
     city of Lancaster, California.
       (e) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study for the purpose of identifying--
       (1) alternatives for the management of material dredged in 
     connection with operation and maintenance of the Apalachicola 
     River Navigation Project; and
       (2) alternatives that reduce the requirements for such 
     dredging.
       (f) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades, 
     Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing project at 
     the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
       (g) City of Destin-Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of--
       (1) restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a 
     breakwater for Destin Harbor; and
       (2) including Noriega Point as part of the East Pass, 
     Florida, navigation project.
       (h) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to reduce 
     the flooding problems in the vicinity of Gateway Triangle 
     Redevelopment Area, Florida.
       (2) Studies and reports.--The study shall include a review 
     and consideration of studies and reports completed by the 
     non-Federal interests.
       (i) City of Plant City, Florida.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of a flood control project in the 
     city of Plant City, Florida.
       (2) Studies and reports.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall review and consider studies and reports 
     completed by the non-Federal interests.
       (j) Goose Creek Watershed, Oakley, Idaho.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     undertaking flood damage reduction, water conservation, 
     ground water recharge, ecosystem restoration, and related 
     purposes along the Goose Creek watershed near Oakley, Idaho.
       (k) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     assuming operations and maintenance for the Acadiana 
     Navigation Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion Parishes, 
     Louisiana.
       (l) Cameron Parish West of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of a storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project 
     for Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
       (m) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material, Coastal 
     Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of using dredged material from maintenance 
     activities at Federal navigation projects in coastal 
     Louisiana to benefit coastal areas in the State.
       (n) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of assuming the maintenance at Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu 
     River Ship Canal, Louisiana.
       (o) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting 
     the Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be 
     included in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection 
     Project, Louisiana.
       (p) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef 
     Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem 
     restoration and protection measures along the Gulf 
     Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Matters to be addressed.--The study shall address 
     saltwater intrusion, tidal scour, erosion, and other water 
     resources related problems in that area.
       (q) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St. 
     Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain 
     Hurricane Protection Project to include the St. Charles 
     Parish Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting 
     protection along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, from 
     New Basin Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation 
     Canal on the east.
       (r) Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Seawall Restoration, 
     Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of undertaking structural modifications of 
     that portion of the seawall fronting protection along the 
     south shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, 
     Louisiana, extending approximately 5 miles from the new basin 
     Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the 
     east as a part of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 
     Hurricane Protection Project, authorized by section 204 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077).
       (s) Detroit River, Michigan, Greenway Corridor Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of a project for shoreline 
     protection, frontal erosion, and associated purposes in the 
     Detroit River shoreline area from the Belle Isle Bridge to 
     the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Michigan.
       (2) Potential modifications.--As a part of the study, the 
     Secretary shall review potential project modifications to any 
     existing Corps projects within the same area.
       (t) St. Clair Shores Flood Control, Michigan.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of constructing a flood control project at St. Clair Shores, 
     Michigan.
       (u) Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan, and Toledo Harbor, 
     Ohio.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of utilizing dredged material from Toledo Harbor, 
     Ohio, to provide erosion reduction, navigation, and ecosystem 
     restoration at Woodtick Peninsula, Michigan.
       (v) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of constructing an outlet weir at 
     Tunica Lake, Tunica County, Mississippi, and Lee County, 
     Arkansas, for the purpose of stabilizing water levels in the 
     Lake.
       (2) Economic analysis.--In carrying out the study, the 
     Secretary shall include as a part of the economic analysis 
     the benefits derived from recreation uses at the Lake and 
     economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and 
     wildlife habitat.
       (w) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri, 
     Riverfront Area.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the optimal plan to protect facilities that are 
     located on the Mississippi River riverfront within the 
     boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.
       (2) Requirements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) evaluate alternatives to offer safety and security to 
     facilities; and
       (B) use state-of-the-art techniques to best evaluate the 
     current situation, probable solutions, and estimated costs.
       (3) Report.--Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (x) Yellowstone River, Montana.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive 
     study of the Yellowstone River from Gardiner, Montana to the 
     confluence of the Missouri River to determine the hydrologic, 
     biological, and socioeconomic cumulative impacts on the 
     river.
       (2) Consultation and coordination.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct the study in consultation with the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, 
     and the Natural Resources Conservation Service and with the 
     full participation of the State of Montana and tribal and 
     local entities, and provide for public participation.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the results of the study.
       (y) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of water resources located in the Las 
     Vegas Valley, Nevada.
       (2) Objectives.--The study shall identify problems and 
     opportunities related to ecosystem restoration, water 
     quality, particularly the quality of surface runoff, water 
     supply, and flood control.
       (z) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing 
     a flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New 
     York.
       (aa) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and 
     Environmental Restoration Study.--
       (1) Navigation study.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of navigation needs at the Port of New 
     York-New Jersey (including the South Brooklyn Marine and Red 
     Hook Container Terminals, Staten Island, and adjacent areas) 
     to address improvements, including deepening of existing 
     channels to depths of 50 feet or greater, that are required 
     to provide economically efficient and environmentally sound 
     navigation to meet current and future requirements.
       (2) Environmental restoration study.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, shall review the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers on the New York Harbor, printed in the 
     House Management Plan of the Harbor Estuary Program, and 
     other pertinent reports concerning the New York Harbor Region 
     and the Port of New York-New Jersey, to determine the Federal 
     interest in advancing harbor environmental restoration.

[[Page S2123]]

