[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5884-S5911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2793. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen
the limitation on holding and transfer of broadcast licenses to foreign
persons, and to apply a similar limitation to holding and transfer of
other telecommunications media by or to foreign governments; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
foreign government investment act of 2000
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in Saturday's Washington Post business
section there is a headline story: German Phone Giant Seeks U.S. Firm.
The concluding paragraph:
But Hedberg stressed that a joint venture will not, under
any circumstances, be considered as the means of crafting an
offering for
[[Page S5885]]
multinationals: Deutsche Telekom wants full control of
whatever course it pursues.
Accordingly, on behalf of Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, Dorgan,
Kerry, and myself, we introduce legislation to clarify the rules
governing the takeover of U.S. telecommunications providers by overseas
companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area
were established by statute in the 1930's, and while the law has not
changed, the FCC's interpretation of this statute has.
It is time to revisit this matter to ensure that current policy is
consistent with efforts to promote vigorous domestic competition,
maintain a secure communications system for National Security while
meeting our International Trade Obligations.
The statute expressly prohibits the transfer of a license to any
corporation owned 25 percent or more by a foreign government, but
allows the FCC to waive this prohibition if doing so would be in the
public interest. Unfortunately, the FCC in previous rulemaking has
found that the public interest is satisfied solely on the basis of
whether the foreign government owned company is based in a WTO country.
If the country is a member of the WTO, the FCC assumes that the public
interest standard has been met.
The legislation we introduce today will bar outright the transfer or
issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than
25 percent owned by a foreign government. We would not be alone in
taking this step. Governments across the globe have prevented
government owned telecommunications providers from purchasing assets in
their countries. In the last month, the Spanish government prevented
KPN, the Dutch provider, from purchasing Telefonica de Espana because
of the Netherlands government's stake in KPN. They were not alone; the
Italian and Hong Kong governments have recently thwarted takeover
attempts by Deutsche Telekom, of Telecom Italia, and Singapore Tel, of
Hong Kong Telecom, for just such reasons.
Recent comments by Deutsche Telekom are particularly disturbing.
During a recent press conference in New York, DT's CEO, Rom Sommer,
stated ``that the market cap of Deutsche Telekom today vs. any American
potential acquisition candidate means that nobody is out of reach.'' DT
is approximately 59 percent government owned, has approximately 100
million euros in cash and operates essentially from a protected home
market. NTT, the Japanese Government owned provider and France Telecom,
the French Government owned provider are similarly situated.
Since 1984, U.S. telecommunications policy has encouraged vigorous
domestic competition. The modified final judgment and the 1996
Telecommunications Act are key examples of our efforts in this area.
While our efforts to foster competition have benefited consumers, these
efforts have depressed the earnings and stock prices of U.S. domestic
providers.
But in ``Promoting competition'' here at home we may be facilitating
the ease by which foreign protected players may emerge with key U.S.
assets. So for example, regulated European monopolists Deutsche Telekom
and France Telecom, both majority foreign government owned--and subject
to considerably less domestic competition, are reportedly eyeing U.S.
companies.
For more than fifty years, U.S. international trade policy has
encouraged governments to separate themselves from the private or
commercial sector. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Government
encouraged various privatizations of foreign government-owned
commercial ventures.
With the end of the Cold War and the rise of global capitalism, we
can justifiably claim an enormous amount of success in these efforts.
Unfortunately, these efforts are far from complete. Around the globe,
some of the world's most important sectors remain shackled with
government-owned competitors. These government owned companies distort
competition and undermine the concept of private capitalism.
To allow these government-owned entities to purchase U.S.-based
assets would undermine longstanding and successful U.S. policy.
Moreover, allowing these competitors into the United States could
potentially undercut our efforts to ensure competition in our domestic
telecommunications market and in markets abroad.
Government ownership of commercial assets results in significant
marketplace distortion. Companies owned by governments have access to
capital, capital markets and interest rates on more favorable terms
than companies not affiliated with national governments. Many lenders
may assume, correctly, that individual governments would not allow
these companies to fail.
In addition, companies competing with these providers may suffer from
increased costs as a result of the entrance of such providers into the
market. Lenders may conclude that the difficulty in competing with a
government-owned company will increase the likelihood of failure. As a
result, the entrance of a government supported provider into a market
raises troubling anti-competitive issues. Many of these anti-
competitive effects can be relieved merely by the elimination of
government-owned stakes.
Finally, with regard to foreign markets, it is troubling to permit
companies to be regulated by the governments that own them. While there
is little we can do to effect this situation, we can take care to see
that it is not exacerbated. These companies may use profits from these
anticompetitive markets to unfairly subsidize U.S. operations.
I must raise the national security concerns that trouble me greatly.
We can all agree that telecommunications services are important for
national security concerns. To permit a foreign government to own such
assets would raise too many troubling questions.
The United States government--for national security purposes--created
and nurtured the Internet in the 1960s and 1970s to ensure redundancy
in communications. To permit foreign government owned companies to
purchase the infrastructure necessary to support the Internet would
undercut the very success of these efforts.
This bill is timely for one additional reason. In recent days we have
seen an increase in European Union antitrust scrutiny in the
telecommunications area. Much of that activity has focused on two high
profile proposed mergers, WorldCom-Sprint and Time Warner-AOL, despite
the limited impact that these mergers will have on the European Union.
This trend has become so pronounced that it received coverage in last
weeks Washington Post in a story entitled, ``EU Resists Big U.S.
mergers.''
This increased antitrust activity is particularly troublesome because
competitors to both companies are owned by European governments
including the German, French and Dutch governments.
Moreover, several of these government owned companies are widely
reported to be interested in purchasing the remnants of Sprint that may
be separated as a result of this investigation. In fact, according to a
recent Financial Times story, as a result of aggressive antitrust
enforcement, a strong American competitor--MCI WorldCom may fall prey
to one of these government owned-competitors.
For the United States Justice Department to take this step is one
matter--these mergers involve American companies, primarily doing
business in the United States. For the EU to take this step--when it is
likely to assist European Companies owned by its member governments--is
quite another.
Moreover, this is not the first time that the EU has intervened in a
U.S. merger to protect European government owned companies. Several
years ago, the EU objected to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in
order to protect the government owned Airbus consortium.
In conclusion, this legislation establishes all of the correct
incentives. It does not prohibit foreign investment; rather, it
prohibits foreign government investment. Many companies have expressed
a desire to enter the U.S.; ours is a lucrative market. By encouraging
additional privatization of the government-owned telecommunications
providers interested in providing services in the United States we will
further the ideals of international capitalism.
______
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2794. A bill to provide for a temporary Federal district judgeship
for
[[Page S5886]]
the southern district of Indiana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP FOR SOUTHERN INDIANA
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Richard Lugar to
introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act.
This legislation creates an additional temporary judgeship for the
Southern District of Indiana to help alleviate the strain experienced
over the past five years as a result of an extremely heavy caseload.
In the last year alone, the Southern District has seen a higher than
average number of case filings with 585 filings per judge, compared to
the national average of 493 filings per judge. The Federal Bureau of
Prisons ``Death Row'' has recently been located at the United States
Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is part of the Southern
District. As a result, the Southern District anticipates a significant
increase in the number of petitions in death habeas cases. In addition,
the Southern District of Indiana includes our state capital of
Indianapolis, the center of government and politics in the Hoosier
State. The court has experienced an increase in the number of cases
which raise political and public policy questions. The Southern
District court is clearly overburdened.
The legislation I introduce today is critical to ensuring the
delivery of Justice in the Southern District of Indiana. There is wide
agreement about the need for this additional judgeship and, in fact,
the Judicial Conference has called on Congress to add a temporary
judge. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious
consideration and support. I thank the President and I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 2795. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
western shoshone claims distribution act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Western
Shoshone Claims Distribution Act.
Historically, the Western Shoshone were the residents land in the
northeastern corner of Nevada and parts of California. For more than a
hundred years, the Western Shoshone have received no compensation for
the loss of their tribal lands. In the 1950's, the Indian Lands Claim
Commission was established to compensate Indians for lands ceded to the
United States. The commission determined that Western Shoshone land had
been taken through ``gradual encroachment,'' and awarded the tribe 26
million dollars. The commission's decision was later approved by the
United States Supreme Court. However, it was not until 1979 that the
United States appropriated more than 26 million dollars to reimburse
the descendants of these tribes for their loss.
Mr. President, the Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third
of the tribal members are unemployed; for many of those who do have
jobs, it is a struggle to live from one paycheck to the next. Wood
stoves often provide the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like
other American Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be
disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational achievement.
The high school completion rate for Indian people between the ages of
20 and 24 is dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate 12.5
percent higher than the rest of the nation. For the majority of the
Western Shoshone, the money contained in the settlement funds could
lead to drastic lifestyle improvements.
Yet twenty years later, those three judgement funds still remain in
the United States Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a
single penny of the money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty
years, the original trust fund has grown to more than 121 million
dollars. It is long past the time that this money should be delivered
into the hands of its owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee
has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this
distribution.
It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast
majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an
immediate distribution of their money. This Act will provide payments
to eligible Western Shoshone tribal members and ensure that future
generations of Western Shoshone will be able to enjoy the benefit of
the distribution in perpetuity. Through the establishment of a tribally
controlled grant trust fund, individual members of the Western Shoshone
will be able to apply for money for education and other needs within
limits set by a self-appointed committee of tribal members.
It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim
distributed with all due haste. Members of the Western Shoshone
gathered in Fallon and Elko, Nevada in May of 1998. They cast a vote
overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported the
distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. I rise today
in support and recognition of their decision. The final distribution of
this fund has lingered for more than twenty years and it is clear that
the best interests of the tribes will not be served by prolonging their
wait.
Mr. President, twenty years has been more than long enough.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2795
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Western Shoshone Claims
Distribution Act''.
SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCKET 326-K FUNDS.
The funds appropriated on December 19, 1979, in
satisfaction of an award granted to the Western Shoshone
Indians in Docket Number 326-K before the Indian Claims
Commission, including all earned interest shall be
distributed as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall establish a Western Shoshone
Judgment Roll consisting of all Western Shoshones who--
(A) have at least \1/4\ degree of Western Shoshone Blood;
(B) are citizens of the United States; and
(C) are living on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Any individual determined or certified as eligible by
the Secretary to receive a per capita payment from any other
judgment fund awarded by the Indian Claims Commission, the
United States Claims Court, or the United States Court of
Federal Claims, that was appropriated on or before the date
of enactment of this Act, shall not be eligible for
enrollment under this Act.
(3) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
rules and regulations governing the establishment of the
Western Shoshone Judgment Roll and shall utilize any
documents acceptable to the Secretary in establishing proof
of eligibility. The Secretary's determination on all
applications for enrollment under this paragraph shall be
final.
(4) Upon completing the Western Shoshone Judgment Roll
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make a per capita
distribution of 100 percent of the funds described in this
section, in a sum as equal as possible, to each person listed
on the Roll.
(5)(A) With respect to the distribution of funds under this
section, the per capita shares of living competent adults who
have reached the age of 19 years on the date of the
distribution provided for under paragraph (4), shall be paid
directly to them.
(B) The per capita shares of deceased individuals shall be
distributed to their heirs and legatees in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(C) The shares of legally incompetent individuals shall be
administered pursuant to regulations and procedures
established by the Secretary under section 3(b)(3) of Public
Law 93-134 (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)).
(D) The shares of minors and individuals who are under the
age of 19 years on the date of the distribution provided for
under paragraph (4) shall be held by the Secretary in
supervised individual Indian money accounts. The funds from
such accounts shall be disbursed over a period of 4 years in
payments equaling 25 percent of the principal, plus the
interest earned on that portion of the per capita share. The
first payment shall be disbursed to individuals who have
reached the age of 18 years if such individuals are deemed
legally competent. Subsequent payments shall be disbursed
within 90 days of the individual's following 3 birthdays.
(6) All funds distributed under this Act are subject to the
provisions of section 7 of Public Law 93-134 (25 U.S.C.
1407).
(7) All residual principal and interest funds remaining
after the distribution under paragraph (4) is complete shall
be added to the principal funds that are held and invested
under section 3(1).
(8) All per capita shares belonging to living competent
adults certified as eligible to share in the judgment fund
distribution under this section, and the interest earned on
those shares, that remain unpaid for a period of 6-years
shall be added to the principal funds that are held and
invested under section 3(1), except that in the case of a
minor,
[[Page S5887]]
such 6-year period shall not begin to run until the minor
reaches the age of majority.
(9) Receipt of a share of the judgment funds under this
section shall not be construed as a waiver of any existing
treaty rights pursuant to the ``1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley''
inclusive of all Articles I through VIII and shall not
prevent any Western Shoshone Tribe or Band or individual
Shoshone Indian from pursuing other rights guaranteed by law.
SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCKETS 326-A--1 AND 326-A-3.
The funds appropriated on March 23, 1992, and August 21,
1995, in satisfaction of the awards granted to the Western
Shoshone Indians in Docket Numbers 326-A-1 and 326-A-2 before
the United States Court of Claims, and the funds referred to
under section 2, together with all earned interest, shall be
distributed as follows:
(1)(A) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall establish in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Western
Shoshone Educational Trust Fund'' for the benefit of the
Western Shoshone members. There shall be credited to the
Trust Fund the amount described in the matter preceding this
paragraph.
(B) The principal amount in the Trust Fund shall not be
expended or disbursed. Other amounts in the Trust Fund shall
be invested as provided for in section 1 of the Act of June
24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a).
(C) All accumulated and future interest and income from the
Trust Fund shall be distributed as educational and other
grants, and as other forms of assistance determined
appropriate, to individual Western Shoshone members as
required under this Act and to pay the reasonable and
necessary expenses of the Administrative Committee
established under paragraph (2) (as defined in the written
rules and procedures of such Committee). Funds under this
paragraph shall not be distributed on a per capita basis.
(2)(A) An Administrative Committee to oversee the
distribution of the education grants authorized under
paragraph (1) shall be established as provided for in this
paragraph.
(B) The Administrative Committee shall consist of 1
representative from each of the following organizations:
(i) The Western Shoshone Te-Moak Tribe.
(ii) The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe.
(iii) The Yomba Shoshone Tribe.
(iv) The Ely Shoshone Tribe.
(v) The Western Shoshone Business Council of the Duck
Valley Reservation, Fallon Band of Western Shoshone.
(vi) The at large community.
(C) Each member of the Committee shall serve for a term of
4-years. If a vacancy remains unfilled in the membership of
the Committee for a period in excess of 60 days, the
Committee shall appoint a replacement from among qualified
members of the organization for which the replacement is
being made and such member shall serve until the organization
to be represented designates a replacement.
(D) The Secretary shall consult with the Committee on the
management and investment of the funds subject to
distribution under this section.
(E) The Committee shall have the authority to disburse the
accumulated interest fund under this Act in accordance with
the terms of this Act. The Committee shall be responsible for
ensuring that the funds provided through grants under
paragraph (1) are utilized in a manner consistent with the
terms of this Act. In accordance with paragraph (1)(C), the
Committee may use a portion of the interest funds to pay all
of the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Committee,
including per diem rates for attendance at meetings that are
the same as for those paid to Federal employees in the same
geographic location.
(F) The Committee shall develop written rules and
procedures that include such matters as operating procedures,
rules of conduct, scholarship fund eligibility criteria (such
criteria to be consistent with this Act), application
selection procedures, appeals procedures, fund disbursement
procedures, and fund recoupment procedures. Such rules and
procedures shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary.
A portion of the interest funds, not to exceed $100,000,
under this Act may be used by the Committee to pay the
expenses associated with developing such rules and
procedures. At the discretion of the Committee, and with the
approval of the appropriate tribal governing body,
jurisdiction to hear appeals of the Committee's decisions may
be exercised by a tribal court, or a court of Indian offenses
operated under section 11 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(G) The Committee shall employ an independent certified
public accountant to prepare an annual financial statement
that includes the operating expenses of the Committee and the
total amount of scholarship fund disbursements for the fiscal
year for which the statement is being prepared under this
section. The Committee shall compile a list of names of all
individuals approved to receive scholarship funds during such
fiscal year. The financial statement and the list shall be
distributed to each organization referred to in this section
and copies shall be made available to the Western Shoshone
members upon request.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Western
Shoshone Educational Trust Fund established under section
3(1).