       (3) Report.--The Secretary may use funds from the ongoing 
     navigation study for New York and New Jersey Harbor to 
     complete a reconnaissance report for environmental 
     restoration by December 31, 1999. The navigation study to 
     deepen New York and New Jersey Harbor shall consider 
     beneficial use of dredged material.
       (bb) Bank Stabilization, Missouri River, North Dakota.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of bank stabilization on the 
     Missouri River between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe in 
     North Dakota.
       (B) Elements.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
     study--
       (i) options for stabilizing the erosion sites on the banks 
     of the Missouri River between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe 
     identified in the report developed by the North Dakota State 
     Water Commission, dated December 1997, including 
     stabilization through nontraditional measures;
       (ii) the cumulative impact of bank stabilization measures 
     between the Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe on fish and wildlife 
     habitat and the potential impact of additional stabilization 
     measures, including the impact of nontraditional 
     stabilization measures;
       (iii) the current and future effects, including economic 
     and fish and wildlife habitat effects, that bank erosion is 
     having on creating the delta at the beginning of Lake Oahe; 
     and
       (iv) the impact of taking no additional measures to 
     stabilize the banks of the Missouri River between the 
     Garrison Dam and Lake Oahe.
       (C) Interested parties.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek the 
     participation and views of interested Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, landowners, conservation organizations, and 
     other persons.
       (D) Report.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on 
     the results of the study not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Status.--If the Secretary cannot complete the study 
     and report to Congress by the day that is 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, by that 
     day, report to Congress on the status of the study and 
     report, including an estimate of the date of completion.
       (2) Effect on existing projects.--This subsection does not 
     preclude the Secretary from establishing or carrying out a 
     stabilization project that is authorized by law.
       (cc) Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, Ohio.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     undertaking repairs and related navigation improvements at 
     Dike 14, Cleveland, Ohio.
       (dd) East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking flood damage 
     reduction at East Lake, Vermillion and Chagrin, Ohio.
       (2) Ice retention structure.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary may consider construction of an ice retention 
     structure as a potential means of providing flood damage 
     reduction.
       (ee) Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of undertaking navigation improvements at Toussaint River, 
     Carroll Township, Ohio.
       (ff) Santee Delta Wetland Habitat, South Carolina.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall complete a comprehensive study of the 
     ecosystem in the Santee Delta focus area of South Carolina to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to enhance 
     the wetland habitat in the area.
       (gg) Waccamaw River, South Carolina.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a flood 
     control project for the Waccamaw River in Horry County, South 
     Carolina.
       (hh) Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, Watershed 
     Management and Restoration Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of a comprehensive flood plain 
     management and watershed restoration project for the Upper 
     Susquehanna-Lackawanna Watershed, Pennsylvania.
       (2) Geographic information system.--In conducting the 
     study, the Secretary shall use a geographic information 
     system.
       (3) Plans.--The study shall formulate plans for 
     comprehensive flood plain management and environmental 
     restoration.
       (4) Crediting.--Non-Federal interests may receive credit 
     for in-kind services and materials that contribute to the 
     study. The Secretary may credit non-Corps Federal assistance 
     provided to the non-Federal interest toward the non-Federal 
     share of study costs to the maximum extent authorized by law.
       (ii) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study, 
     South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     Niobrara River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall 
     Dam and Gavins Point Dam on the Missouri River to determine 
     the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, 
     sedimentation, and related problems in the lower Niobrara 
     River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
       (jj) Santa Clara River, Utah.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to 
     alleviate damage caused by flooding, bank erosion, and 
     sedimentation along the watershed of the Santa Clara River, 
     Utah, above the Gunlock Reservoir.
       (2) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of 
     watershed conditions and water quality, as related to 
     flooding and bank erosion, along the Santa Clara River in the 
     vicinity of the town of Gunlock, Utah.
       (kk) Agat Small Boat Harbor, Guam.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking 
     the repair and reconstruction of Agat Small Boat Harbor, 
     Guam, including the repair of existing shore protection 
     measures and construction or a revetment of the breakwater 
     seawall.
       (ll) Apra Harbor Seawall, Guam.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking 
     measures to repair, upgrade, and extend the seawall 
     protecting Apra Harbor, Guam, and to ensure continued access 
     to the harbor via Route 11B.
       (mm) Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking 
     measures to upgrade the piers and fuel transmission lines at 
     the fuel piers in the Apra Harbor, Guam, and measures to 
     provide for erosion control and protection against storm 
     damage.
       (nn) Maintenance Dredging of Harbor Piers, Guam.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 
     of Federal maintenance of areas adjacent to piers at harbors 
     in Guam, including Apra Harbor, Agat Harbor, and Agana 
     Marina.
       (oo) Alternative Water Sources Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall conduct a study of the water supply 
     needs of States that are not currently eligible for 
     assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h et 
     seq.).
       (2) Requirements.--The study shall--
       (A) identify the water supply needs (including potable, 
     commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural needs) 
     of each State described in paragraph (1) through 2020, making 
     use of such State, regional, and local plans, studies, and 
     reports as are available;
       (B) evaluate the feasibility of various alternative water 
     source technologies such as reuse and reclamation of 
     wastewater and stormwater (including indirect potable reuse), 
     aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination to meet the 
     anticipated water supply needs of the States; and
       (C) assess how alternative water sources technologies can 
     be utilized to meet the identified needs.
       (3) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress on 
     the results of the study not more than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Authorization.--The Secretary may carry out a program 
     to reduce flood hazards and restore the natural functions and 
     values of riverine ecosystems throughout the United States.
       (2) Studies.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary 
     shall conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage 
     reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may 
     design and implement watershed management and restoration 
     projects.
       (3) Participation.--The studies and projects carried out 
     under the program shall be conducted, to the extent 
     practicable, with the full participation of the appropriate 
     Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of 
     the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (4) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects 
     shall, to the extent practicable, emphasize nonstructural 
     approaches to preventing or reducing flood damages.
       (b) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
       (1) Studies.--The cost of studies conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall be shared in accordance with section 105 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 Stat. 
     2215).
       (2) Projects.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35 
     percent of the cost of any project carried out under this 
     section.
       (3) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material 
     disposal areas, and relocations necessary for the projects. 
     The value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited 
     toward the payment required under this subsection.
       (4) Responsibilities of the non-federal interests.--The 
     non-Federal interests shall be responsible for all costs 
     associated with operating, maintaining, replacing, repairing, 
     and rehabilitating all projects carried out under this 
     section.
       (c) Project Justification.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may implement a project 
     under this section if the Secretary determines that the 
     project--
       (A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages;
       (B) will improve the quality of the environment; and

[[Page S2124]]

       (C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial 
     outputs of the project.
       (2) Selection criteria; policies and procedures.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) develop criteria for selecting and rating the projects 
     to be carried out as part of the program authorized by this 
     section; and
       (B) establish policies and procedures for carrying out the 
     studies and projects undertaken under this section.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary may not implement 
     a project under this section until--
       (1) the Secretary provides to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a written notification describing the project 
     and the determinations made under subsection (c); and
       (2) a period of 21 calendar days has expired following the 
     date on which the notification was received by the 
     Committees.
       (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage 
     reductions at appropriate locations, including--
       (1) Le May, Missouri;
       (2) the upper Delaware River basin, New York;
       (3) Tillamook County, Oregon;
       (4) Providence County, Rhode Island; and
       (5) Willamette River basin, Oregon.
       (f) Per-Project Limitation.--Not more than $25,000,000 in 
     Army Civil Works appropriations may be expended on any single 
     project undertaken under this section.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $75,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001.
       (2) Program funding levels.--All studies and projects 
     undertaken under this authority from Army Civil Works 
     appropriations shall be fully funded within the program 
     funding levels provided in this subsection.

     SEC. 202. SHORE PROTECTION.

       Section 103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Costs of constructing'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Construction.--Costs of constructing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project 
     authorized for construction after December 31, 1999, or for 
     which a feasibility study is completed after that date, the 
     non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment of projects or 
     measures for shore protection or beach erosion control shall 
     be 50 percent, except that--
       ``(A) all costs assigned to benefits to privately owned 
     shores (where use of such shores is limited to private 
     interests) or to prevention of losses of private land shall 
     be borne by non-Federal interests; and
       ``(B) all costs assigned to the protection of federally 
     owned shores shall be borne by the United States.''.

     SEC. 203. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.

       Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of 
     small projects'' and inserting ``implementation of small 
     structural and nonstructural projects''; and
       (2) in the third sentence, by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$7,000,000''.

     SEC. 204. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND 
                   DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD 
                   DAMAGES.

       Section 206(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     709a(b)) is amended in the third sentence by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``, but the Secretary of 
     the Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such 
     entities for the purpose of expanding the scope of the 
     services requested by the entities''.

     SEC. 205. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Subparagraphs (B) and (C)(i) of section 528(b)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) are 
     amended by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.

     SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 206(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Construction'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Construction''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 207. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 208. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL 
                   SUBDIVISIONS.

       Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), is 
     amended by inserting ``or environmental restoration'' after 
     ``flood control''.

     SEC. 209. RECREATION USER FEES.

       (a) Withholding of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the 
     Secretary may withhold from the special account established 
     under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of 
     the amount of receipts above a baseline of $34,000,000 per 
     each fiscal year received from fees imposed at recreation 
     sites under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department 
     of the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(b)).
       (2) Use.--The amounts withheld shall be retained by the 
     Secretary and shall be available, without further Act of 
     appropriation, for expenditure by the Secretary in accordance 
     with subsection (b).
       (3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2005.
       (b) Use of Amounts Withheld.--In order to increase the 
     quality of the visitor experience at public recreational 
     areas and to enhance the protection of resources, the amounts 
     withheld under subsection (a) may be used only for--
       (1) repair and maintenance projects (including projects 
     relating to health and safety);
       (2) interpretation;
       (3) signage;
       (4) habitat or facility enhancement;
       (5) resource preservation;
       (6) annual operation (including fee collection);
       (7) maintenance; and
       (8) law enforcement related to public use.
       (c) Availability.--Each amount withheld by the Secretary 
     shall be available for expenditure, without further Act of 
     appropriation, at the specific project from which the amount, 
     above baseline, is collected.

     SEC. 210. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC 
                   REGION.

       Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of 
     navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources 
     development (including navigation, flood damage reduction, 
     and environmental restoration)''.

     SEC. 211. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT 
                   PROJECT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Middle mississippi river.--The term ``middle 
     Mississippi River'' means the reach of the Mississippi River 
     from the mouth of the Ohio River (river mile 0, upper 
     Mississippi River) to the mouth of the Missouri River (river 
     mile 195).
       (2) Missouri river.--The term ``Missouri River'' means the 
     main stem and floodplain of the Missouri River (including 
     reservoirs) from its confluence with the Mississippi River at 
     St. Louis, Missouri, to its headwaters near Three Forks, 
     Montana.
       (3) Project.--The term ``project'' means the project 
     authorized by this section.
       (b) Protection and Enhancement Activities.--
       (1) Plan.--
       (A) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     a project to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of 
     the Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River.
       (B) Activities.--
       (i) In general.--The plan shall provide for such activities 
     as are necessary to protect and enhance fish and wildlife 
     habitat without adversely affecting--

       (I) the water-related needs of the region surrounding the 
     Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River, including 
     flood control, navigation, recreation, and enhancement of 
     water supply; and
       (II) private property rights.

       (ii) Required activities.--The plan shall include--

       (I) modification and improvement of navigation training 
     structures to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
       (II) modification and creation of side channels to protect 
     and enhance fish and wildlife habitat;
       (III) restoration and creation of island fish and wildlife 
     habitat;
       (IV) creation of riverine fish and wildlife habitat;
       (V) establishment of criteria for prioritizing the type and 
     sequencing of activities based on cost-effectiveness and 
     likelihood of success; and
       (VI) physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the 
     success of the project, to be performed by the River Studies 
     Center of the United States Geological Survey in Columbia, 
     Missouri.

       (2) Implementation of activities.--
       (A) In general.--Using funds made available to carry out 
     this section, the Secretary shall carry out the activities 
     described in the plan.
       (B) Use of existing authority for unconstructed features of 
     the project.--Using funds made available to the Secretary 
     under other law, the Secretary shall design and construct any 
     feature of the project that may be carried out using the 
     authority of the Secretary to modify an authorized project, 
     if the Secretary determines that the design and construction 
     will--
       (i) accelerate the completion of activities to protect and 
     enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River or 
     the middle Mississippi River; and
       (ii) be compatible with the project purposes described in 
     this section.

[[Page S2125]]

       (c) Integration of Other Activities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the activities described 
     in subsection (b), the Secretary shall integrate the 
     activities with other Federal, State, and tribal activities.
       (2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new 
     regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity 
     that carries out any activity authorized by this section.
       (d) Public Participation.--In developing and carrying out 
     the plan and the activities described in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall provide for public review and comment in 
     accordance with applicable Federal law, including--
       (1) providing advance notice of meetings;
       (2) providing adequate opportunity for public input and 
     comment;
       (3) maintaining appropriate records; and
       (4) compiling a record of the proceedings of meetings.
       (e) Compliance With Applicable Law.--In carrying out the 
     activities described in subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law, 
     including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (f) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project shall be 35 percent.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 1 
     activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed 
     $5,000,000.
       (3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and 
     maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal 
     responsibility.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out activities under this section $30,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

     SEC. 212. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.

       (a) Sand, Gravel, and Shell.--Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B)) 
     is amended in the second sentence by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``or any other non-Federal 
     interest subject to an agreement entered into under section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)''.
       (b) Reimbursement for Local Interests.--Any amounts paid by 
     non-Federal interests for beach erosion control, hurricane 
     protection, shore protection, or storm damage reduction 
     projects as a result of an assessment under section 8(k) of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)) 
     shall be fully reimbursed.

     SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

       Section 312(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.''.

     SEC. 214. BENEFIT OF PRIMARY FLOOD DAMAGES AVOIDED INCLUDED 
                   IN BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.

       Section 308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2318) is amended--
       (1) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``Benefit-Cost Analysis'' and inserting ``Elements Excluded 
     From Cost-Benefit Analysis'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (c) through (f), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The 
     Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the 
     benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood 
     damage reduction projects.''; and
       (4) in the first sentence of subsection (e) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking ``(b)'' and 
     inserting ``(d)''.

     SEC. 215. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANT GROWTH.

       Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 
     U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Arundo dona,'' after ``water-
     hyacinth,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``tarmarix'' after ``melaleuca''.

     SEC. 216. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(19) Lake tahoe, california and nevada.--Regional water 
     system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
       ``(20) Lancaster, california.--Fox Field Industrial 
     Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.
       ``(21) San ramon, california.--San Ramon Valley recycled 
     water project, San Ramon, California.''.

     SEC. 217. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3756) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (10) and inserting the following:
       ``(10) Regional Atlanta Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia, and 
     Lake Lanier of Forsyth and Hall Counties, Georgia.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
       ``(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
       ``(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, 
     California.
       ``(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
       ``(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
       ``(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
       ``(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
       ``(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
       ``(22) Bronx River watershed, New York.
       ``(23) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, with the consent 
     of the affected local government, a non-Federal interest may 
     include a nonprofit entity.''.

     SEC. 218. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4148) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt 
     and aquatic growth and development of a sustainable weed and 
     algae management program;
       ``(18) Flints Pond, Hollis, New Hampshire, removal of 
     excessive aquatic vegetation; and
       ``(19) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal of 
     excessive aquatic vegetation.''.

     SEC. 219. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION POLICY.

       Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; Public Law 102-580) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected 
     for demonstration at the pilot scale shall result in 
     practical end-use products.
       ``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by 
     providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged 
     material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated 
     capacity.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section a total of $22,000,000 
     to complete technology testing, technology commercialization, 
     and the development of full scale processing facilities 
     within the New York/New Jersey Harbor.''.

     SEC. 220. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.

       (a) In General.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``50'' and inserting ``35''.
       (b) Great Lakes Basin.--The Secretary shall work with the 
     State of Ohio, other Great Lakes States, and political 
     subdivisions of the States to fully implement and maximize 
     beneficial reuse of dredged material as provided under 
     section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 
     (33 U.S.C. 426j).

     SEC. 221. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

       Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the 
     second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of 
     the non-Federal share of such first costs may be in kind, 
     including a facility, supply, or service that is necessary to 
     carry out the enhancement project.''.

     SEC. 222. REIMBURSEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.

       Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``subject to amounts being made available in advance in 
     appropriations Acts'' and inserting ``subject to the 
     availability of appropriations''.

     SEC. 223. NATIONAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT TASK FORCE.

       (a) Definition of Task Force.--In this section, the term 
     ``Task Force'' means the National Contaminated Sediment Task 
     Force established by section 502 of the National Contaminated 
     Sediment Assessment and Management Act (33 U.S.C. 1271 note; 
     Public Law 102-580).
       (b) Convening.--The Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     convene the Task Force not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reporting on Remedial Action.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the status of remedial actions at 
     aquatic sites in the areas described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Areas.--The report under paragraph (1) shall address 
     remedial actions in--
       (A) areas of probable concern identified in the survey of 
     data regarding aquatic sediment quality required by section 
     503(a) of the National Contaminated Sediment Assessment and 
     Management Act (33 U.S.C. 1271);
       (B) areas of concern within the Great Lakes, as identified 
     under section 118(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(f));
       (C) estuaries of national significance identified under 
     section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1330);
       (D) areas for which remedial action has been authorized 
     under any of the Water Resources Development Acts; and
       (E) as appropriate, any other areas where sediment 
     contamination is identified by the Task Force.
       (3) Activities.--Remedial actions subject to reporting 
     under this subsection include remedial actions under--
       (A) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of

[[Page S2126]]

     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or other Federal or State law 
     containing environmental remediation authority;
       (B) any of the Water Resources Development Acts;
       (C) section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1344); or
       (D) section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151, 
     chapter 425).
       (4) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     provide, with respect to each remedial action described in 
     the report, a description of--
       (A) the authorities and sources of funding for conducting 
     the remedial action;
       (B) the nature and sources of the sediment contamination, 
     including volume and concentration, where appropriate;
       (C) the testing conducted to determine the nature and 
     extent of sediment contamination and to determine whether the 
     remedial action is necessary;
       (D) the action levels or other factors used to determine 
     that the remedial action is necessary;
       (E) the nature of the remedial action planned or 
     undertaken, including the levels of protection of public 
     health and the environment to be achieved by the remedial 
     action;
       (F) the ultimate disposition of any material dredged as 
     part of the remedial action;
       (G) the status of projects and the obstacles or barriers to 
     prompt conduct of the remedial action; and
       (H) contacts and sources of further information concerning 
     the remedial action.