(3) Western shoshone members.--The term ``Western Shoshone
members'' means an individual who appears on the Western
Shoshone Judgment Roll established under section 2(1), or an
individual who is the lineal descendant of an individual
appearing on the roll, and who--
(A) satisfies all eligibility criteria established by the
Administrative Committee under section 3;
(B) fulfills all application requirements established by
the Administrative Committee; and
(C) agrees to utilize tile funds in a manner approved by
the Administrative Committee for educational or vocational
training purposes.
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary shall prescribe the enrollment regulations
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and
Mr. Baucus):
S. 2796. 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.
water resources development act of 2000
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and I am pleased that my
colleagues Senator Bob Smith, Environment and Public Works Committee
chairman and Senator Max Baucus, ranking member of the Environment and
Public Works Committee have joined as co-sponsors of this bill.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA2000) is the
culmination of four hearings that the Committee on Environment and
Public Works has held regarding a number of different water resources
development issues and projects. The cornerstone of this year's WRDA
bill will be the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, however,
the bill that I am introducing today does not contain an Everglades
Restoration Title. That title will be added as an amendment to this
bill by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob
Smith when the full Committee marks-up WRDA 2000 on Wednesday, June 28,
2000.
Some of my colleagues may question the need for a water resources
bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In
reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from the
105th Congress, and if Congress is to get back on its two year cycle
for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year.
The two year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the
planning and execution of projects and to meet Federal commitments to
state and local governments partners who share the costs of these
projects with the Federal government.
While the two year authorization cycle is extremely important in
maintaining efficient schedules for completion of water resources
projects, efficient schedules also depend on adequate appropriations.
The appropriation of funds for the Corps' program has not been adequate
and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500 projects that will
cost the federal government $38 billion to complete.
I believe these are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost
ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors. Nevertheless, the inability to
provide adequate funding for these projects means that project
construction schedules are spread out over a longer period of time,
resulting in increased construction costs and delays in achieving
project benefits.
Mr. President, I recognize that budget allocations and Corps
appropriations are beyond the purview of the authorization package that
I am introducing today, but I believe that the backlog issue should
impact the way we approach WRDA2000 in three very important ways.
First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of
Engineers. I am not convinced that there is a Corps role in water and
sewage plant construction, and I am pleased to report that the bill
that I am introducing today contains no authorizations for
environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment plants or
combined
[[Page S5888]]
sewer overflow systems. Another example is the brownfields remediation
authority proposed by the White House for the Corps. Brownfield
remediation is a very important issue. It is a big problem in my state
of Ohio and I am working to remove federal impediments to State
cleanups. Having said that, I do not believe this is a mission of the
Corps of Engineers, and the bill that I am introducing today does not
contain authority for the Corps to be involved in brownfields
remediation.
We need to recognize and address the large unmet national needs
within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood
control, navigation and the emerging mission area of restoration of
nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida
Everglades.
The second thing that we need to do is to make sure that the projects
Congress authorizes meet the highest standard of engineering, economic
and environmental analysis. We must be sure that these projects and
project modifications make maximum net contributions to economic
development and environmental quality.
We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if
projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish
project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate
level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be
completed before projects are authorized for construction. Thus, WRDA
2000 only contains projects which have completed feasibility reports.
Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost sharing
principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA '86
established the principle that water resources project should be
accomplished in partnerships with states and local governments and that
this partnership should involve significant financial participation by
the non-federal sponsors. This bill contains no cost share changes.
My experience as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me
that the requirement for local funding to match federal dollars results
in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out.
Whether it's parks, housing, highways, or water resources projects, the
requirement for a local cost share provides a level of accountability
that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing principles must
not be weakened, and I am pleased to report that they are not in this
legislation.
Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today ensures that we
only commit to those projects that are properly within the purview of
the Corps of Engineers, it provides that each project meets the
necessary criteria for federal involvement and it preserves the cost-
sharing arrangement with state and local sponsors that has been in
place for more than a decade. It is a responsible approach to meeting
our nation's water resources needs, and I look forward to working with
my colleagues to advance the goals of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 be printed in the Record
following my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill as ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2796
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 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of 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. Small shore protection projects.
Sec. 103. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels
in navigable waters.
Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 106. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the
environment.
Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 208. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho.
Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 306. Morganza, Louisiana.
Sec. 307. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 308. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 312. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 313. Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 315. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 316. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 317. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 318. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas.
Sec. 320. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 322. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 325. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 326. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 327. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 328. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 329. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 330. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 331. Project deauthorizations.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins,
Florida.
Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 414. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Sec. 416. South Louisiana.
Sec. 417. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 422. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 423. Missouri River basin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Nebraska.
Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 427. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas.
Sec. 434. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.
Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
[[Page S5889]]
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following project
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the designated report: The
project for navigation, New York-New Jersey Harbor: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of
$1,781,235,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$738,631,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,042,604,000.
(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 if a favorable report of the Chief is
completed not later than December 31, 2000:
(1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $10,000,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
(2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $8,000,000.
(3) Rio de flag, arizona.--The project for flood damage
reduction, Rio de Flag, Arizona, at a total cost of
$26,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,100,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,300,000.
(4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for environmental
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of
$90,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $58,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,000,000.
(5) Los angeles harbor, california.--The project for
navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost
of $168,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$124,900,000.
(6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood
control, Murrieta Creek, California, at a total cost of
$43,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,800,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,300,000.
(7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for fish and
wildlife restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total
cost of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$22,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
(8) Ranchos palos verdes, california.--The project for
environmental restoration, Ranchos Palos Verdes, California,
at a total cost of $18,100,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $11,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,300,000.
(9) Santa barbara streams, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission
Creek, California, at a total cost of $17,100,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $8,600,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $8,500,000.
(10) Upper newport bay harbor, california.--The project for
environmental restoration, Upper Newport Bay Harbor,
California, at a total cost of $28,280,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $18,390,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $9,890,000.
(11) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California,
at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $16,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$9,100,000.
(12) Tampa harbor, florida.--Modification of the project
for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section
4 of the Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042, chapter
427), to deepen the Port Sutton Channel, at a total cost of
$7,245,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,709,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,536,000.
(13) Barbers point harbor, oahu, hawaii.--The project for
navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, at a total
cost of $51,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$21,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $30,000,000.
(14) John t. myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The
project for navigation, John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Ohio
River, Indiana and Kentucky, at a total cost of $182,000,000.
The costs of construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
(15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky.--The project for
navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky, at a
total cost of $183,000,000. The costs of construction of the
project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--The project
for hurricane protection, Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of
Mexico, at a total cost of $550,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $192,000,000.
(17) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The
project for shore protection, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg
Inlet, New Jersey, at a total cost of $51,203,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $613,000.
(18) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new
jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and
Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost
of $5,219,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,392,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,827,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $110,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
(19) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new
jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and
Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, at a total cost of
$30,081,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,553,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,528,000, and at an
estimated average annual cost of $2,468,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated annual Federal cost of $1,234,000 and an estimated
annual non-Federal cost of $1,234,000.
(20) Memphis, tennessee.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a total cost
of $10,933,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,106,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,827,000.
(21) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $100,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $35,000,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind
services or materials.
(ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before the date of execution of a project cooperation
agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the
work is integral to the project.
(22) Ohio river.--The program for protection and
restoration of fish and wildlife habitat in and along the
main stem of the Ohio River, consisting of projects described
in a comprehensive plan, at a total cost of $200,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $160,000,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.
SEC. 102. SMALL SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects, and if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
(1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach
restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St.
Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
(2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration
and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.
SEC. 103. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation,
Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
SEC. 104. REMOVAL OF SNAGS AND CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING OF
CHANNELS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 604):
(1) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags
and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control,
Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project
for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of
channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 105. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
(1) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain
Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank
protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
(4) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana.
(7) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish,
Louisiana.
[[Page S5890]]
(8) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 106. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
(2) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
(3) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
(4) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
(5) Cane bend subdivision, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
(6) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Crown Point, Louisiana.
(7) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
(8) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
(9) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood control, Gumby
Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
(10) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Hope Canal, Louisiana.
(11) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
(12) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
(13) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Lower Lafitte Basin, Louisiana.
(14) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
(15) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Pailet Basin, Louisiana.
(16) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
(17) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood
control, Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana.
(18) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
(19) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood control,
Stephensville, Louisiana.
(20) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for
flood control, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
(21) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project
for flood control, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes
County, Mississippi.
(22) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood control,
Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is appropriate, may carry out the project under
section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
(1) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine,
Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5,
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish,
Louisiana.
(5) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement
of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point,
Louisiana.
(6) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence,
Louisiana.
(7) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature
Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
(9) Mushingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed,
Licking River, Mushingum County, Ohio.
SEC. 108. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326):
(1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma
Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
(2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to
mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4,
louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged
material from a Federal navigation project that includes
dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile 11 to
mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
(4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make
beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation
project that includes marsh creation at the contained
submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to protect, restore, and
create aquatic and related habitat using dredged material,
East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.
SEC. 109. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary may carry out the following projects under
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330):
(1) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish,
Louisiana.
(2) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish,
Louisiana.
(3) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
(4) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal,
louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin
Parish, Louisiana.
(5) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
(6) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
(7) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana.
(8) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(9) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
(10) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(11) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(12) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(13) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(14) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
(15) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(16) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
(17) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
SEC. 110. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.
Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Perry Creek, Iowa.''.
SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including
beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation
projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).''.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.
Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by striking ``State legislative''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``of the State or a body politic of the State''.
SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United
States, including needs relating to--
``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
``(2) flood damage reduction;
``(3) navigation and ports;
[[Page S5891]]
``(4) watershed protection;
``(5) water supply; and
``(6) drought preparedness.
``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a)
shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal,
tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting
river basins and watersheds for assessment under this
section, the Secretary shall give priority to the Delaware
River basin.
``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an
assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal,
State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions
will facilitate completion of the assessment.
``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the
costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Credit.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
Federal interests may receive credit toward the non-Federal
share required under paragraph (1) for the provision of
services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions.
``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the
costs of the assessment.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.
SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Program.--
(1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the
heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and
determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources
development projects that--
(A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
(B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in
proximity to Alaska Native villages.
(2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under
paragraph (1) may address--
(A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources; and
(B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation
with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies,
determines to be appropriate.
(c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the
Interior.--
(1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the
Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities
with Indian tribes, and in recognition of mutual trust
responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the
Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under
subsection (b).
(2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
(A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of
the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to
avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated
adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
(B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department
of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any
recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied
under subsection (b).
(d) Priority Projects.--In selecting water resources
development projects for study under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to--
(1) the project along the upper Snake River within and
adjacent to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho,
authorized by section 304; and
(2) the project for the Tribal Reservation of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington,
authorized by section 435(b).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Ability to pay.--
(A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study
under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the
non-Federal interest to pay.
(B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal
interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in conducting
studies of projects under subsection (b), the Secretary may
provide credit to the non-Federal interest for the provision
of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions to the extent that the Secretary determines
that the services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind
contributions will facilitate completion of the project.
(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph
(A) shall not exceed an amount equal to the non-Federal share
of the costs of the study.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more
than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian
tribe.
SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.
Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this
section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an
environmental protection and restoration project, a flood
control project, or an agricultural water supply project,
shall be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest
to pay.
``(2) Criteria and procedures.--
``(A) In general.--The ability of a non-Federal interest to
pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with--
``(i) during the period ending on the date on which revised
criteria and procedures are promulgated under subparagraph
(B), criteria and procedures in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this subparagraph; and
``(ii) after the date on which revised criteria and
procedures are promulgated under subparagraph (B), the
revised criteria and procedures promulgated under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, in
accordance with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall promulgate
revised criteria and procedures governing the ability of a
non-Federal interest to pay.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
and
(B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following:
``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to--
``(i) the financial ability of the non-Federal interest to
carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities; or
``(ii) additional assistance that may be available from
other Federal or State sources.''.
SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to
reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water
resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Army.
(b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to
individuals who provide information or evidence leading to
the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to
Federal property.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
each fiscal year.
SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.
Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112
Stat. 2681-515), the Secretary may--
(1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation
Service on an interagency basis; and
(2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the
activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the
Service.
SEC. 207. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES.
Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``in
cases in which the activities require specialized training
relating to hydroelectric power generation''.
SEC. 208. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``out'' after
``carry''.
SEC. 209. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Reburial.--
(1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian
tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at
civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may
be used to rebury Native American remains that--
(A) have been discovered on project land; and
(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or
Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
(2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of
the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the
Secretary may recover and rebury, at full Federal expense,
the remains at the areas identified and set aside under
subsection (b)(1).
(c) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
any other provision of law,
[[Page S5892]]
the Secretary may convey to an Indian tribe for use as a
cemetery an area at a civil works project that is identified
and set aside by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying
out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary
right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the
authorized purposes of the project.
SEC. 210. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS AND DIKES.
Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``It shall'';
(2) by striking ``However, such structures'' and inserting
the following:
``(b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a)'';
(3) by striking ``When plans'' and inserting the following:
``(c) Modification of Plans.--When plans'';
(4) by striking ``The approval'' and inserting the
following:
``(d) Applicability.--
``(1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval''; and
(5) in subsection (d) (as designated by paragraph (4)), by
adding at the end the following:
``(2) Dams and dikes.--
``(A) In general.--The approval required by this section of
the location and plans, or any modification of plans, of any
dam or dike, applies only to a dam or dike that, if
constructed, would completely span a waterway used to
transport interstate or foreign commerce, in such a manner
that actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be
adversely affected.
``(B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike (other than a
dam or dike described in subparagraph (A)) that is proposed
to be built in any other navigable water of the United
States--
``(i) shall be subject to section 10; and
``(ii) shall not be subject to the approval requirements of
this section.''.
SEC. 211. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION AUTHORITY.
Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Construction.--The term `construction', with respect
to a project or separable element, means--
``(A) in the case of--
``(i) a nonstructural flood control project, the
acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-way primarily
to relocate a structure; and
``(ii) in the case of any other nonstructural measure, the
performance of physical work under a construction contract;
``(B) in the case of an environmental protection and
restoration project--
``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
way primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetland or a
similar habitat; or
``(ii) the performance of physical work under a
construction contract to modify an existing project facility
or to construct a new environmental protection and
restoration measure; and
``(C) in the case of any other water resources project, the
performance of physical work under a construction contract.
``(2) Physical work under a construction contract.--The
term `physical work under a construction contract' does not
include any activity related to project planning, engineering
and design, relocation, or the acquisition of land, an
easement, or a right-of-way.
``(b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements
of projects that--
``(A) are authorized for construction; and
``(B) for which no Federal funds were obligated for
construction during the 4 full fiscal years preceding the
date of submission of the list.
``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or
separable element of a water resources project, authorized
for construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end
of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the most recent
authorization or reauthorization of the project or separable
element unless Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element by the end
of that period.
``(c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually
submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements
of projects--
``(A) that are authorized for construction;
``(B) for which Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element; and
``(C) for which no Federal funds have been obligated for
construction of the project or separable element during the 2
full fiscal years preceding the date of submission of the
list.
``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or
separable element of a water resources project, for which
Federal funds have been obligated for construction shall be
deauthorized effective at the end of any 5-fiscal year period
during which Federal funds specifically identified for
construction of the project or separable element (in an Act
of Congress or in the accompanying legislative report
language) have not been obligated for construction.
``(d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the
lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary
shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of
the House of Representatives in whose district, the affected
project or separable element is or would be located.
``(e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall
publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all
projects and separable elements deauthorized under subsection
(b)(2) or (c)(2).
``(f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take
effect 3 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection.''.
SEC. 212. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking
``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and
inserting the following:
``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) address''; and
(4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3))--
(A) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt
and enforce'' after ``policies'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) require non-Federal interests to take measures to
preserve the level of flood protection provided by a project
to which subsection (a) applies.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to any project or separable element of a project
with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal
interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on
or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Flood Plain''
and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``flood plain'' and
inserting ``floodplain''.
SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1272) 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 sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.''.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of the
reservoir and associated improvements in the vicinity of
Boydsville, Arkansas, authorized by section 402 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322), not more
than $250,000 of the costs of the relevant planning and
engineering investigations carried out by State and local
agencies, if the Secretary finds that the investigations are
integral to the scope of the feasibility study.
SEC. 302. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
Section 374 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 321) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the following'' and
all that follows and inserting ``the amounts of project
storage that are recommended by the report required under
subsection (b).''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``and does not significantly impact other
authorized project purposes'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2000'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``and to what extent'' after ``whether'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) project storage should be reallocated to sustain the
tail water trout fisheries.''.
SEC. 303. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero
Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073),
by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House
Resolution dated December 15, 1970, is modified to authorize
the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal
interest to carry out the project in accordance with section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
426i-1), if the Secretary determines
[[Page S5893]]
that the project is technically sound, environmentally
acceptable, and economically justified.
SEC. 304. FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION, IDAHO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out planning,
engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration,
flood damage reduction, and erosion protection project along
the upper Snake River within and adjacent to the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation, Idaho.
(b) Project Justification.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law or requirement for economic justification,
the Secretary may construct and adaptively manage for 10
years, at full Federal expense, a project under this section
if the Secretary determines that the project--
(1) is a cost-effective means of providing ecosystem
restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection;
(2) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible;
and
(3) will improve the economic and social conditions of the
Shoshone-Bannok Indian Tribe.
(c) Land, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--As a condition of
the project described in subsection (a), the Shoshone-Bannock
Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, and rights-of-way
necessary for implementation of the project.
SEC. 305. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of
improvements to the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries,
phase 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, authorized by section 419 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324),
the costs of work carried out by the non-Federal interests in
Lake County, Illinois, before the date of execution of the
feasibility study cost-sharing agreement, if--
(1) the Secretary and the non-Federal interests enter into
a feasibility study cost-sharing agreement; and
(2) the Secretary finds that the work is integral to the
scope of the feasibility study.
SEC. 306. MORGANZA, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the project costs of the Mississippi River and tributaries,
Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, project,
authorized under section 101(b)(16), the costs of any work
carried out by the non-Federal interests for interim flood
protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary finds that
the work is compatible with, and integral to, the project.
SEC. 307. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red
River Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142)
and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613),
and section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), is further modified to authorize
the purchase of mitigation land from willing sellers in any
of the parishes that comprise the Red River Waterway
District, consisting of Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Grant,
Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River Parishes.
SEC. 308. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.
The Secretary--
(1) may provide design and construction assistance for
recreational facilities in the State of Maryland at the
William Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam), Maryland
and West Virginia, project authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182); and
(2) shall require the non-Federal interest to provide 50
percent of the costs of designing and constructing the
recreational facilities.
SEC. 309. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, New Madrid
County Harbor, New Madrid County, Missouri, authorized under
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577), is authorized as described in the feasibility report
for the project, including both phase 1 and phase 2 of the
project.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the
non-Federal interests for the costs incurred by the non-
Federal interests in carrying out construction work for phase
1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project.
(2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit
under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the required non-Federal
share for the project.
SEC. 310. PEMISCOT COUNTY HARBOR, MISSOURI.
(a) Credit.--With respect to the project for navigation,
Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, authorized under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the
Secretary shall provide credit to the Pemiscot County Port
Authority, or an agent of the authority, for the costs
incurred by the Authority or agent in carrying out
construction work for the project after December 31, 1997, if
the Secretary finds that the construction work is integral to
the project.
(b) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit
under subsection (a) shall not exceed the required non-
Federal share for the project, estimated as of the date of
enactment of this Act to be $222,000.
SEC. 311. PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), at
such time as S.S.S., Inc. conveys all right, title, and
interest in and to the parcel of land described in subsection
(b)(1) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to S.S.S., Inc.
(b) Land Description.--The parcels of land referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Non-federal land.--8.99 acres with existing flowage
easements, located in Pike County, Missouri, adjacent to land
being acquired from Holnam, Inc. by the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Federal land.--8.99 acres located in Pike County,
Missouri, known as ``Government Tract Numbers FM-46 and FM-
47'', administered by the Corps of Engineers.
(c) Conditions.--The land exchange under subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Deeds.--
(A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the parcel of land
described in subsection (b)(1) to the Secretary shall be by a
warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
(B) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to
convey the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to
S.S.S., Inc. shall contain such reservations, terms, and
conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River
9-Foot Navigation Project.
(2) Removal of improvements.--
(A) In general.--S.S.S., Inc. may remove, and the Secretary
may require S.S.S., Inc. to remove, any improvements on the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1).
(B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., voluntarily or under
direction from the Secretary, removes an improvement on the
parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) S.S.S., Inc. shall have no claim against the United
States for liability; and
(ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any
cost associated with the removal or relocation of the
improvement.
(3) Time limit for land exchange.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the land exchange
under subsection (a) shall be completed.
(4) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide legal
descriptions of the parcels of land described in subsection
(b), which shall be used in the instruments of conveyance of
the parcels.
(5) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require
S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs
associated with the land exchange under subsection (a).
(d) Value of Properties.--If the appraised fair market
value, as determined by the Secretary, of the parcel of land
conveyed to S.S.S., Inc. by the Secretary under subsection
(a) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by
the Secretary, of the parcel of land conveyed to the United
States by S.S.S., Inc. under that subsection, S.S.S., Inc.
shall pay to the United States, in cash or a cash equivalent,
an amount equal to the difference between the 2 values.
SEC. 312. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Fort Peck Lake, Montana, is in need of a multispecies
fish hatchery;
(2) the burden of carrying out efforts to raise and stock
fish species in Fort Peck Lake has been disproportionately
borne by the State of Montana despite the existence of a
Federal project at Fort Peck Lake;
(3)(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, eastern
Montana has only 1 warm water fish hatchery, which is
inadequate to meet the demands of the region; and
(B) a disease or infrastructure failure at that hatchery
could imperil fish populations throughout the region;
(4) although the multipurpose project at Fort Peck,
Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August
30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to
include irrigation projects and other activities designed to
promote economic growth, many of those projects were never
completed, to the detriment of the local communities flooded
by the Fort Peck Dam;
(5) the process of developing an environmental impact
statement for the update of the Corps of Engineers Master
Manual for the operation of the Missouri River recognized the
need for greater support of recreation activities and other
authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project;
(6)(A) although fish stocking is included among the
authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project, the State of
Montana has funded the stocking of Fort Peck Lake since 1947;
and
(B) the obligation to fund the stocking constitutes an
undue burden on the State; and
(7) a viable multispecies fishery would spur economic
development in the region.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to authorize and provide funding for the design and
construction of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck
Lake, Montana; and
(2) to ensure stable operation and maintenance of the fish
hatchery.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Fort peck lake.--The term ``Fort Peck Lake'' means the
reservoir created by the damming of the upper Missouri River
in northeastern Montana.
[[Page S5894]]
(2) Hatchery project.--The term ``hatchery project'' means
the project authorized by subsection (d).
(d) Authorization.--The Secretary shall carry out a project
at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, for the design and construction
of a fish hatchery and such associated facilities as are
necessary to sustain a multispecies fishery.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Design and construction.--
(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of
design and construction of the hatchery project shall be 75
percent.
(B) Form of non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the
hatchery project may be provided in the form of cash or in
the form of land, easements, rights-of-way, services, roads,
or any other form of in-kind contribution determined by the
Secretary to be appropriate.
(ii) Required crediting.--The Secretary shall credit toward
the non-Federal share of the costs of the hatchery project--
(I) the costs to the State of Montana of stocking Fort Peck
Lake during the period beginning January 1, 1947; and
(II) the costs to the State of Montana and the counties
having jurisdiction over land surrounding Fort Peck Lake of
construction of local access roads to the lake.
(2) Operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement
of the hatchery project shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(B) Costs associated with threatened and endangered
species.--The costs of operation and maintenance associated
with raising threatened or endangered species shall be a
Federal responsibility.
(C) Power.--The Secretary shall offer to the hatchery
project low-cost project power for all hatchery operations.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section--
(A) $20,000,000; and
(B) such sums as are necessary to carry out subsection
(e)(2)(B).
(2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available under
paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 313. MINES FALLS PARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out dredging of
Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.
SEC. 314. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall carry out maintenance dredging of the
Sagamore Creek Channel, New Hampshire.
SEC. 315. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Passaic
River, New Jersey and New York, authorized by section
101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(104 Stat. 4607), is modified to emphasize nonstructural
approaches for flood control as alternatives to the
construction of the Passaic River tunnel element, while
maintaining the integrity of other separable mainstream
project elements, wetland banks, and other independent
projects that were authorized to be carried out in the
Passaic River Basin before the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Reevaluation of Floodway Study.--The Secretary shall
review the Passaic River Floodway Buyout Study, dated October
1995, to calculate the benefits of a buyout and environmental
restoration using the method used to calculate the benefits
of structural projects under section 308(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
(c) Reevaluation of 10-Year Floodplain Study.--The
Secretary shall review the Passaic River Buyout Study of the
10-year floodplain beyond the floodway of the Central Passaic
River Basin, dated September 1995, to calculate the benefits
of a buyout and environmental restoration using the method
used to calculate the benefits of structural projects under
section 308(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
(d) Preservation of Natural Storage Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the
acquisition, from willing sellers, for flood protection
purposes, of wetlands in the Central Passaic River Basin to
supplement the wetland acquisition authorized by section
101(a)(18)(C)(vi) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4609).
(2) Purchase.--If the Secretary determines that the
acquisition of wetlands evaluated under paragraph (1) is
cost-effective, the Secretary shall purchase the wetlands,
with the goal of purchasing not more than 8,200 acres.
(e) Streambank Erosion Control Study.--The Secretary shall
review relevant reports and conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, erosion control, and streambank restoration
along the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Kearny Point, New
Jersey.
(f) Passaic River Flood Management Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
non-Federal interest, shall establish a task force, to be
known as the ``Passaic River Flood Management Task Force'',
to provide advice to the Secretary concerning all aspects of
the Passaic River flood management project.
(2) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 20
members, appointed as follows:
(A) Appointment by secretary.--The Secretary shall appoint
1 member to represent the Corps of Engineers and to provide
technical advice to the task force.
(B) Appointments by governor of new jersey.--The Governor
of New Jersey shall appoint 18 members to the task force, as
follows:
(i) 2 representatives of the New Jersey legislature who are
members of different political parties.
(ii) 1 representative of the State of New Jersey.
(iii) 1 representative of each of Bergen, Essex, Morris,
and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
(iv) 6 representatives of governments of municipalities
affected by flooding within the Passaic River Basin.
(v) 1 representative of the Palisades Interstate Park
Commission.
(vi) 1 representative of the North Jersey District Water
Supply Commission.
(vii) 1 representative of each of--
(I) the Association of New Jersey Environmental
Commissions;
(II) the Passaic River Coalition; and
(III) the Sierra Club.
(C) Appointment by governor of new york.--The Governor of
New York shall appoint 1 representative of the State of New
York to the task force.
(3) Meetings.--
(A) Regular meetings.--The task force shall hold regular
meetings.
(B) Open meetings.--The meetings of the task force shall be
open to the public.
(4) Annual report.--The task force shall submit annually to
the Secretary and to the non-Federal interest a report
describing the achievements of the Passaic River flood
management project in preventing flooding and any impediments
to completion of the project.
(5) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may use funds made
available to carry out the Passaic River Basin flood
management project to pay the administrative expenses of the
task force.
(6) Termination.--The task force shall terminate on the
date on which the Passaic River flood management project is
completed.
(g) Acquisition of Lands in the Floodway.--Section 1148 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254;
110 Stat. 3718), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The
Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is
consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New
Jersey.''.
(h) Study of Highlands Land Conservation.--The Secretary,
in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the
State of New Jersey, may study the feasibility of conserving
land in the Highlands region of New Jersey and New York to
provide additional flood protection for residents of the
Passaic River Basin in accordance with section 212 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332).
(i) Restriction on Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall not
obligate any funds to carry out design or construction of the
tunnel element of the Passaic River flood control project, as
authorized by section 101(a)(18)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).
(j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(18) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) is amended
in the paragraph heading by striking ``main stem,'' and
inserting ``flood management project,''.
SEC. 316. ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NEW YORK.
(a) In General.--The project for shoreline protection,
Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton
Point (Coney Island Area), New York, authorized by section
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4135) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct T-groins to improve sand retention down drift of
the West 37th Street groin, in the Sea Gate area of Coney
Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report
prepared for the Corps of Engineers, entitled ``Field Data
Gathering Project Performance Analysis and Design Alternative
Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a total cost of
$9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of
constructing the T-groins under subsection (a) shall be 35
percent.
SEC. 317. JOHN DAY POOL, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to the land described in each
deed specified in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and the use restrictions
relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
(2) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area where the elevation
is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area
[[Page S5895]]
constituting wetland for which a permit under section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
would be required.
(b) Affected Deeds.--Subsection (a) applies to deeds with
the following county auditors' file numbers:
(1) Auditor's File Numbers 101244 and 1234170 of Morrow
County, Oregon, executed by the United States.
(2) The portion of the land conveyed in a deed executed by
the United States and bearing Benton County, Washington,
Auditor's File Number 601766, described as a tract of land
lying in sec. 7, T. 5 N., R. 28 E., Willamette meridian,
Benton County, Washington, being more particularly described
by the following boundaries:
(A) Commencing at the point of intersection of the
centerlines of Plymouth Street and Third Avenue in the First
Addition to the Town of Plymouth (according to the duly
recorded plat thereof).
(B) Thence west along the centerline of Third Avenue, a
distance of 565 feet.
(C) Thence south 54 deg. 10' west, to a point on the west
line of Tract 18 of that Addition and the true point of
beginning.
(D) Thence north, parallel with the west line of that sec.
7, to a point on the north line of that sec. 7.
(E) Thence west along the north line thereof to the
northwest corner of that sec. 7.
(F) Thence south along the west line of that sec. 7 to a
point on the ordinary high water line of the Columbia River.
(G) Thence northeast along that high water line to a point
on the north and south coordinate line of the Oregon
Coordinate System, North Zone, that coordinate line being
east 2,291,000 feet.
(H) Thence north along that line to a point on the south
line of First Avenue of that Addition.
(I) Thence west along First Avenue to a point on the
southerly extension of the west line of T. 18.
(J) Thence north along that west line of T. 18 to the point
of beginning.
SEC. 318. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE
ISLAND.
Section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 310) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal
interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of
project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the
costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are
incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of the project cooperation agreement.''.
SEC. 319. JOE POOL LAKE, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, under which
the city agrees to assume all responsibilities of the Trinity
River Authority of the State of Texas under Contract No.
DACW63-76-C-0166, other than financial responsibilities,
except the responsibility described in subsection (d).
(b) Responsibilities of Trinity River Authority.--The
Trinity River Authority shall be relieved of all financial
responsibilities under the contract described in subsection
(a) as of the date on which the Secretary enters into the
agreement with the city under that subsection.
(c) Payments by City.--In consideration of the agreement
entered into under subsection (a), the city shall pay the
Federal Government $4,290,000 in 2 installments--
(1) 1 installment in the amount of $2,150,000, which shall
be due and payable not later than December 1, 2000; and
(2) 1 installment in the amount of $2,140,000, which shall
be due and payable not later than December 1, 2003.