     SEC. 224. GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall report to Congress on a plan for programs of 
     the Corps of Engineers in the Great Lakes basin.
       (2) Contents.--The plan shall include details of the 
     projected environmental and navigational projects in the 
     Great Lakes basin, including--
       (A) navigational maintenance and operations for commercial 
     and recreational vessels;
       (B) environmental restoration activities;
       (C) water level maintenance activities;
       (D) technical and planning assistance to States and 
     remedial action planning committees;
       (E) sediment transport analysis, sediment management 
     planning, and activities to support prevention of excess 
     sediment loadings;
       (F) flood damage reduction and shoreline erosion 
     prevention;
       (G) all other activities of the Corps of Engineers; and
       (H) an analysis of factors limiting use of programs and 
     authorities of the Corps of Engineers in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act in the Great Lakes basin, 
     including the need for new or modified authorities.
       (b) Great Lakes Biohydrological Information.--
       (1) Inventory.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall request each 
     Federal agency that may possess information relevant to the 
     Great Lakes biohydrological system to provide an inventory of 
     all such information in the possession of the agency.
       (B) Relevant information.--For the purpose of subparagraph 
     (A), relevant information includes information on--
       (i) ground and surface water hydrology;
       (ii) natural and altered tributary dynamics;
       (iii) biological aspects of the system influenced by and 
     influencing water quantity and water movement;
       (iv) meteorological projections and weather impacts on 
     Great Lakes water levels; and
       (v) other Great Lakes biohydrological system data relevant 
     to sustainable water use management.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the States, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies, and after 
     requesting information from the provinces and the federal 
     government of Canada, shall--
       (i) compile the inventories of information;
       (ii) analyze the information for consistency and gaps; and
       (iii) submit to Congress, the International Joint 
     Commission, and the Great Lakes States a report that includes 
     recommendations on ways to improve the information base on 
     the biohydrological dynamics of the Great Lakes ecosystem as 
     a whole, so as to support environmentally sound decisions 
     regarding diversions and consumptive uses of Great Lakes 
     water.
       (B) Recommendations.--The recommendations in the report 
     under subparagraph (A) shall include recommendations relating 
     to the resources and funds necessary for implementing 
     improvement of the information base.
       (C) Considerations.--In developing the report under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation, and 
     other relevant agencies as appropriate, shall consider and 
     report on the status of the issues described and 
     recommendations made in--
       (i) the Report of the International Joint Commission to the 
     Governments of the United States and Canada under the 1977 
     reference issued in 1985; and
       (ii) the 1993 Report of the International Joint Commission 
     to the Governments of Canada and the United States on Methods 
     of Alleviating Adverse Consequences of Fluctuating Water 
     Levels in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Basin.
       (c) Great Lakes Recreational Boating.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall, using information and studies in existence on the date 
     of enactment of this Act to the maximum extent practicable, 
     and in cooperation with the Great Lakes States, submit to 
     Congress a report detailing the economic benefits of 
     recreational boating in the Great Lakes basin, particularly 
     at harbors benefiting from operation and maintenance projects 
     of the Corps of Engineers.
       (d) Cooperation.--In undertaking activities under this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       (1) encourage public participation; and
       (2) cooperate, and, as appropriate, collaborate, with Great 
     Lakes States, tribal governments, and Canadian federal, 
     provincial, tribal governments.
       (e) Water Use Activities and Policies.--The Secretary may 
     provide technical assistance to the Great Lakes States to 
     develop interstate guidelines to improve the consistency and 
     efficiency of State-level water use activities and policies 
     in the Great Lakes basin.
       (f) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary may seek and accept funds 
     from non-Federal entities to be used to pay up to 25 percent 
     of the cost of carrying out subsections (b), (c), (d), and 
     (e).

     SEC. 225. PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

       Section 1135(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Control of sea lamprey.--Congress finds that--
       ``(A) the Great Lakes navigation system has been 
     instrumental in the spread of sea lamprey and the associated 
     impacts to its fishery; and
       ``(B) the use of the authority under this subsection for 
     control of sea lamprey at any Great Lakes basin location is 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 226. WATER QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, RECREATION, 
                   FISH AND WILDLIFE, FLOOD CONTROL, AND 
                   NAVIGATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may investigate, study, 
     evaluate, and report on--
       (1) water quality, environmental quality, recreation, fish 
     and wildlife, flood control, and navigation in the western 
     Lake Erie watershed, including the watersheds of the Maumee 
     River, Ottawa River, and Portage River in the States of 
     Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan; and
       (2) measures to improve water quality, environmental 
     quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control, and 
     navigation in the western Lake Erie basin.
       (b) Cooperation.--In carrying out studies and 
     investigations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     cooperate with Federal, State, and local agencies and 
     nongovernmental organizations to ensure full consideration of 
     all views and requirements of all interrelated programs that 
     those agencies may develop independently or in coordination 
     with the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 227. IRRIGATION DIVERSION PROTECTION AND FISHERIES 
                   ENHANCEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary may provide technical planning and design 
     assistance to non-Federal interests and may conduct other 
     site-specific studies to formulate and evaluate fish screens, 
     fish passages devices, and other measures to decrease the 
     incidence of juvenile and adult fish inadvertently entering 
     into irrigation systems. Measures shall be developed in 
     cooperation with Federal and State resource agencies and not 
     impair the continued withdrawal of water for irrigation 
     purposes. In providing such assistance priority shall be 
     given based on the objectives of the Endangered Species Act, 
     cost-effectiveness, and the potential for reducing fish 
     mortality. Non-Federal interests shall agree by contract to 
     contribute 50 percent of the cost of such assistance. Not 
     more than one-half of such non-Federal contribution may be 
     made by the provision of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind services. No construction activities are 
     authorized by this section. Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall report 
     to Congress on fish mortality caused by irrigation water 
     intake devices, appropriate measures to reduce mortality, the 
     extent to which such measures are currently being employed in 
     the arid States, the construction costs associated with such 
     measures, and the appropriate Federal role, if any, to 
     encourage the use of such measures.

     SEC. 228. SMALL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), 
     is amended by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$3,000,000''.

     SEC. 229. SHORE DAMAGE PREVENTION OR MITIGATION.

       Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 
     426(i)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting ``(a) In General.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The costs'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The costs'';
       (3) in the third sentence--

[[Page S2127]]

       (A) by striking ``No such'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Requirement for Specific Authorization.--No such''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$2,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,000,000''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) coordinate the implementation of the measures under 
     this section with other Federal and non-Federal shore 
     protection projects in the same geographic area; and
       ``(2) to the extent practicable, combine mitigation 
     projects with other shore protection projects in the same 
     area into a comprehensive regional project.''.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. DREDGING OF SALT PONDS IN THE STATE OF RHODE 
                   ISLAND.

       The Secretary may acquire for the State of Rhode Island a 
     dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to dredge 
     approximately 100 cubic yards per hour for use by the State 
     in dredging salt ponds in the State.

     SEC. 302. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW 
                   YORK.

       Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3787) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an 
     estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000.''.

     SEC. 303. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3668) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (22) as 
     paragraphs (16) through (23), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following:
       ``(15) Repaupo creek and delaware river, gloucester county, 
     new jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee improvements for 
     Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River, Gloucester County, New 
     Jersey.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Irondequoit creek, new york.--Project for flood 
     control, Irondequoit Creek watershed, New York.
       ``(25) Tioga county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood 
     control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their 
     tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.''.

     SEC. 304. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

       Section 104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3669) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (10) through (13), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project 
     for navigation for Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New 
     Jersey.''.

     SEC. 305. STREAMBANK PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Arctic Ocean, Barrow, Alaska.--The Secretary shall 
     evaluate and, if justified under section 14 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), carry out storm damage 
     reduction and coastal erosion measures at the town of Barrow, 
     Alaska.
       (b) Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.--The Secretary may 
     construct appropriate control structures in areas along the 
     Saginaw River in the city of Bay City, Michigan, under 
     authority of section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
     Stat. 701r).
       (c) Yellowstone River, Billings, Montana.--The streambank 
     protection project at Coulson Park, along the Yellowstone 
     River, Billings, Montana, shall be eligible for assistance 
     under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
     701r).
       (d) Monongahela River, Point Marion, Pennsylvania.--The 
     Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under section 14 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), carry out 
     streambank erosion control measures along the Monongahela 
     River at the borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 306. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, SPRINGFIELD, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--Under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (33 Stat. 2309a) or other applicable 
     authority, the Secretary shall conduct measures to address 
     water quality, water flows and fish habitat restoration in 
     the historic Springfield, Oregon, millrace through the 
     reconfiguration of the existing millpond, if the Secretary 
     determines that harmful impacts have occurred as the result 
     of a previously constructed flood control project by the 
     Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share, excluding 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal 
     areas, and relocations, shall be 25 percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000.

     SEC. 307. GUILFORD AND NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

       The Secretary shall expeditiously complete the activities 
     authorized under section 346 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4858), including 
     activities associated with Sluice Creek in Guilford, 
     Connecticut, and Lighthouse Point Park in New Haven, 
     Connecticut.

     SEC. 308. FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH.

       (a) Redesignation.--The project for flood control, Eight 
     Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas, authorized by section 401(a) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4112) and known as ``Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas'', 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland Floodway 
     Ditch''.
       (b) Legal References.--Any reference in any law, map, 
     regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
     States to the project and creek referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis Bland 
     Floodway Ditch.

     SEC. 309. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

       Section 528(e)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3770) is amended in the first sentence by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     including potential land acquisition in the Caloosahatchee 
     River basin or other areas''.

     SEC. 310. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control and other 
     purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of 
     the Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood 
     Control Act of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a 
     separate part of the project, restoration of the historic 
     Chesapeake and Ohio Canal substantially in accordance with 
     the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, 
     Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design Analysis, dated 
     February 1998, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $9,750,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $5,250,000.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest for the 
     restoration project under subsection (a)--
       (1) may provide all or a portion of the non-Federal share 
     of project costs in the form of in-kind services; and
       (2) shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     project costs for design and construction work performed by 
     the non-Federal interest before execution of a project 
     cooperation agreement and for land, easements, and rights-of-
     way required for the restoration and acquired by the non-
     Federal interest before execution of such an agreement.
       (c) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and 
     maintenance of the restoration project under subsection (a) 
     shall be the full responsibility of the National Park 
     Service.

     SEC. 311. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.

       Section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426h), is amended by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, including the city of Miami Beach, 
     Florida''.

     SEC. 312. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State 
     of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined 
     under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the 
     water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No. 
     DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis 
     Reservoir, Oklahoma.
       (b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the 
     State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall be subject to 
     adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase 
     methods for Government properties as determined by an 
     independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget.
       (c) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall otherwise affect 
     any of the rights or obligations of the parties to the 
     contract referred to in subsection (a).

     SEC. 313. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY 
                   SYSTEM NAVIGATION MODERNIZATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) exports are necessary to ensure job creation and an 
     improved standard of living for the people of the United 
     States;
       (2) the ability of producers of goods in the United States 
     to compete in the international marketplace depends on a 
     modern and efficient transportation network;
       (3) a modern and efficient waterway system is a 
     transportation option necessary to provide United States 
     shippers a safe, reliable, and competitive means to win 
     foreign markets in an increasingly competitive international 
     marketplace;
       (4) the need to modernize is heightened because the United 
     States is at risk of losing its competitive edge as a result 
     of the priority that foreign competitors are placing on 
     modernizing their own waterway systems;
       (5) growing export demand projected over the coming decades 
     will force greater demands on the waterway system of the 
     United States and increase the cost to the economy if the 
     system proves inadequate to satisfy growing export 
     opportunities;
       (6) the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River and 
     Illinois River waterway system were built in the 1930s and 
     have some of the highest average delays to commercial tows in 
     the country;
       (7) inland barges carry freight at the lowest unit cost 
     while offering an alternative to truck and rail 
     transportation that is environmentally sound, is energy 
     efficient, is safe, causes little congestion, produces little 
     air or noise pollution, and has minimal social impact; and
       (8) it should be the policy of the Corps of Engineers to 
     pursue aggressively modernization of the waterway system 
     authorized by Congress to promote the relative competitive 
     position of the United States in the international 
     marketplace.
       (b) Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--In accordance 
     with the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 
     Navigation Study, the Secretary shall proceed immediately to 
     prepare engineering design, plans, and specifications for 
     extension

[[Page S2128]]

     of locks 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 on the Mississippi River and the 
     LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois River, to provide 
     lock chambers 110 feet in width and 1,200 feet in length, so 
     that construction can proceed immediately upon completion of 
     studies and authorization of projects by Congress.

     SEC. 314. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MANAGEMENT.