(d) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The agreement entered
into under subsection (a) shall include a provision requiring
the city to assume responsibility for all costs associated
with operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities
included in the contract described in that subsection.
SEC. 320. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical
restoration project'' means a project that will produce,
consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities,
immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) Lake champlain watershed.--The term ``Lake Champlain
watershed'' means--
(A) the land areas within Addison, Bennington, Caledonia,
Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans,
Rutland, and Washington Counties in the State of Vermont; and
(B)(i) the land areas that drain into Lake Champlain and
that are located within Essex, Clinton, Franklin, Warren, and
Washington Counties in the State of New York; and
(ii) the near-shore areas of Lake Champlain within the
counties referred to in clause (i).
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical
restoration projects in the Lake Champlain watershed.
(2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration project
shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the
critical restoration project consists of--
(A) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for
coordinating regulatory and management responsibilities with
respect to the Lake Champlain watershed;
(B) acceleration of whole farm planning to implement best
management practices to maintain or enhance water quality and
to promote agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(C) acceleration of whole community planning to promote
intergovernmental cooperation in the regulation and
management of activities consistent with the goal of
maintaining or enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain
watershed;
(D) natural resource stewardship activities on public or
private land to promote land uses that--
(i) preserve and enhance the economic and social character
of the communities in the Lake Champlain watershed; and
(ii) protect and enhance water quality; or
(E) any other activity determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate.
(c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may
provide assistance for a critical restoration project under
this section only if--
(1) the critical restoration project is publicly owned; or
(2) the non-Federal interest with respect to the critical
restoration project demonstrates that the critical
restoration project will provide a substantial public benefit
in the form of water quality improvement.
(d) Project Selection.--
(1) In general.--In consultation with the heads of other
appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, the
Secretary may--
(A) identify critical restoration projects in the Lake
Champlain watershed; and
(B) carry out the critical restoration projects after
entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(2) Certification.--
(A) In general.--A critical restoration project shall be
eligible for financial assistance under this section only if
the State director for the critical restoration project
certifies to the Secretary that the critical restoration
project will contribute to the protection and enhancement of
the quality or quantity of the water resources of the Lake
Champlain watershed.
(B) Special consideration.--In certifying critical
restoration projects to the Secretary, State directors shall
give special consideration to projects that implement plans,
agreements, and measures that preserve and enhance the
economic and social character of the communities in the Lake
Champlain watershed.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this
section with respect to a critical restoration project, the
Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement
that shall require the non-Federal interest--
(A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical
restoration project;
(B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the critical restoration project;
(C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the critical restoration project; and
(D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the critical
restoration project, except any claim or damage that may
arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a
contractor of the Federal Government.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall
receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of a project cooperation agreement for the critical
restoration project, if the Secretary finds that the design
work is integral to the critical restoration project.
(B) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of
any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged
material disposal area provided for carrying out the critical
restoration project.
(C) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
(f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing
in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the
applicability of Federal or State law with respect to a
critical restoration project carried out with assistance
provided under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. 321. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.
The project for sediment control, Mount St. Helens,
Washington, authorized by the matter under the heading
``transfer of federal townsites'' in chapter IV of title I of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to maintain, for
Longview, Kelso, Lexington, and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz
[[Page S5896]]
River, Washington, the flood protection levels specified in
the October 1985 report entitled ``Mount St. Helens,
Washington, Decision Document (Toutle, Cowlitz, and Columbia
Rivers)'', published as House Document No. 135, 99th
Congress, signed by the Chief of Engineers, and endorsed and
submitted to Congress by the Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army.
SEC. 322. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Definition of Critical Restoration Project.--In this
section, the term ``critical restoration project'' means a
project that will produce, consistent with Federal programs,
projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--The Secretary may
participate in critical restoration projects in the area of
Puget Sound, Washington, and adjacent waters, including--
(1) the watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound;
(2) Admiralty Inlet;
(3) Hood Canal;
(4) Rosario Strait; and
(5) the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
(c) Project Selection.--In consultation with the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of
other appropriate Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies,
the Secretary may--
(1) identify critical restoration projects in the area
described in subsection (b); and
(2) carry out the critical restoration projects after
entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal
interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
(d) Prioritization of Projects.--In prioritizing projects
for implementation under this section, the Secretary shall
consult with, and give full consideration to the priorities
of, public and private entities that are active in watershed
planning and ecosystem restoration in Puget Sound watersheds,
including--
(1) the Salmon Recovery Funding Board;
(2) the Northwest Straits Commission;
(3) the Hood Canal Coordinating Council;
(4) county watershed planning councils; and
(5) salmon enhancement groups.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Before carrying out any critical
restoration project under this section, the Secretary shall
enter into a binding agreement with the non-Federal interest
that shall require the non-Federal interest--
(A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical
restoration project;
(B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the critical restoration project;
(C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the critical restoration project; and
(D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the critical
restoration project, except any claim or damage that may
arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a
contractor of the Federal Government.
(2) Credit.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive
credit for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way,
relocation, or dredged material disposal area provided for
carrying out the critical restoration project.
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services,
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of
which not more than $5,000,000 may be used to carry out any 1
critical restoration project.
SEC. 323. FOX RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN.
Section 332(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4852) 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) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions may
include 1 or more payments to the State of Wisconsin to
assist the State in paying the costs of repair and
rehabilitation of the transferred locks and appurtenant
features.''.
SEC. 324. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.
Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``$7,000,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) the construction of reefs and related clean shell
substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-dimensional
oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Maryland and Virginia--
``(A) which reefs shall be preserved as permanent
sanctuaries by the non-Federal interests, consistent with the
recommendations of the scientific consensus document on
Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June 1999; and
``(B) for assistance in the construction of which reefs the
Chief of Engineers shall solicit participation by and the
services of commercial watermen.''.
SEC. 325. GREAT LAKES DREDGING LEVELS ADJUSTMENT.
(a) Definition of Great Lake.--In this section, the term
``Great Lake'' means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron
(including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario
(including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of
latitude).
(b) Dredging Levels.--In operating and maintaining Federal
channels and harbors of, and the connecting channels between,
the Great Lakes, the Secretary shall conduct such dredging as
is necessary to ensure minimal operation depths consistent
with the original authorized depths of the channels and
harbors when water levels in the Great Lakes are, or are
forecast to be, below the International Great Lakes Datum of
1985.
SEC. 326. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Great Lakes comprise a nationally and
internationally significant fishery and ecosystem;
(2) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem should be
developed and enhanced in a coordinated manner; and
(3) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem provides a
diversity of opportunities, experiences, and beneficial uses.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Great lake.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake
Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St.
Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St.
Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude).
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``Great Lake'' includes any
connecting channel, historically connected tributary, and
basin of a lake specified in subparagraph (A).
(2) Great lakes commission.--The term ``Great Lakes
Commission'' means The Great Lakes Commission established by
the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414).
(3) Great lakes fishery commission.--The term ``Great Lakes
Fishery Commission'' has the meaning given the term
``Commission'' in section 2 of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of
1956 (16 U.S.C. 931).
(4) Great lakes state.--The term ``Great Lakes State''
means each of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
(1) Support plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
activities of the Corps of Engineers that support the
management of Great Lakes fisheries.
(B) Use of existing documents.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the plan shall make use of and incorporate
documents that relate to the Great Lakes and are in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, such as lakewide
management plans and remedial action plans.
(C) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in
cooperation with--
(i) the signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries; and
(ii) other affected interests.
(2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery,
ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.
(3) Evaluation program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to
evaluate the success of the projects carried out under
paragraph (2) in meeting fishery and ecosystem restoration
goals.
(B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be
conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies.
(d) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Great Lakes Commission or any other agency established to
facilitate active State participation in management of the
Great Lakes.
(e) Relationship to Other Great Lakes Activities.--No
activity under this section shall affect the date of
completion of any other activity relating to the Great Lakes
that is authorized under other law.
(f) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of
development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) shall be 65
percent.
(2) Project planning, design, construction, and
evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning,
design, construction, and evaluation of a project under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
(3) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of
any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged
material disposal area provided for carrying out a project
under subsection (c)(2).
(B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50
percent of the non-Federal share required under paragraphs
(1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or
other in-kind contributions.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
[[Page S5897]]
(5) Non-federal interests.--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 private interest and a nonprofit
entity.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be
appropriated for development of the plan under subsection
(c)(1) $300,000.
(2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (c) $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006.
SEC. 327. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.
Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 110 Stat. 3763; 113
Stat. 338) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``50 percent'' and
inserting ``35 percent'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3);
(B) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking
``50 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``$5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2000.'' and inserting ``$10,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.''.
SEC. 328. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.
Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2326b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of
developing a tributary sediment transport model under this
subsection shall be 50 percent.''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``There is authorized'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to amounts
made available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2008.''.
SEC. 329. TREATMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND
SOUND.
(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project for the use
of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the
treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
(b) Project Considerations.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
(1) encourage partnerships between the public and private
sectors;
(2) build on treatment technologies that have been used
successfully in demonstration or full-scale projects (such as
projects carried out in the State of New York, New Jersey, or
Illinois), such as technologies described in--
(A) section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863); or
(B) section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2314 note; 113 Stat. 337);
(3) ensure that dredged material from Long Island Sound
that is treated under the demonstration project is rendered
acceptable for unrestricted open water disposal or beneficial
reuse; and
(4) ensure that the demonstration project is consistent
with the findings and requirements of any draft environmental
impact statement on the designation of 1 or more dredged
material disposal sites in Long Island Sound that is
scheduled for completion in 2001.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
SEC. 330. NEW ENGLAND WATER RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical
restoration project'' means a project that will produce,
consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities,
immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) New england.--The term ``New England'' means all
watersheds, estuaries, and related coastal areas in the
States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
(b) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with
appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall perform an assessment of the condition of
water resources and related ecosystems in New England to
identify problems and needs for restoring, preserving, and
protecting water resources, ecosystems, wildlife, and
fisheries.
(2) Matters to be addressed.--The assessment shall
include--
(A) development of criteria for identifying and
prioritizing the most critical problems and needs; and
(B) a framework for development of watershed or regional
restoration plans.
(3) Use of existing information.--In performing the
assessment, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, use--
(A) information that is available on the date of enactment
of this Act; and
(B) ongoing efforts of all participating agencies.
(4) Criteria; framework.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and make
available for public review and comment--
(i) criteria for identifying and prioritizing critical
problems and needs; and
(ii) a framework for development of watershed or regional
restoration plans.
(B) Use of resources.--In developing the criteria and
framework, the Secretary shall make full use of all available
Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local resources.
(5) Report.--Not later than October l, 2002, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment.
(c) Restoration Plans.--
(1) In general.--After the report is submitted under
subsection (b)(5), the Secretary, in coordination with
appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall--
(A) develop a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving,
and protecting the water resources and ecosystem in each
watershed and region in New England; and
(B) submit the plan to Congress.
(2) Contents.--Each restoration plan shall include--
(A) a feasibility report; and
(B) a programmatic environmental impact statement covering
the proposed Federal action.
(d) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--After the restoration plans are submitted
under subsection (c)(1)(B), the Secretary, in coordination
with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local
agencies, shall identify critical restoration projects that
will produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
(2) Agreements.--The Secretary may carry out a critical
restoration project after entering into an agreement with an
appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and
this section.
(3) Project justification.--Notwithstanding section 209 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other
provision of law, in carrying out a critical restoration
project under this subsection, the Secretary may determine
that the project--
(A) is justified by the environmental benefits derived from
the ecosystem; and
(B) shall not need further economic justification if the
Secretary determines that the project is cost effective.
(4) Time limitation.--No critical restoration project may
be initiated under this subsection after September 30, 2005.
(5) Cost limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be used to carry out a critical restoration project
under this subsection.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Assessment.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the
assessment under subsection (b) shall be 25 percent.
(B) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share may be
provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind
contributions.
(2) Restoration plans.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
developing the restoration plans under subsection (c) shall
be determined in accordance with section 105 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
(B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
Federal share may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection
(d) shall be 35 percent.
(B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
Federal share may be provided in the form of services,
materials, or other in-kind contributions.
(C) Required non-federal contribution.--For any critical
restoration project, the non-Federal interest shall--
(i) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations;
(ii) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair,
and rehabilitation costs; and
(iii) hold the United States harmless from all claims
arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the project.
(D) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit
for the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations provided under
subparagraph (C).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Assessment and restoration plans.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsections (b) and (c)
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(2) Critical restoration projects.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection (d) $30,000,000.
SEC. 331. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects or portions of projects are not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:
(1) Kennebunk river, kennebunk and kennebunkport, maine.--
The following portion of the project for navigation,
Kennebunk River, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1962
[[Page S5898]]
(76 Stat. 1173), is not authorized after the date of
enactment of this Act: the portion of the northernmost 6-foot
deep anchorage the boundaries of which begin at a point with
coordinates N1904693.6500, E418084.2700, thence running south
01 degree 04 minutes 50.3 seconds 35 feet to a point with
coordinates N190434.6562, E418084.9301, thence running south
15 degrees 53 minutes 45.5 seconds 416.962 feet to a point
with coordinates N190033.6386, E418199.1325, thence running
north 03 degrees 11 minutes 30.4 seconds 70 feet to a point
with coordinates N190103.5300, E418203.0300, thence running
north 17 degrees 58 minutes 18.3 seconds west 384.900 feet to
the point of origin.
(2) Wallabout channel, brooklyn, new york.--
(A) In general.--The northeastern portion of the project
for navigation, Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York,
authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1124,
chapter 425), beginning at a point N682,307.40, E638,918.10,
thence running along the courses and distances described in
subparagraph (B).
(B) Courses and distances.--The courses and distances
referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i) South 85 degrees, 44 minutes, 13 seconds East 87.94
feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
(ii) North 74 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 271.54
feet (coordinate: N682,372.55, E639,267.71).
(iii) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 170.95
feet (coordinate: N682,202.20, E639,253.50).
(iv) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 239.97
feet (coordinate: N681,963.06, E639,233.56).
(v) North 50 degrees, 48 minutes, 26 seconds West 305.48
feet (coordinate: N682,156.10, E638,996.80).
(vi) North 3 degrees, 33 minutes, 25 seconds East 145.04
feet (coordinate: N682.300.86, E639,005.80).
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out beach erosion control, storm
damage reduction, and other measures along the shores of
Baldwin County, Alabama.
SEC. 402. BONO, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of, and need for, a reservoir and associated
improvements to provide for flood control, recreation, water
quality, and fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Bono,
Arkansas.
SEC. 403. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4112), to authorize construction of features to
mitigate impacts of the project on the storm drainage system
of the city of Woodland, California, that have been caused by
construction of a new south levee of the Cache Creek Settling
Basin.
(b) Required Elements.--The study shall include
consideration of--
(1) an outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of
receiving up to 1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage
from the city of Woodland and Yolo County;
(2) a low-flow cross-channel across the Yolo Bypass,
including all appurtenant features, that is sufficient to
route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second between the
old and new south levees of the Cache Creek Settling Basin,
across the Yolo Bypass, and into the Tule Canal; and
(3) such other features as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
SEC. 404. ESTUDILLO CANAL WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the
Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro, Calfornia.
SEC. 405. LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the
Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to provide a
100-year level of flood protection.
SEC. 406. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.
Not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary may conduct a special study, at full
Federal expense, of plans--
(1) to mitigate for the erosion and other impacts resulting
from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside,
California, as a wartime measure; and
(2) to restore beach conditions along the affected public
and private shores to the conditions that existed before the
construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor.
SEC. 407. SAN JACINTO WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a watershed
study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000.
SEC. 408. CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER, FLORIDA.
The Secretary may conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the
Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.
SEC. 409. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of stabilizing the historic fortifications and
beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are threatened by
erosion.