       Section 1103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 652) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``(e)'' and all that follows through the 
     end of paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Undertakings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, 
     Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to 
     undertake--
       ``(i) a program for the planning, construction, and 
     evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
     rehabilitation and enhancement; and
       ``(ii) implementation of a program of long-term resource 
     monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and 
     applied research.
       ``(B) Requirements for projects.--Each project carried out 
     under subparagraph (A)(i) shall--
       ``(i) to the maximum extent practicable, simulate natural 
     river processes;
       ``(ii) include an outreach and education component; and
       ``(iii) on completion of the assessment under subparagraph 
     (D), address identified habitat and natural resource needs.
       ``(C) Advisory committee.--In carrying out subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall create an independent technical 
     advisory committee to review projects, monitoring plans, and 
     habitat and natural resource needs assessments.
       ``(D) Habitat and natural resource needs assessment.--
       ``(i) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake 
     a systemic, river reach, and pool scale assessment of habitat 
     and natural resource needs to serve as a blueprint to guide 
     habitat rehabilitation and long-term resource monitoring.
       ``(ii) Data.--The habitat and natural resource needs 
     assessment shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use data 
     in existence at the time of the assessment.
       ``(iii) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete a habitat and 
     natural resource needs assessment not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2005, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, 
     Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report that--
       ``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(B) describes the accomplishments of each program;
       ``(C) includes results of a habitat and natural resource 
     needs assessment; and
       ``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the 
     authorization under paragraph (1) or the authorized 
     appropriations under paragraphs (3), (4), and (5).'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(i)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``Secretary not to exceed'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.'';
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(A)(ii)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``$7,680,000'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``$10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 
     2009.'';
       (D) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(C) not to 
     exceed $350,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
       ``(6) Transfer of amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year beginning after 
     September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, 
     Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated 
     amounts between the programs under clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (1)(C).
       ``(B) Apportionment of costs.--In carrying out paragraph 
     (1)(D), the Secretary may apportion the costs equally between 
     the programs authorized by paragraph (1)(A).''; and
       (E) in paragraph (7)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``paragraph (1)(A)''; and
       (II) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and, in the case of any project requiring non-
     Federal cost sharing, the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project shall be 35 percent''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) 
     and (1)(C) of this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii)'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A)''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary 
     shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration 
     of urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the 
     establishment of greenways in the St. Louis, Missouri, area 
     and surrounding communities.''.

     SEC. 315. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND 
                   SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL.

       Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; Public Law 104-303) is amended by 
     striking subsection (a) and all that follows and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of 
     Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary shall 
     accelerate ongoing research and development activities, and 
     may carry out or participate in additional research and 
     development activities, for the purpose of developing 
     innovative methods and technologies for improving the 
     survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake 
     River Basin.
       ``(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research and 
     development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may 
     include research and development related to--
       ``(A) impacts from water resources projects and other 
     impacts on salmon life cycles;
       ``(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
       ``(C) light and sound guidance systems;
       ``(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
       ``(E) transportation mechanisms; and
       ``(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
       ``(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and 
     development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may 
     include research and development related to--
       ``(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in spawning and 
     rearing areas;
       ``(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and adult salmon 
     survival;
       ``(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from sources other than 
     water resources projects;
       ``(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and formation of a 
     germ plasm repository for threatened and endangered 
     populations of native fish; and
       ``(E) other innovative technologies and actions intended to 
     improve fish survival, including the survival of resident 
     fish.
       ``(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate any 
     activities carried out under this subsection with appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, 
     and the Northwest Power Planning Council.
       ``(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the research and development activities 
     carried out under this subsection, including any 
     recommendations of the Secretary concerning the research and 
     development activities.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out research and 
     development activities under paragraph (3).
       ``(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary of 
     Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts toward 
     developing and installing in Corps of Engineers-operated dams 
     innovative, efficient, and environmentally safe hydropower 
     turbines, including design of fish-friendly turbines, for use 
     on the Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
       ``(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River 
     System Native Fishes.--
       ``(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and 
     consistent with a management plan to be developed by the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall 
     carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian 
     predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under 
     the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out research and 
     development activities under this subsection.
       ``(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the 
     authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the 
     research and development carried out under this section or 
     any other law.''.

     SEC. 316. NINE MILE RUN HABITAT RESTORATION, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may credit against the non-Federal share such 
     costs as are incurred by the non-Federal interests in 
     preparing environmental and other preconstruction 
     documentation for the habitat restoration project, Nine Mile 
     Run, Pennsylvania, if the Secretary determines that the 
     documentation is integral to the project.

     SEC. 317. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall work with the Secretary of 
     Transportation on a proposed solution to carry out the 
     project to maintain the Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, 
     California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).

     SEC. 318. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT-RESPONSE MODELING 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may study and implement a 
     Comprehensive Flood Impact-Response Modeling System for the 
     Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa.
       (b) Study.--The study shall include--

[[Page S2129]]

       (1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic, geomorphic, 
     environmental, economic, social, and recreational impacts of 
     operating strategies within the watershed;
       (2) creation of an integrated, dynamic flood impact model; 
     and
       (3) the development of a rapid response system to be used 
     during flood and emergency situations.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a 
     report to Congress on the results of the study and modeling 
     system and such recommendations as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated a total of $2,250,000 to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 319. STUDY REGARDING INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR SMALL AND 
                   MEDIUM-SIZED PORTS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study and analysis of various alternatives 
     for innovative financing of future construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of projects in small and medium-sized ports.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives and the results of the study and 
     any related legislative recommendations for consideration by 
     Congress.

     SEC. 320. CANDY LAKE PROJECT, OSAGE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value'' 
     means the amount for which a willing buyer would purchase and 
     a willing seller would sell a parcel of land, as determined 
     by a qualified, independent land appraiser.
       (2) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous owner of 
     land'' means a person (including a corporation) that 
     conveyed, or a descendant of a deceased individual who 
     conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use in the Candy 
     Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.
       (b) Land Conveyances.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey, in accordance 
     with this section, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the land acquired by the United 
     States for the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (2) Previous owners of land.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall give a previous owner 
     of land first option to purchase the land described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Application.--
       (i) In general.--A previous owner of land that desires to 
     purchase the land described in paragraph (1) that was owned 
     by the previous owner of land, or by the individual from whom 
     the previous owner of land is descended, shall file an 
     application to purchase the land with the Secretary not later 
     than 180 days after the official date of notice to the 
     previous owner of land under subsection (c).
       (ii) First to file has first option.--If more than 1 
     application is filed for a parcel of land described in 
     paragraph (1), first options to purchase the parcel of land 
     shall be allotted in the order in which applications for the 
     parcel of land were filed.
       (C) Identification of previous owners of land.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, identify each 
     previous owner of land.
       (D) Consideration.--Consideration for land conveyed under 
     this subsection shall be the fair market value of the land.
       (3) Disposal.--Any land described in paragraph (1) for 
     which an application has not been filed under paragraph 
     (2)(B) within the applicable time period shall be disposed of 
     in accordance with law.
       (4) Extinguishment of Easements.--All flowage easements 
     acquired by the United States for use in the Candy Lake 
     project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.
       (c) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall notify--
       (A) each person identified as a previous owner of land 
     under subsection (b)(2)(C), not later than 90 days after 
     identification, by United States mail; and
       (B) the general public, not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, by publication in the Federal 
     Register.
       (2) Contents of notice.--Notice under this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) a copy of this section;
       (B) information sufficient to separately identify each 
     parcel of land subject to this section; and
       (C) specification of the fair market value of each parcel 
     of land subject to this section.
       (3) Official date of notice.--The official date of notice 
     under this subsection shall be the later of--
       (A) the date on which actual notice is mailed; or
       (B) the date of publication of the notice in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 321. SALCHA RIVER AND PILEDRIVER SLOUGH, FAIRBANKS, 
                   ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under 
     section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), carry out flood damage reduction measures along the 
     lower Salcha River and on Piledriver Slough, from its 
     headwaters at the mouth of the Salcha River to the Chena 
     Lakes Flood Control Project, in the vicinity of Fairbanks, 
     Alaska, to protect against surface water flooding.