SEC. 410. UPPER OCKLAWAHA RIVER AND APOPKA/PALATLAKAHA RIVER
BASINS, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a restudy of
flooding and water quality issues in--
(1) the upper Ocklawaha River basin, south of the Silver
River; and
(2) the Apopka River and Palatlakaha River basins.
(b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers
on the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as
House Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and other pertinent
reports to determine the feasibility of measures relating to
comprehensive watershed planning for water conservation,
flood control, environmental restoration and protection, and
other issues relating to water resources in the river basins
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 411. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control
activities along the Boise River, Idaho.
SEC. 412. WOOD RIVER, IDAHO.
The Secretary may conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in carrying out multi-
objective flood control and flood mitigation planning
projects along the Wood River in Blaine County, Idaho.
SEC. 413. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
related urban improvements, including infrastructure
development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois.
(b) Sites.--Under subsection (a), the Secretary may study--
(1) the USX/Southworks site;
(2) Calumet Lake and River;
(3) the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and
(4) Ping Tom Park.
(c) Use of Information; Consultation.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall use available information from,
and consult with, appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies.
SEC. 414. BOEUF AND BLACK, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of deepening the navigation channel of the
Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black,
Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.
SEC. 415. PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing navigation improvements for
ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, and
the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening and deepening.
SEC. 416. SOUTH LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing projects for hurricane protection
in the coastal area of the State of Louisiana between Morgan
City and the Pearl River.
SEC. 417. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing urban flood control measures on
the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John the
Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 418. NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, MAINE.
(a) Study of Redesignation as Anchorage.--The Secretary may
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of redesignating
as anchorage a portion of the 11-foot channel of the project
for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1173).
(b) Study of Reauthorization.--The Secretary may conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of reauthorizing for the
purpose of maintenance as anchorage a portion of the project
for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine,
authorized by section 2 of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat.
195, chapter 211), lying adjacent to and outside the limits
of the 11-foot channel and the 9-foot channel.
SEC. 419. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, MAINE AND
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation,
Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New
Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section 202(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095),
to increase the authorized width of turning basins in the
Piscataqua River to 1000 feet.
SEC. 420. MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a comprehensive
study of the water resources needs of the Merrimack River
basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in the manner
described in section 729 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164).
(b) Consideration of Other Studies.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary may take into consideration any
studies conducted by the University of New Hampshire on
environmental restoration of the Merrimack River System.
SEC. 421. PORT OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the
[[Page S5899]]
project for navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi,
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094) and modified by
section 4(n) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988
(102 Stat. 4017)--
(1) to widen the channel from 300 feet to 450 feet; and
(2) to deepen the South Harbor channel from 36 feet to 42
feet and the North Harbor channel from 32 feet to 36 feet.
SEC. 422. UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
In conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, the
Secretary may conduct a study to identify and evaluate
potential upland disposal sites for dredged material
originating from harbor areas located within the State.
SEC. 423. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
AND NEBRASKA.
(a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b).
(b) Study.--In cooperation with the Secretary of the
Interior, the State of South Dakota, the State of North
Dakota, the State of Nebraska, county officials, ranchers,
sportsmen, other affected parties, and the Indian tribes
referred to in subsection (c)(2), the Secretary may conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of the conveyance to the
Secretary of the Interior of the land described in subsection
(c), to be held in trust for the benefit of the Indian tribes
referred to in subsection (c)(2).
(c) Land To Be Studied.--The land authorized to be studied
for conveyance is the land that--
(1) was acquired by the Secretary to carry out the Pick-
Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, authorized by section 9
of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665);
and
(2) is located within the external boundaries of the
reservations of--
(A) the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota;
(B) the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota and South
Dakota;
(C) the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek
Reservation, South Dakota;
(D) the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and
(E) the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.
SEC. 424. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
Section 438 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3746) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may--
``(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity
of the bulkhead system located on the Federal navigation
channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio; and
``(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis,
plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or
replacement of the bulkhead system.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
the study shall be 35 percent.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.''.
SEC. 425. FREMONT, OHIO.
In consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, the Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for water supply and
environmental restoration at the Ballville Dam, on the
Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.
SEC. 426. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
(a) Evaluation.--The Secretary may--
(1) evaluate the backwater effects specifically due to
flood control operations on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma;
and
(2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on whether Federal
actions have been a significant cause of the backwater
effects.
(b) Feasibility Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of--
(A) addressing the backwater effects of the operation of
the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and
(B) purchasing easements for any land that has been
adversely affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho
River basin.
(2) Cost sharing.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (a)(2) that Federal actions have been a
significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share
of the costs of the feasibility study under paragraph (1)
shall be 100 percent.
SEC. 427. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, RHODE ISLAND.
In consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of designating a permanent site in
the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of dredged
material.
SEC. 428. CHICKAMAUGA LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $200,000, from
funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to
prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement
lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
(b) Funding.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
transfer the funds described in subsection (a) to the
Secretary.
SEC. 429. GERMANTOWN, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard
Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown,
Tennessee.
(b) Justification Analysis.--The Secretary shall include
environmental and water quality benefits in the justification
analysis for the project.
(c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of the
feasibility study under subsection (a)--
(A) shall not exceed 25 percent; and
(B) shall be provided in the form of in-kind contributions.
(2) Non-federal share.--The Secretary--
(A) shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the costs
of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind services
provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the
planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether
carried out before or after execution of the feasibility
study cost-sharing agreement; and
(B) for the purposes of subparagraph (A), shall consider
the feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis
Metro Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by
resolution of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, dated March 7, 1996.
SEC. 430. HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, TENNESSEE AND
MISSISSIPPI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and
Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to
provide a high level of urban flood protection to development
along Horn Lake Creek.
(b) Required Element.--The study shall include a limited
reevaluation of the project to determine the appropriate
design, as desired by the non-Federal interests.
SEC. 431. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and 125-foot-wide
channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Bayou, mile
marker 11, Texas.
SEC. 432. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent to both
sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to
Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.
SEC. 433. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TEXAS.
The Secretary may conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for San Antonio Channel
improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified by section
103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat.
2921), to add environmental restoration and recreation as
project purposes.
SEC. 434. WHITE RIVER WATERSHED BELOW MUD MOUNTAIN DAM,
WASHINGTON.
(a) Review.--The Secretary may review the report of the
Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River, Washington,
dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22,
1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and
adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent
reports, to determine whether modifications to the
recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to
provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of
the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam,
Washington.
(b) Issues.--In conducting the review under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall review, with respect to the Lake Tapps
community and other parts of the watershed--
(1) constructed and natural environs;
(2) capital improvements;
(3) water resource infrastructure;
(4) ecosystem restoration;
(5) flood control;
(6) fish passage;
(7) collaboration by, and the interests of, regional
stakeholders;
(8) recreational and socioeconomic interests; and
(9) other issues determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 435. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.
(a) Study.--The Secretary may conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of providing coastal erosion protection for
the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on
Willapa Bay, Washington.
(b) Project.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any requirement for economic justification), the
Secretary may construct and maintain a project to provide
coastal erosion protection for the Tribal Reservation of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington, at
full Federal expense, if the Secretary determines that the
project--
(A) is a cost-effective means of providing erosion
protection;
(B) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible;
and
(C) will improve the economic and social conditions of the
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
(2) Land, easements, and rights-of-way.--As a condition of
the project described in paragraph (1), the Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, rights-of-way,
and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the
implementation of the project.
[[Page S5900]]
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. VISITORS CENTERS.
(a) John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitors Center, Arkansas.--
Section 103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4813) is amended by striking ``Arkansas River,
Arkansas.'' and inserting ``at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land
provided by the city of Fort Smith.''.
(b) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site, Mississippi.--Section 103(c)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is
amended in the first sentence by striking ``in the vicinity
of the Mississippi River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi.''
and inserting ``between the Mississippi River Bridge and the
waterfront in downtown Vicksburg, Mississippi.''.
SEC. 502. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary--
(1) may participate with the appropriate Federal and State
agencies in the planning and management activities associated
with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program referred to in the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act (division E of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-748); and
(2) shall, to the maximum extent practicable and in
accordance with applicable law, integrate the activities of
the Corps of Engineers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento
River basins with the long-term goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
(b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program under subsection (a), the Secretary may--
(1) accept and expend funds from other Federal agencies and
from non-Federal public, private, and nonprofit entities to
carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities
associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; and
(2) in carrying out the projects and activities, enter into
contracts, cooperative research and development agreements,
and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal
private, public, and nonprofit entities.
(c) Area Covered by Program.--For the purposes of this
section, the area covered by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
shall be the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary and its watershed (known as the ``Bay-Delta
Estuary''), as identified in the Framework Agreement Between
the Governor's Water Policy Council of the State of
California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
SEC. 503. CONVEYANCE OF LIGHTHOUSE, ONTONAGON, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may convey to the Ontonagon
County Historical Society, at full Federal expense--
(1) the lighthouse at Ontonagon, Michigan; and
(2) the land underlying and adjacent to the lighthouse
(including any improvements on the land) that is under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(b) Map.--The Secretary shall--
(1) determine--
(A) the extent of the land conveyance under this section;
and
(B) the exact acreage and legal description of the land to
be conveyed under this section; and
(2) prepare a map that clearly identifies any land to be
conveyed.
(c) Conditions.--The Secretary may--
(1) obtain all necessary easements and rights-of-way; and
(2) impose such terms, conditions, reservations, and
restrictions on the conveyance;
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the
public interest.
(d) Environmental Response.--To the extent required under
any applicable law, the Secretary shall be responsible for
any necessary environmental response required as a result of
the prior Federal use or ownership of the land and
improvements conveyed under this section.
(e) Responsibilities After Conveyance.--After the
conveyance of land under this section, the Ontonagon County
Historical Society shall be responsible for any additional
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or
replacement costs associated with--
(1) the lighthouse; or
(2) the conveyed land and improvements.
(f) Applicability of Environmental Law.--Nothing in this
section affects the potential liability of any person under
any applicable environmental law.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to join my
colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Baucus, in the introduction of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. As many of you know, the
administration presented a proposal to Congress in April of this year,
which I introduced by request at that time. The bill we introduce today
includes a number of the provisions contained in the Administration's
request, in addition to those Member requests which met the criteria
agreed to by myself, Senator Voinovich, the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, and Senator Baucus, the
ranking member of the Committee.
In responding to questions regarding what projects were included in
this bill, I remind my colleagues that it has been the policy of the
Committee to authorize only those construction projects that conform
with cost-sharing policies established in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, and amended by subsequent WRDAs. In addition,
it has been the policy of the Committee to require projects to have
undergone full and final engineering, economic, and environmental
review by the Chief of Engineers to ensure that the project is indeed
justified.
In ensuring the integrity of the WRDA process, that criteria served
as the base to guide us to where we are today. S. xxxx is a responsible
bill that provides for the traditional mission of the U.S. Army Corps
of engineers and which also recognizes the Corps' expanding presence in
the area of environmental restoration. This bill contains 23
authorizations for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and
environmental restoration projects for which a Chief's Report is
expected by the end of the calendar year. In addition, there are
approximately 31 project-related modifications and provisions, as well
as 35 feasibility studies. While half of the projects in this bill are
in the navigation mission, nearly a quarter are dedicated to
environmental and ecosystem restoration projects, demonstrating this
chairman's belief that the Corps is moving in the right direction. This
bill strongly adheres to the fundamental purposes and principles of the
Army Corps of Engineers.
This sound bill deserves prompt action by not only the Senate, but
our counterparts in the House of Representatives, The number of
legislative days left this year is dwindling. If we are to enact water
resources legislation prior to adjournment, it will take the full
cooperation of both Chambers of Congress and our respected leadership.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move the WRDA process
forward as expeditiously as possible.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Mack):
S. 2797. A bill to authorize a comprehensive Everglades restoration
plan; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
restoring the everglades, an american legacy act
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today is a historic day. I
am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Mack, Voinovich, and
Baucus, in introducing a measure to restore, preserve and protect one
of America's unique ecosystems: the Everglades. More than six months
ago, I went to Florida and made a promise to the people of that state
and this nation. I promised to make Everglades restoration my top
priority as the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee. I am proud to say that after many months of hard work,
intense negotiation, and through it all, uncompromising dedication, we
have before us the bill to restore America's Everglades.
Our bill not only has the support of the two Senators from Florida,
the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works
Committee and the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, it has
the support of the State of Florida and the administration. It truly is
bipartisan. It truly is historic.
We all know that the Everglades face grave peril, but such dire
situations do not always serve to motivate Congress to act,
particularly in a presidential election year. The truth of the matter
is that the federal government is partially responsible for the
condition of the Everglades and it is our obligation to fix what we
helped break. The Everglades cannot afford for Congress to delay.
The unintended consequence of the 1948 federal flood control project
is the too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee.
Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed
out to sea. The original Central and Southern Florida Project was done
with the best of intentions--the federal government simply had to act
when devastating floods took thousands of lives prior to the project's
construction. Unfortunately, the very success of the Central and
Southern Florida Project disrupted the natural sheet
[[Page S5901]]
flow of water through the so-called ``River of Grass,'' altering or
destroying the habitat for many species of native plants, mammals,
reptiles, fish and wading birds.
Well, we are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and
redirect it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida
ecosystem. It sounds simple, but in actuality, the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan is quite complex and will take 30 years to
construct. Each step in the Plan was carefully chosen and the bill my
colleagues and I have introduced today represents the first stage of
that process.
A project of this size is not without uncertainties. Our bill
authorizes four pilot projects to get at some of those unknowns. In
addition, this bill authorizes an initial suite of ten construction
projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army Corps of
Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and included
in the plan as the projects that would, once constructed, have
immediate benefits to the natural system. Almost right away, the plan
gets at restoring the natural sheet flow that years of human
interference has interrupted.
Our bill goes farther, by authorizing programmatic authority for the
Corps and the non-federal sponsor to move forward with critical
projects that will have immediate, independent, and substantial
benefits to the natural system. Together, these components represent
the first phase. The rest of the projects will come to Congress for
authorization as part of the biennial Water Resources Development Act.
One of my favorite aspects of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. If we learn something new
about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see
that something isn't working right, through the concept of adaptive
management, we can modify the plan based on the new information on
hand.
Is this bill expensive? I suppose that depends on your point of view.
I am well-known as a fiscal conservative and I certainly do not believe
in wasting the taxpayers' money. The total cost of implementing the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is $7.8 billion dollars. The
total cost to the Federal government, however, is $3.9 billion. That's
right. The State of Florida is picking up fifty percent of the tab.
$3.9 billion over the number of years that this project will be
constructed amount to an average of $200 million a year. That is about
a can of coke, if you can find the right machine, for each American
each year to restore this national treasure. It should be noted that I
fully support increasing the budget of the Corps of Engineers so that
it can comfortably fund not only this project, but the numerous other
meritorious projects within the Corps mission.
I hear my colleagues asking: how do we know the natural system is
going to be the primary beneficiary of the water made available by this
project? I'll tell you how. Our bill contains painstakingly negotiated
``assurances language'' that provide the mechanism by which water is
reserved and allocated for the natural system. The Secretary of the
Army and Governor of the State of Florida will enter into an up-front,
binding agreement that will ensure that water available from the plan
will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the Secretary of
the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the State of Florida and
the Secretary of the Interior will promulgate programmatic regulations
to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan are achieved.
I repeat for the benefit of my colleagues, this bill has the support
of the State of Florida, the administration, and a bipartisan group of
co-sponsors. This truly is a remarkable feat that deserves recognition
by the Senate in the form of swift passage.
I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national
environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but
the millions of us who visit Florida each year to behold this unique
ecosystem. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to future
generations, as my dear friend and predecessor, the late John Chafee so
exemplified. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will be
remembered for putting aside partisanship, politics, self-interest and
short-term thinking by answering the call and saving the Everglades
while we still had the chance.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2797
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring the Everglades, An
American Legacy Act''.
SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Central and southern florida project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida
Project'' means the project for Central and Southern Florida
authorized under the heading ``central and southern florida''
in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat.
1176).
(B) Inclusion.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida
Project'' includes any modification to the project authorized
by this Act or any other provision of law.
(2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State.
(3) Natural system.--
(A) In general.--The term ``natural system'' means all land
and water managed by the Federal Government or the State
within the South Florida ecosystem.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``natural system'' includes--
(i) water conservation areas;
(ii) sovereign submerged land;
(iii) Everglades National Park;
(iv) Biscayne National Park;
(v) Big Cypress National Preserve;
(vi) other Federal or State (including a political
subdivision of a State) land that is designated and managed
for conservation purposes; and
(vii) any tribal land that is designated and managed for
conservation purposes, as approved by the tribe.
(4) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the ``Final
Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement'', dated April 1, 1999, as modified by this
Act.
(5) South florida ecosystem.--
(A) In general.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' means
the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary
of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on
July 1, 1999.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem''
includes--
(i) the Everglades;
(ii) the Florida Keys; and
(iii) the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South
Florida.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida.
(b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
(1) Approval.--
(A) In general.--Except as modified by this Act, the Plan
is approved as a framework for modifications and operational
changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are
needed to--
(i) restore, preserve and protect the South Florida
ecosystem;
(ii) provide for the protection of water quality in, and
the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, the
Everglades; and
(iii) provide for the water-related needs of the region,
including--
(I) flood control;
(II) the enhancement of water supplies; and
(III) other objectives served by the Central and Southern
Florida Project.
(B) Integration.--In carrying out the Plan, the Secretary
shall integrate the activities described in subparagraph (A)
with ongoing Federal and State projects and activities in
accordance with section 528(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769).
(2) Specific authorizations.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out the projects
included in the Plan in accordance with subparagraphs (B),
(C), (D) and (E).
(ii) Considerations.--In carrying out activities described
in the Plan, the Secretary shall--
(I) take into account the protection of water quality by
considering applicable State water quality standards; and
(II) include such features as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water
discharges from any project feature authorized by this
subsection will meet all applicable water quality standards
and applicable water quality permitting requirements.
(iii) Review and comment.--In developing the projects
authorized under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
provide for public review and comment in accordance with
applicable Federal law.
(B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are
authorized for implementation, after review and approval by
the Secretary, subject to the conditions in subparagraph (D),
at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$34,500,000:
[[Page S5902]]
(i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR, at a total cost
of $6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
(ii) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology, at a total
cost of $23,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,500,000.
(iii) L-31N Seepage Management, at a total cost of
$10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
(iv) Wastewater Reuse Technology, at a total cost of
$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.
(C) Initial projects.--The following projects are
authorized for implementation, after review and approval by
the Secretary, subject to the conditions stated in
subparagraph (D), at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $550,459,000:
(i) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of
$112,562,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,281,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,281,000.
(ii) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs-Phase
I, at a total cost of $233,408,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $116,704,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$116,704,000.
(iii) Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $19,267,500 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $19,267,500.
(iv) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage
Management, at a total cost of $100,335,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $50,167,500 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $50,167,500.
(v) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $124,837,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$62,418,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $62,418,500.
(vi) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $89,146,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$44,573,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $44,573,000.
(vii) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment
Area, at a total cost of $104,027,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $52,013,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $52,013,500.
(viii) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and
Fill Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total
cost of $26,946,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,473,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,473,000.
(ix) North New River Improvements, at a total cost of
$77,087,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,543,500
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,543,500.
(x) C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $47,017,500 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $47,017,500.
(xi) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program, at a total
cost of $100,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,000,000.
(D) Conditions.--
(i) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation
of a project described in any of clauses (i) through (x) of
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for
the project a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
(ii) Submission of report.--The Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report
required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under
this paragraph (including all relevant data and information
on all costs).
(iii) Funding contingent on approval.--No appropriation
shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph
if the project implementation report for the project has not
been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
(iv) Modified water delivery.--No appropriation shall be
made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project or
the Central Lakebelt Storage Project until the completion of
the project to improve water deliveries to Everglades
National Park authorized by section 104 of the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C
410r-8).
(E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall
apply to each project feature authorized under this
subsection.
(c) Additional Program Authority.--
(1) In general.--To expedite implementation of the Plan,
the Secretary may implement modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project that--
(A) are described in the Plan; and
(B) will produce a substantial benefit to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
(2) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation
of any project feature authorized under this subsection, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a
project implementation report prepared in accordance with
subsections (f) and (h).
(3) Funding.--
(A) Individual project funding.--
(i) Federal cost.--The total Federal cost of each project
carried out under this subsection shall not exceed
$12,500,000.
(ii) Overall cost.--The total cost of each project carried
out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(B) Aggregate federal cost.--The total Federal cost of all
projects carried out under this subsection shall not exceed
$206,000,000
(d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
(1) In general.--Except for a project authorized by
subsection (b) or (c), any project included in the Plan shall
require a specific authorization by Congress.
(2) Submission of report.--Before seeking congressional
authorization for a project under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall submit to Congress--
(A) a description of the project; and
(B) a project implementation report for the project
prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or
(d) shall be 50 percent.
(2) Non-federal responsibilities.--The non-Federal sponsor
with respect to a project described in subsection (b), (c),
or (d), shall be--
(A) responsible for all land, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations necessary to implement the Plan; and
(B) afforded credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of carrying out the project in accordance with paragraph
(5)(A).
(3) Federal assistance.--
(A) In general.--The non-Federal sponsor with respect to a
project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or (d) may use
Federal funds for the purchase of any land, easement, rights-
of-way, or relocation that is necessary to carry out the
project if any funds so used are credited toward the Federal
share of the cost of the project.
(B) Agriculture funds.--Funds provided to the non-Federal
sponsor under any programs such as the Conservation
Restoration and Enhancement Program (CREP) and the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP) for projects in the Plan shall be
credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the Plan
if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies that the funds
provided may be used for that purpose.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section
528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3770), the non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for
50 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation activities authorized under
this section.
(5) Credit.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), and
regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of lands or
interests in lands and incidental costs for land acquired by
a non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a project
implementation report for any project included in the Plan
and authorized by Congress shall be--
(i) included in the total cost of the project; and
(ii) credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project.
(B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
kind credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable
cost of any work performed in connection with a study,
preconstruction engineering and design, or construction that
is necessary for the implementation of the Plan, if--
(i)(I) the credit is provided for work completed during the
period of design, as defined in a design agreement between
the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor; or
(II) the credit is provided for work completed during the
period of construction, as defined in a project cooperation
agreement for an authorized project between the Secretary and
the non-Federal sponsor;
(ii) the design agreement or the project cooperation
agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit;
and
(iii) the Secretary determines that the work performed by
the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the project.
(C) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit
provided under this paragraph may be carried over between
authorized projects in accordance with subparagraph (D).
(D) Periodic monitoring.--
(i) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the
non-Federal sponsor equal 50 percent proportionate share for
projects in the Plan, during each 5-year period, beginning
with commencement of design of the Plan, the Secretary shall,
for each project--
(I) monitor the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind
services, and land; and
(II) manage, to the maximum extent practicable, the
requirement of the non-Federal sponsor to provide cash, in-
kind services, and land.
(ii) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct
monitoring under clause (i) separately for--
(I) the preconstruction engineering and design phase; and
(II) the construction phase.
(E) Audits.--Credit for land (including land value and
incidental costs) or work provided under this subsection
shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
(f) Evaluation of Projects.--
[[Page S5903]]
(1) In general.--Before implementation of a project
authorized by subsection (c) or (d) or any of clauses (i)
through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice
and opportunity for public comment and in accordance with
subsection (h), complete a project implementation report for
the project.
(2) Project justification.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision
of law, in carrying out any activity authorized under this
section or any other provision of law to restore, preserve,
or protect the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary may
determine that--
(i) the activity is justified by the environmental benefits
derived by the South Florida ecosystem; and
(ii) no further economic justification for the activity is
required, if the Secretary determines that the activity is
cost-effective.
(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
separable element intended to produce benefits that are
predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the natural system.
(g) Exclusions and Limitations.--The following Plan
components are not approved for implementation:
(1) Water included in the plan.--
(A) In general.--Any project that is designed to implement
the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of
water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall not be
implemented until such time as--
(i) the project-specific feasibility study described in
subparagraph (B) on the need for and physical delivery of the
approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the
Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is
completed;
(ii) the project is favorably recommended in a final report
of the Chief of Engineers; and
(iii) the project is authorized by Act of Congress.
(B) Project-specific feasibility study.--The project-
specific feasibility study referred to in subparagraph (A)
shall include--
(i) a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities
proposed to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of
water to the natural system;
(ii) an assessment of the requirements to divert and treat
the water;
(iii) an assessment of delivery alternatives;
(iv) an assessment of the feasibility of delivering the
water downstream while maintaining current levels of flood
protection to affected property; and
(v) any other assessments that are determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to complete the study.
(2) Wastewater treatment.--
(A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the
wastewater treatment pilot project described in subsection
(b)(2)(B)(iv), the Secretary, in an appropriately timed 5-
year report, shall describe the results of the evaluation of
advanced wastewater treatment in meeting, in a cost effective
manner, the requirements of restoration of the natural
system.
(B) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress the
report described in subparagraph (A) before congressional
authorization for advanced wastewater treatment is sought.
(3) Projects approved with limitations.--The following
projects in the Plan are approved for implementation with
limitations:
(A) Loxahatchee national wildlife refuge.--The Federal
share for land acquisition in the project to enhance existing
wetland systems along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, including the Stazzulla tract, should be funded
through the budget of the Department of the Interior.
(B) Southern corkscrew regional ecosystem.--The Southern
Corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed addition should be
accomplished outside the scope of the Plan.
(h) Assurance of Project Benefits.--
(1) In general.--The overarching objective of the Plan is
the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South
Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related
needs of the region, including water supply and flood
protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the
protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of
fresh water from, the improvement of the environment of the
South Florida Ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the
benefits to the natural system and human environment
described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this Act, for
as long as the project is authorized.
(2) Agreement.--
(A) In general.--No appropriation shall be made for the
construction of a project contained in the Plan until the
President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement
under which the State, shall ensure, by regulation or other
appropriate means, that water made available under the Plan
for the restoration of the natural system is available as
specified in the Plan.
(B) Enforcement.--
(i) In general.--Any person or entity that is aggrieved by
a failure of the President or the Governor to comply with any
provision of the agreement entered into under subparagraph
(A) may bring a civil action in United States district court
for an injunction directing the President or the Governor, as
the case may be, to comply with the agreement, or for other
appropriate relief.
(ii) Limitations on commencement of civil action.--No civil
action may be commenced under clause (i)--
(I) before the date that is 60 days after the Secretary
receives written notice of a failure to comply with the
agreement; or
(II) if the United States has commenced and is diligently
prosecuting an action in a court of the United States or a
State to redress a failure to comply with the agreement.
(3) Programmatic regulations.--
(A) Issuance.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment--
(i) with the concurrence of--
(I) the Governor; and
(II) the Secretary of the Interior; and
(ii) in consultation with--
(I) the Seminole Tribe of Florida;
(II) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
(III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(IV) the Secretary of Commerce; and
(V) other Federal, State, and local agencies;
promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals
and purposes of the Plan are achieved.
(B) Content of regulations.--Programmatic regulations
promulgated under this paragraph shall establish a process
to--
(i) provide guidance for the development of project
implementation reports, project cooperation agreements, and
operating manuals that ensure that the goals and objectives
of the Plan are achieved;
(ii) ensure that new information resulting from changed or
unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or technical
information or information that is developed through the
principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or
future authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the
implementation of the Plan;
(iii) ensure the protection of the natural system
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan; and
(iv) include a mechanism for dispute resolution to resolve
any conflicts between the Secretary and the non-Federal
sponsor.
(C) Schedule and transition rule.--
(i) In general.--All project implementation reports
approved before the date of promulgation of the programmatic
regulations shall be consistent with the Plan.
(ii) Preamble.--The preamble of the programmatic
regulations shall include a statement concerning the
consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project
implementation reports that were approved before the date of
promulgation of the regulations.
(D) Review of programmatic regulations.--Whenever necessary
to attain Plan goals and purposes, but not less often than
every 5 years, the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph
(A), shall review the programmatic regulations promulgated
under this paragraph.
(4) Project-specific assurances.--
(A) Project implementation reports.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop project implementation reports in accordance
with section 10.3.1 of the Plan.
(ii) Coordination.--In developing a project implementation
report, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local
governments.
(iii) Requirements.--A project implementation report
shall--
(I) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic
regulations promulgated under paragraph (3);
(II) describe how each of the requirements stated in
paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied;
(III) comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and
distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural
system;
(V) identify the amount of water to be reserved or
allocated for the natural system necessary to implement,
under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI);
(VI) comply with applicable water quality standards and
applicable water quality permitting requirements under
subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii);
(VII) be based on the best available science; and
(VIII) include an analysis concerning the cost-
effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project.
(B) Project cooperation agreements.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall execute project cooperation agreements in accordance
with section 10 of the Plan.
(ii) Condition.--The Secretary shall not execute a project
cooperation agreement until any reservation or allocation of
water for the natural system identified in the project
implementation report is executed under State law.
(C) Operating manuals.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop and issue, for each project or group of
projects, an operating manual that is consistent with the
water reservation or allocation for the natural system
described in the project implementation report and the
project cooperation agreement for the project or group of
projects.
[[Page S5904]]
(ii) Modifications.--Any significant modification by the
Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual
after the operating manual is issued shall only be carried
out subject to notice and opportunity for public comment.
(5) Savings clause.--
(A) Existing water users.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the implementation of the Plan, including physical or
operational modifications to the Central and Southern Florida
Project, does not cause significant adverse impact on
existing legal water users, including--
(i) water legally allocated or provided through
entitlements to the Seminole Tribe of Florida under section 7
of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25
U.S.C. 1772e);
(ii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
(iii) annual water deliveries to Everglades National Park;
(iv) water for the preservation of fish and wildlife in the
natural system; and
(v) any other legal user, as provided under Federal or
State law in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) No elimination.--Until a new source of water supply of
comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the
water to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan,
the Secretary shall not eliminate existing legal sources of
water, including those for--
(i) an agricultural or urban water supply;
(ii) allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe
of Florida under section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims
Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e);
(iii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
(iv) Everglades National Park; or
(v) the preservation of fish and wildlife.
(C) Maintenance of flood protection.--The Secretary shall
maintain authorized levels of flood protection in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with
current law.
(D) No effect on state law.--Nothing in this Act prevents
the State from allocating or reserving water, as provided
under State law, to the extent consistent with this Act.
(E) No effect on tribal compact.--Nothing in this Act
amends, alters, prevents, or otherwise abrogates rights of
the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida under the compact among
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State, and the South
Florida Water Management District, defining the scope and use
of water rights of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified
by section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement
Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e).
(i) Independent Scientific Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the State, in consultation with the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, shall establish an
independent scientific review panel convened by a body, such
as the National Academy of Sciences, to review the Plan's
progress toward achieving the natural system restoration
goals of the Plan.
(2) Report.--The panel described in paragraph (1) shall
produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the State of Florida that
includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other
measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural
system, based on the Plan.
(j) Outreach and Assistance.--
(1) Small business concerns owned and operated by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals.--In executing the
Plan, the Secretary shall ensure that small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals are provided opportunities to
participate under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 644(g)).
(2) Community outreach and education.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
including individuals with limited English proficiency, and
communities are considered during implementation of the Plan,
and that such individuals have opportunities to review and
comment on its implementation.
(B) Provision of opportunities.--The Secretary shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public
outreach and educational opportunities are provided to the
individuals of South Florida, including individuals with
limited English proficiency, and in particular for socially
and economically disadvantaged communities.
(k) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and
periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary
and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce,
and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a
report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall
be completed not less often than every 5 years. Such reports
shall include a description of planning, design, and
construction work completed, the amount of funds expended
during the period covered by the report (including a detailed
analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment under
subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over the
next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall include--
(1) the determination of each Secretary, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human
environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether
the completed projects of the Plan are being operated in a
manner that is consistent with the requirements of subsection
(h); and
(2) a review of the activities performed by the Secretary
under subsection (j) as they relate to socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with
limited English proficiency.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senator
Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich, and Senator
Mack, to introduce legislation to restore America's Everglades. The
diversity of this group speaks volumes about the national commitment to
restoring America's Everglades.
The Everglades is sick. We need to perform the surgery to make it
well. Since the passage of the Central and South Florida Flood Control
Project in 1948, nearly half of the original Everglades has been
drained or otherwise altered. According to the National Parks and
Conservation Association, the national parks and preserves contained in
the Everglades are among the ten most endangered in the nation.
In 1983, when I was Governor, Florida launched an effort--known as
Save Our Everglades--to revitalize this precious ecosystem. Our goal
was simple. By the end of our efforts, we wanted the Everglades to look
and function more like it had in 1900 than it did in 1983. Back then,
restoring the natural health and function of this precious ecosystem
seemed like a distant dream. But after seventeen years of bipartisan
progress in the context of a strong federal-state partnership, we now
stand on the brink of seeing that dream become reality.
I want to speak for a moment about that federal-state partnership. I
often compare this unique partnership to a marriage--if both partners
respect each other, and pledge to work through any challenges together,
the marriage will be strong and successful. Today, we are again
celebrating the strength of that marriage, and this legislation
contains several provisions born out of the respect that sustains this
marriage.
For example, it requires that the Federal Government pay half of the
costs of operations and maintenance. It offers assurances to both the
Federal and State governments regarding the use and distribution of
water in the Everglades ecosystem. Everglades restoration can't work
unless the executive branch, Congress, and State government move
forward hand-in-hand.
I look forward to working with my colleagues, the administration, the
State, and stakeholders in this project to continue that cooperation
and achieve the historic goal of preserving the Everglades for our
children and grandchildren.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for the
Everglades restoration bill introduced today by my friend, and chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith. This
bill represents a tremendous amount of effort and hard work and I am
grateful to all my colleagues who have joined Senator Graham and me in
this effort.
Today is an important day in the nearly twenty-year process of
restoring America's Everglades. It is important because we are standing
at last at the historic juncture between planning and action. It is
important because now--at long last--we have a realistic chance of
restoring, and protecting for future generations, a unique
environmental treasure that is fractured, starved for water, and locked
in a steady state of decline. And it is important because the bill
we're introducing today represents the cumulative efforts of all those
who did the work on the largest and most significant environmental
restoration project in our nation's history.
Why does this bill matter? Why are the Everglades deserving of
Congress' time and effort? Let me offer a few reasons. This bill
matters because in the last century a wonderful, pristine natural
system in the heart of South Florida was systematically robbed of its
beauty and uniqueness in the name of short-term human interest. This
bill matters because the America's Everglades is a national treasure,
unique in the world, and deserving of a better fate than what is
currently written for it in the laws of this country. Our bill matters
because we Floridians--after years of acrimony and conflicting goals--
have come together behind a balanced plan that fully reconciles the
needs of the natural system with those
[[Page S5905]]
of the existing water users. And the restoration matters--to us, as
legislators--because past Congresses caused this problem, and we in our
generation should fix it.
It has been well documented how the Congress in 1948--acting under
the pressures of the day--authorized the systematic destruction of the
Everglades in the name of flood control, urban development, and
agriculture. That is history and we cannot change that. Instead, we
must respond to the needs and priorities of our own generation, and
pass this good bill to restore America's Everglades.
Let's be clear, Mr. President. Passing this bill, this year, is all
that remains between the long years of study and the actual restoration
of America's Everglades. The administration has done their part in
devoting a tremendous amount of time and effort on the document before
you. To Governor Bush's credit, the State of Florida has already
written this plan into Florida's laws and arranged funding for
Florida's share of the cost. There is only one task remaining: we in
Congress must pass this plan, this year, and let the work of
restoration begin.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill we're
introducing today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2798. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require
periodic cost-of-living adjustments to the amount of deposit insurance
coverage available under that Act; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
deposit and share insurance adjustment act of 2000
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Deposit
and Share Insurance Adjustment Act of 2000.
This bill will insure that the value of Federal Deposit and Share
Insurance is not eroded by inflation and remains at a steady value of
$100,000. This legislation will help consumers to retain their
confidence in financial institutions and will provide a constant level
of security to depositors.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2798
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Deposit and Share Insurance
Adjustment Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. PERIODIC ADJUSTMENTS TO MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
Section 11(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)) is amended, by striking subparagraph (B)
and inserting the following:
``(B) Net amount of insured deposit.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to the adjustments to be made
pursuant to clause (ii), the net amount due to any depositor
under this Act at an insured depository institution shall not
exceed $100,000, as determined in accordance with this
subparagraph and subparagraphs (C) and (D).
``(ii) Adjustments.--For the calendar year commencing
January 1, 2001, and for each subsequent 3-year period, the
maximum net amount due to any depositor at an insured
depository institution under clause (i) shall be increased by
an amount equal to--
``(I) $100,000; multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for
such calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year
2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(iii) Rounding.--If the amount determined under clause
(ii) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be
rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.
``(iv) Notice.--Not later than January 15 of the first year
of each 3-year period referred to in clause (ii), commencing
January 15, 2001, the Board of Directors shall cause to be
published in the Federal Register the maximum net amount due
to any depositor at an insured depository institution for the
ensuing 3-year period.''.
SEC. 3. PERIODIC ADJUSTMENTS TO MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SHARE
INSURANCE COVERAGE.
Section 207(k)(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1787(k)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) Subject'' and inserting the
following: ``Insured Amounts.--
``(1) Definition of `insured account'.--
``(A) In general.--Subject'';
(2) by inserting ``, subject to the adjustments made
pursuant to subparagraph (B)'' after ``$100,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Adjustments.--
``(i) In general.--For the calendar year commencing January
1, 2001, and for each subsequent 3-year period, the $100,000
amount referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by
an amount equal to--
``(I) $100,000; multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for
such calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year
2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--If the amount determined under clause (i)
is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to
the nearest multiple of $1,000.
``(iii) Notice.--Not later than January 15 of the first
year of each 3-year period referred to in clause (ii),
commencing January 15, 2001, the Board shall cause to be
published in the Federal Register the maximum net amount due
with respect to any member account at an insured credit union
for the ensuing 3-year period.''.
SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Federal Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 11(a) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter following clause
(v), by striking ``$100,000 per account in an amount not to
exceed $100,000 per account'' and inserting ``the amount
determined in accordance with paragraph (1)(B) per account'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A)(iii), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``the amount determined in accordance with
paragraph (1)(B)''.
(b) Federal Credit Union Act.--Section 207(k) of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1787(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter following clause
(v), by striking ``in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per
account'' and inserting ``the amount determined in accordance
with paragraph (1)(B) per account''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``in the amount of
$100,000 per account'' and inserting ``in an amount not to
exceed the amount determined in accordance with paragraph
(1)(B) per account''.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Campbell):
S. 2799. A bill to allow a deduction for Federal, State, and local
taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, or other motor fuel purchased by
consumers between July 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000; to the Committee
on Finance.
emergency fuel tax act of 2000
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Campbell and
Senator Abraham today in introducing legislation that will ease the
burden that the American motorist is facing every time he or she fills
up at the gas pump. Those of us who are going to the gas pumps lately
know that we are starting to see gas prices at an all-time high. We
have never had gas prices approaching $1.75, which is the standard
price for regular gasoline in the United States today.
Our legislation recognizes that many consumers are facing a gasoline
emergency. They use their cars to get to work, drive to day care, and
take their children to summer school. Suddenly they are finding that
filling up the family car's gas tank is costing $50 to $70 or even $100
in some parts of the country. And in an America where the Clinton-Gore
administration has done its best for seven years to increase America's
dependence on OPEC, the American public was lulled by the
Administration into believing that gas prices would always remain
stable and cheap. The result: Nearly 50 percent of all vehicles sold
are low-mileage sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
Earlier this year, I co-sponsored legislation that would have
temporarily repealed the 4.3 cent gas tax increase that was enacted in
1993 with Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote. Many Senators
expressed concern that a temporary repeal of the tax would affect the
highway construction program. Although our legislation resolved that
problem, all Democrats and a few Republicans rejected providing gas tax
relief and the measure was defeated.
This is a new concept in one sense. But it does not establish a
precedent. The bill I am introducing is to temporarily reduce the
burden of all gasoline taxes on the American motorist. The bill will
allow individuals and families to take an above-the-line deduction on
their income that they pay taxes on for gasoline taxes incurred between
July 1 and December 31 of the year 2000. This means every taxpayer who
drives will be able to take advantage of the tax deduction from his or
her income tax.
The deduction of gasoline taxes is not a new idea. Up until 1978,
motorists could deduct the State and local gasoline taxes if they
itemized those taxes.
[[Page S5906]]
Legislation I have introduced today goes a step further by also
permitting the deduction of Federal gasoline taxes, and it is an
inclusive tax deduction since it will allow itemizers and nonitemizers
to claim these taxes.
For example, if we adopt this measure, and a family in my State of
Alaska has a car that gets 20 miles per gallon and they drive perhaps
9,000 miles in the next 6 months, they will get a $118 tax deduction;
the same family in Michigan will get a $195 tax deduction; a family in
Colorado will receive a $181 tax deduction.
Some detractors say citizens will have to itemize returns. Most
people go to self-service gas stations where a receipt is provided. I
think most Americans would welcome this $195 or $181 tax deduction. I
don't think it is too much to ask motorists.
The IRS will surely draft some easy-to-use tables that will list by
State the total gasoline tax burden. I have an example of what the
tables look like. I ask unanimous consent that gas tax tables prepared
by the American Petroleum Institute be printed in the Record.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the average national price of unleaded
regular gasoline is anywhere from $1.70 to $1.80 today. This weekend
begins the summer driving season. Gasoline prices could well go above
$2 a gallon in many parts of the country. As we know, they are already
over $2.30 in Chicago, Milwaukee, and other areas.
Our proposal is a modest attempt to help the American family cope
with these extraordinary price rises. This isn't going to solve the
problem of high gasoline prices. We could have solved that problem 5 or
6 years ago if we would have adopted the 1995 budget which permitted
drilling in America's most promising new oil area, the sliver of the
Arctic Coastal Plain, but President Clinton vetoed that bill, surely
with the concurrence of Vice President Gore. So today we are dependent
as never before on imported oil. The result is the record gasoline
prices.
I ask unanimous consent the text of the Emergency Fuel Act of 2000
and the previously referenced tax tables be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2799
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the Emergency Fuel Tax Act of
2000.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL FUELS TAXES.
(a) Allowance of Deduction.--
(1) In general.--In the case of the retail sale of
gasoline, diesel fuel, or other motor fuel after June 30,
2000, and before January 1, 2001, there shall be allowed to
the purchaser a deduction under section 164 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in an amount equal to the Federal,
State, and local taxes on the sale.
(2) Deduction allowed to nonitemizers.--The deduction under
subsection (a) shall be taken into account in computing
adjusted gross income under section 62 of such Code.
(b) Taxes Imposed Other Than at Retail.--For purposes of
subsection (a), any tax on any gasoline, diesel fuel, or
other motor fuel which is imposed other than on the retail
sale shall be treated as having been imposed on such sale and
as having been paid by the purchaser.
(c) Guidelines.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish such procedures (including the publication of
tables where appropriate) as are necessary to enable
taxpayers to determine the amount of taxes for which a
deduction is allowed under subsection (a).
(d) Motor Fuel.--For purposes of this section, the term
``motor fuel'' means any motor fuel subject to tax under
subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
____
GASOLINE TAXES STATE-BY-STATE, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Other Total Federal &
State excise State State State
tax \1\ taxes \2\ taxes taxes \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... 16.0 3.4 19.4 37.7
Alaska........................ 8.0 0 8.0 26.3
Arizona....................... 18 1.0 19.0 37.3
Arkansas...................... 18.5 0.2 18.7 37.0
California.................... 18.0 9.2 27.2 45.5
Colorado...................... 22.0 0 22.0 40.3
Connecticut................... 32.0 3.1 35.1 53.4
Delaware...................... 23.0 0 23.0 41.3
Dist. of Columbia............. 20.0 0 20.0 38.3
Florida....................... 13.0 15.1 28.1 46.4
Georgia....................... 7.5 3.4 10.9 29.2
Hawaii........................ 16.0 20.4 36.4 54.7
Idaho......................... 25.0 0 25.0 43.3
Illinois...................... 19.0 5.2 24.2 42.5
Indiana....................... 15.0 3.6 18.6 36.9
Iowa.......................... 20.0 1.0 21.0 39.3
Kansas........................ 18.0 1.0 19.0 37.3
Kentucky...................... 15.0 1.4 16.4 34.7
Louisiana..................... 20.0 0 20.0 38.3
Maine......................... 19.0 0 19.0 37.3
Maryland...................... 23.5 0 23.5 41.8
Massachusetts................. 21.5 0 21.5 39.8
Michigan...................... 19.0 6.1 25.1 43.4
Minnesota..................... 20.0 2.0 22.0 40.3
Mississippi................... 18.0 2.4 20.4 38.7
Missouri...................... 17.0 0 17.0 35.3
Montana....................... 27.0 0.8 27.8 46.1
Nebraska...................... 23.5 0.9 24.4 42.7
Nevada........................ 23.0 10.0 33.0 51.3
New Hampshire................. 18.0 1.7 19.7 38.0
New Jersey.................... 10.5 4.0 14.5 32.8
New Mexico.................... 17.0 1.0 18.0 36.3
New York...................... 8.0 22.4 30.4 48.7
North Carolina................ 21.6 0.3 21.9 40.2
North Dakota.................. 20.0 0 20.0 38.3
Ohio.......................... 22.0 0 22.0 40.3
Oklahoma...................... 16.0 1.0 17.0 35.3
Oregon........................ 24.0 0 24.0 42.3
Pennsylvania.................. 12.0 14.3 26.3 44.6
Rhode Island.................. 28.0 1.0 29.0 47.3
South Carolina................ 16.0 0.8 16.8 35.1
South Dakota.................. 21.0 2.0 23.0 41.3
Tennessee..................... 20.0 1.4 21.4 39.7
Texas......................... 20.0 0 20.0 38.3
Utah.......................... 24.0 0.5 24.5 42.8
Vermont....................... 19.0 1.0 20.0 38.3
Virginia...................... 17.5 0.7 18.2 36.5
Washington.................... 23.0 0 23.0 41.3
West Virginia................. 20.5 4.9 25.4 43.7
Wisconsin..................... 25.4 3.0 28.4 46.7
Wyoming....................... 13.0 1.0 14.0 32.3
-----------------------------------------
U.S. averaged \4\......... 17.8 4.8 22.6 40.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State excise taxes represent rates effective as of July 1998.
\2\ Largely excludes local taxes which are estimated to average
approximately 2 cents per gallon nationwide. However, some local
county taxes in Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New
York, and Virginia are included. Includes state sales taxes, gross
receipts taxes, and underground storage tank taxes. State sales taxes,
expressed in cents per gallon, are based on selected city average
retail gasoline prices as of April 1998. See notes to tax tables for
individual states.
\3\ Includes 18.3 cents per gallon federal excise tax and volume-
weighted average U.S. total state taxes.
\4\ Represents the average of state tax rates multiplied by state
gasoline consumption records.