     SEC. 322. EYAK RIVER, CORDOVA, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall evaluate and, if justified under 
     section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), carry out flood damage reduction measures along the 
     Eyak River at the town of Cordova, Alaska.

     SEC. 323. NORTH PADRE ISLAND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION AND 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration and storm damage reduction at North Padre Island, 
     Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, at a total estimated cost of 
     $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,500,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,500,000, if the 
     Secretary finds that the work is technically sound, 
     environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.

     SEC. 324. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.

       (a) Water Supply.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     State of Kansas or another non-Federal interest, shall 
     complete a water supply reallocation study at the project for 
     flood control, Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, as a basis on which 
     the Secretary shall enter into negotiations with the State of 
     Kansas or another non-Federal interest for the terms and 
     conditions of a reallocation of the water supply.
       (2) Options.--The negotiations for storage reallocation 
     shall include the following options for evaluation by all 
     parties:
       (A) Financial terms of storage reallocation.
       (B) Protection of future Federal water releases from 
     Kanopolis Dam, consistent with State water law, to ensure 
     that the benefits expected from releases are provided.
       (C) Potential establishment of a water assurance district 
     consistent with other such districts established by the State 
     of Kansas.
       (D) Protection of existing project purposes at Kanopolis 
     Dam to include flood control, recreation, and fish and 
     wildlife.
       (b) In-Kind Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may negotiate a credit for a 
     portion of the financial repayment to the Federal Government 
     for work performed by the State of Kansas, or another non-
     Federal interest, on land adjacent or in close proximity to 
     the project, if the work provides a benefit to the project.
       (2) Work included.--The work for which credit may be 
     granted may include watershed protection and enhancement, 
     including wetland construction and ecosystem restoration.

     SEC. 325. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

       Section 552(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3780) is amended by striking ``for the 
     project to be carried out with such assistance'' and 
     inserting ``, or a public entity designated by the State 
     director, to carry out the project with such assistance, 
     subject to the project's meeting the certification 
     requirement of subsection (c)(1)''.

     SEC. 326. CITY OF CHARLEVOIX REIMBURSEMENT, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall review and, if consistent with 
     authorized project purposes, reimburse the city of 
     Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federal share of costs 
     associated with construction of the new revetment connection 
     to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor, 
     Michigan.

     SEC. 327. HAMILTON DAM FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary may construct the Hamilton Dam flood control 
     project, Michigan, under authority of section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

     SEC. 328. HOLES CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, OHIO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the non-Federal share of project costs for the project 
     for flood control, Holes Creek, Ohio, shall not exceed the 
     sum of--
       (1) the total amount projected as the non-Federal share as 
     of September 30, 1996, in the Project Cooperation Agreement 
     executed on that date; and
       (2) 100 percent of the amount of any increases in the cost 
     of the locally preferred plan over the cost estimated in the 
     Project Cooperation Agreement.
       (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
     Federal interest any amount paid by the non-Federal interest 
     in excess of the non-Federal share.

     SEC. 329. OVERFLOW MANAGEMENT FACILITY, RHODE ISLAND.

       Section 585(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by striking ``river'' and 
     inserting ``sewer''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join other members 
of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This measure, similar to water 
resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1996, is 
comprised of water resources project and study authorizations and 
policy modifications for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 
program.
  The bill we are proposing today is virtually identical to legislation 
that was approved unanimously by the Senate last October. That measure, 
S. 2131,

[[Page S2130]]

was sent to the House late in the previous Congress and, despite and 
best efforts of our colleagues in the other body, went no further. As 
such, it is our desire to advance this year's bill as expeditiously as 
possible.
  We have carefully reviewed each item within the bill and have 
included those that are consistent with the committee's traditional 
authorization criteria. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here 
to discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Committee 
to judge project authorization requests.
  On November 17, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 1986 act marked an 
end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the Executive Branch 
regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works program.
  In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps 
and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental 
requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which Federal 
involvement is appropriate and warranted.
  The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent 
with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986.
  Is a project for flood control, navigation or some other purpose 
cost-shared in a manner consistent with the 1986 act?
  Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic, 
engineering and environmental feasibility been completed for a project?
  Is a project consistent with the traditional and appropriate mission 
of the Army Corps?
  Should the federal government be involved?
  These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have 
applied to each and every project included here for authorization.
  This legislation, only slightly modified from last year's Senate-
passed bill, authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct some 36 
projects for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration. 
The bill also modifies 43 existing Army Corps projects and authorizes 
29 project studies. In total, this bill authorizes an estimated federal 
cost of 2.1 billion dollars. The only significant changes in this 
year's version are that we have extracted projects authorized in the 
FT99 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, this legislation includes other project-specific and 
general provisions related to Army Corps operations. Among them are two 
provisions sought by Senator Bond and others to enhance the environment 
along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. We have also included a 
modified version of the Administration's so-called Challenge 21 
initiative to encourage more non-structural flood control and 
environmental projects. In addition, we are recommending that the cost-
sharing formula be changed for maintenance of future shoreline 
protection projects.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to indicate that we have encouraged 
our colleagues in the House of Representatives to try to resolve their 
differences on the proposed Sacramento, California, flood control 
project. It seems to me that there are legitimate concerns and issues 
on both sides, but I am optimistic that they will reach an agreement. I 
stand ready to do whatever I can to facilitate a successful resolution.
  This legislation is vitally important for countless states and 
communities across the country. For economic and life-safety reasons, 
we must maintain our harbors, ports and inland waterways, our flood 
control levees and shorelines, and the environment. I ask for the 
cooperation of colleagues so that we can swiftly complete this 
unfinished business from 1998. It would be my strong desire to complete 
action on this bill within the next several weeks so that we can 
prepare for WRDA 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 509. A bill to amend the Peace Corps Act to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to carry out that 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________