Sources: API Field Operations Issues Support, ``State Gasoline and
Diesel Excise Taxes, July 1998,'' the Federal Highway Administration,
``Monthly Motor Fuel Reported by States''; and the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, ``Motor Gasoline Watch.'' and ``On-Highway
Diesel Retail Prices.'' American Petroleum Institute.
Gasoline taxes ranked by State
[Figures by cents]
Hawaii.............................................................54.8
Connecticut........................................................53.5
Nevada.............................................................51.4
New York...........................................................48.8
Rhode Island.......................................................47.4
Wisconsin..........................................................46.8
Florida............................................................46.5
Montana............................................................46.2
California.........................................................45.6
Pennsylvania.......................................................44.7
West Virginia......................................................43.8
Michigan...........................................................43.5
Idaho..............................................................43.4
Utah...............................................................42.9
Nebraska...........................................................42.8
Illinois...........................................................42.6
Oregon.............................................................42.4
Maryland...........................................................41.9
Washington.........................................................41.4
South Dakota.......................................................41.4
Delaware...........................................................41.4
Ohio...............................................................40.4
Minnesota..........................................................40.4
Colorado...........................................................40.4
North Carolina.....................................................40.3
Massachusetts......................................................39.9
Tennessee..........................................................39.8
Iowa...............................................................39.4
Mississippi........................................................38.8
Vermont............................................................38.4
Texas..............................................................38.4
North Dakota.......................................................38.4
Louisiana..........................................................38.4
Dist. of Columbia..................................................38.4
New Hampshire......................................................38.1
Alabama............................................................37.8
Maine..............................................................37.4
Kansas.............................................................37.4
Arizona............................................................37.4
Arkansas...........................................................37.1
Indiana............................................................37.0
Virginia...........................................................36.6
New Mexico.........................................................36.4
Oklahoma...........................................................35.4
Missouri...........................................................35.4
South Carolina.....................................................35.2
Kentucky...........................................................34.8
New Jersey.........................................................32.9
Wyoming............................................................32.4
Georgia............................................................29.3
Alaska.............................................................26.4
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 2800. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish an integrated environmental reporting
system; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE STREAMLINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF
2000
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce
bipartisan legislation, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, with Senator Crapo, my colleague on
the Environment and Public Works Committee, as an original cosponsor.
This bill will require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to give businesses one point of contact for all federal environmental
reporting requirements, and to otherwise minimize the administrative
burdens of environmental reporting. This ``one-stop'' reporting system
will use a common nomenclature throughout and use language
understandable to business people, not just to environmental
specialists. Its electronic version will also provide pollution
prevention information to the business. The bill will also
[[Page S5907]]
give each State, tribal, or local agency the option of reporting
information to one point of contact at EPA, which will facilitate their
efforts to streamline environmental reporting.
Mr. President, a law streamlining environmental reporting will
obviously benefit industry. It will be of great environmental benefit
as well. High-quality environmental information is the foundation of
environmental policy-making. Unfortunately, there are significant gaps
and inaccuracies in the environmental information reported by
businesses today. This is because environmental reporting currently
involves scouring several different EPA offices for the applicable
requirements, and then mastering a bewildering variety of reporting
formats and regulatory nomenclatures. Reducing needless complications,
as our bill does, will increase compliance with reporting programs and
improve the accuracy of the information reported.
In addition to improving environmental information, a law
streamlining environmental reporting will help businesses prevent
pollution at the source. Mainstream business decision-makers--those who
design the business's product, decide how to make it, manufacture it,
and instruct customers in its use--inadvertently make the vast majority
of environmental decisions at the business. When a business designs its
product and the process for manufacturing the product, it is locking in
its major environmental impacts. Streamlining environmental reporting
will make it easier for mainstream business decision-makers to
understand their environmental obligations. This will make it easier to
incorporate environmental considerations into the design of products
and production processes, and instructions on their use--that is,
preventing pollution at the source.
This bill is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, the Printing Industries of America, the National
Association of Metal Finishers, the American Electroplaters and Surface
Finishers Society, the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, the U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense, the National
Environmental Trust, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support, the text of
the bill, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be entered into
the Record.
Mr. President, this is a bipartisan win-win bill that will be good
for U.S. industry and good for the environment. I urge my colleagues to
join Senator Crapo and me in supporting this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2800
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlined Environmental
Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Integrated reporting system.--The term ``integrated
reporting system'' means the integrated environmental
reporting system established under section 3.
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation, partnership,
or association, or a facility owned or operated by the
Federal Government or by a State, tribal government,
municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a
State.
(4) Reporting requirement.--
(A) In general.--The term ``reporting requirement'' means--
(i) a routine, periodic, environmental reporting
requirement; and
(ii) any other reporting requirement that the Administrator
may by regulation include within the meaning of the term.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``reporting requirement'' does
not include--
(i) the reporting of information relating to an emergency,
except for information submitted as part of a routine
periodic environmental report, and except for the purpose
specified in subparagraph (C); or
(ii) the reporting of information to the Administrator
relating only to business transactions (and not to
environmental or regulatory matters) between the
Administrator and a person, including information provided--
(I) in the course of fulfilling a contractual obligation
between the Administrator and the reporting person; or
(II) in the filing of financial claims against the
Administrator.
(C) Certain data standards for reporting of information
relating to an emergency.--The Administrator shall implement
data standards under section 3(b)(5)(A) for the reporting of
information relating to emergencies.
SEC. 3. INTEGRATED REPORTING SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall integrate and
streamline the reporting requirements established under laws
administered by the Administrator for each person subject to
those reporting requirements--
(1) in accordance with subsection (b);
(2) to the extent not explicitly prohibited by Act of
Congress; and
(3) to the extent consistent with the preservation of the
integrity, reliability, and security of the data reported.
(b) Components of Reporting System.--In establishing the
integrated reporting system, to ensure consistency and
facilitate use of the system, the Administrator shall--
(1) allow each person required to submit information to the
Administrator under reporting requirements administered by
the Administrator to report the information to 1 point of
contact--
(A) using a single electronic system or paper form; and
(B) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1
time during the year;
(2)(A) allow each State, tribal, or local agency that has
been authorized or delegated authority to implement a law
administered by the Administrator to report information
regarding any person subject to the law, as required under
the law (including a regulation), agreement, or other
instrument, authorizing or delegating the authority, to
report to 1 point of contact--
(i) using a single electronic system; and
(ii) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1
time during each year; and
(B) provide each State, tribal, or local agency that
reports through the integrated reporting system full access
to the data reported to the Administrator through the system;
(3) provide a reporting person, upon request, full access
to information reported by the person to the Administrator,
or to any State, tribal, or local agency that was
subsequently reported to the Administrator, in a variety of
formats that includes a format that the person may modify by
incorporating information applicable to the current reporting
period and then submit to the Administrator to comply with a
current reporting requirement;
(4)(A) consult with heads of other Federal agencies to
identify environmental or occupational safety or health
reporting requirements that are not administered by the
Administrator; and
(B) as part of the electronic version of the integrated
reporting system, post information that provides direction to
the reporting person in--
(i) identifying requirements identified under subparagraph
(A) to which the person may be subject; and
(ii) locating sources of information on those requirements;
(5) in consultation with a committee of representatives of
State and tribal governments, reporting persons,
environmental groups, information technology experts, and
other interested parties (which, at the discretion of the
Administrator, may occur through a negotiated rulemaking
under subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United States
Code), implement, and update as necessary, in each national
information system of the Environmental Protection Agency
that contains data reported under the reporting system
established under this Act, data standards for--
(A) the facility site (including a facility registry
identifier), geographic coordinates, mailing address,
affiliation, organization, environmental interest, industrial
classification, and individuals that have management
responsibility for environmental matters at the facility
site;
(B) units of measure;
(C) chemical, pollutant, waste, and biological
identification; and
(D) other items that the Administrator considers to be
appropriate;
(6) in consultation with the committee referred to in
paragraph (5), implement, and update as necessary, a
nomenclature throughout the integrated reporting system that
uses terms that the Administrator believes are understandable
to reporting persons that do not have environmental
expertise;
(7) consolidate reporting of data that, but for
consolidation under this paragraph, would be required to be
reported to the integrated reporting system at more than 1
point in the same data submission;
(8) provide for applicable data formats and submission
protocols, including procedures for legally enforceable
electronic signature in accordance with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C. 3504 note) that, as
determined by the Administrator--
(A) conform, to the maximum extent practicable, with
public-domain standards for electronic commerce;
(B) are accessible to a substantial majority of reporting
persons; and
(C) provide for the integrity and reliability of the data
reported sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt;
[[Page S5908]]
(9) establish a National Environmental Data Model that
describes the major data types, significant attributes, and
interrelationships common to activities carried out by the
Administrator and by State, tribal, and local agencies
(including permitting, compliance, enforcement, budgeting,
performance tracking, and collection and analysis of
environmental samples and results), which the Administrator
shall--
(A) use as the framework for databases on which the data
reported to the Administrator through the integrated system
shall be kept; and
(B) allow other Federal agencies and State, tribal, and
local governments to use;
(10) establish an electronic commerce service center,
accessible through the point of contact established under
paragraph (1), to provide technical assistance, as necessary
and feasible, to each person that elects to submit applicable
electronic reports;
(11) provide each reporting person access, through the
point of contact established under paragraph (1), to
scientifically sound, publicly available information on
pollution prevention technologies and practices;
(12) at the discretion of the Administrator, develop,
within the reporting system, different methods by which the
reporting person may electronically provide the required
information, in order to facilitate use of the system by
different sectors, sizes, and categories of reporting
persons;
(13) provide protection of confidential business
information or records as defined under section 552a of title
5, United States Code, so that each reported item of data
receives protection equivalent to the protection that item of
data would receive if the item were reported to the
Administrator through means other than the integrated
reporting system;
(14) develop (or cause to be developed), and make available
free of charge through the Internet, software for use by the
reporting person that, to the maximum extent practicable,
assists the person in assembling necessary data, reporting
information, and receiving information on pollution
prevention technologies and practices as described in
paragraph (9); and
(15) provide a mechanism by which a reporting person may,
at the option of the reporting person, electronically
transfer information from the data system of the reporting
person to the integrated reporting system through the use, in
the integrated reporting system, of--
(A) open data formats (such as the ASCII format); and
(B) a standard that enables the definition, transmission,
validation, and interpretation of data by software
applications and by organizations through use of the Internet
(such as the XML standard).
(c) Scope of Data Standards and Nomenclature.--The data
standards and nomenclature implemented and updated under
paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) shall not affect any
regulatory standard or definition in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, except to the extent that the
Administrator amends, by regulation, the standard or
definition.
(d) Use of Reporting System.--Nothing in this Act requires
that any person use the integrated reporting system instead
of an individual reporting system.
SEC. 4. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.
(a) In General.--At the request of any Federal, State,
tribal, or local agency, the Administrator shall coordinate
the integration of reporting required under section 3 with
similar efforts by the agency that, as determined by the
Administrator, are consistent with this Act.
(b) Integrated Reporting Across Jurisdictions.--Under
subsection (a), the Administrator may develop a procedure
under which a person that is required to report information
under 1 or more laws administered by the Administrator and 1
or more laws administered by a State, tribal, or local agency
may report all required information--
(1) through 1 point of contact using a single electronic
system or paper form; and
(2) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1
time each year.
(c) Common Data Format Across Jurisdictions.--To facilitate
reporting by persons with facilities in more than 1 State,
tribal, or local jurisdiction, the Administrator shall
encourage the use of a common data format by any State,
tribal, or local agency coordinating with the Administrator
under subsection (a).
(d) Provision of Information.--At the request of the
Administrator, the head of a Federal department or agency
shall provide to the Administrator information on reporting
requirements established under a law administered by the
agency.
(e) Selective Use of Integrated Reporting System.--The
Administrator may design the integrated system to allow a
reporting person to use the integrated reporting system for
some purposes and not for others.
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.
The Administrator may promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. REPORTS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, if the Administrator determines that 1 or more
provisions of law explicitly prohibit or hinder the
integration of reporting and other actions required under
this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report
identifying those provisions.
SEC. 7. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act limits, modifies,
affects, amends, or otherwise changes, directly or
indirectly, any provision of Federal or State law or the
obligation of any person to comply with any provision of law.
(b) Effect.--Neither this Act nor the integrated reporting
system shall alter or affect the obligation of a reporting
person to provide the information required under any
reporting requirement.
(c) Reporting.--Nothing in this Act authorizes the
Administrator to require the reporting of information that is
in addition to, or prohibit the reporting of, information
that is reported as of the day before the date of enactment
of this Act.
____
NFIB,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2000.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the 600,000 small
business owners that make up the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to express support
for the ``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution
Prevention Act of 2000.''
The 1996 Code of Federal Regulations, which is the annual
listing of agency regulations, takes up 204 volumes with a
total of 132,112 pages. According to research conducted by
the Small Business Administration, small businesses bear 63
percent of the total regulatory burden. It is no wonder that
a 1996 NFIB Education Foundation Study ranked unreasonable
government regulations and federal paperwork burdens as two
of the top ten problems facing small business.
Simplying this complex system of regulations is a priority
for NFIB. As you know, we set our positions on matters of
public policy by regularly polling our membership. When we
asked small business owners whether they would support the
creation of a short-form reporting system, 81 percent of our
members said, ``yes.''
A group of small business owners that are NFIB members
reviewed your proposed legislation and they were particularly
pleased with the following:
The shift to a one time annual reporting requirement will
save valuable time and money.
The legislation wisely extends the benefits of a simplified
reporting system to small business owners that do not have
the capability of reporting electronically.
The requirement that information on new methods and
technology be made available to assist in pollution
prevention efforts will be helpful to small business owners
that do not have direct access to research and development
programs.
The requirement that the U.S. environmental protection
Agency (EPA) shift to using common chemical identifiers and a
common nomenclature will be helpful.
Your legislation provides the EPA with a much-needed push
towards simpler regulatory requirements. I hope that you find
our comments helpful, and I look forward to working with you
on this bill and other efforts that will make it easier for
small business owners to comply with environmental laws.
Sincerely,
Dan Danner,
Senior Vice President,
Federal Public Policy.
____
Printing Industries of America, Inc.,
Alexandria, VA, March 8, 2000.
Senator Frank Lautenberg,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Printing
Industries of America, we wish to express our support for the
``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution
Prevention Act of 2000.'' We believe that this legislation is
a win-win for the environment and the economy, and we look
forward to working with you to enact this legislation during
the 106th Congress.
As a trade association representing thousands of small
printers, we believe the vast majority of small businesses
want to do the right thing by the environment, but often they
simply do not know what is required of them. This legislation
establishes a mandatory duty on the EPA Administrator to
develop a way for businesses to fulfill all of their annual
reporting obligation in a single electronic filing. While
there are no guarantees, we believe this mandate will set in
motion a process that leads to simplified reporting and fewer
duplicative request for information. By simplifying reporting
requirements, more small businesses will understand their
reporting and compliance obligations, and we can achieve our
dual goals of easing regulatory burdens and improving the
environment.
The proposed legislation also contains important
protections that should address potential concerns
stakeholders. For example, statutory impediments to
integrated reporting are not repealed, but EPA must identify
such provisions within two years of enactment. Businesses who
choose to report on paper or under the current system can
continue to do so. A state or local agency can maintain its
separate reporting requirements, or it can request EPA to
collect its data requirements on the EPA reporting system.
Existing protections for confidential business information
are maintained. Overall, we believe this legislation is
carefully tailored to address a real problem, while
[[Page S5909]]
avoiding unnecessary controversy. We believe this is
legislation that can and should be enacted this year.
Once again, thank you for your leadership in introducing
this legislation.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Y. Cooper,
Vice-President of Government Affairs.
____
National Association of Metal Finishers, American
Electro-platers and Surface Finishers Society, Metal
Finishing Suppliers Association,
May 31, 2000.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: This letter is to express our
appreciation for your work on environmental reporting issues,
and to endorse the bill you plan to introduce with Senator
Crapo, the ``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act.''
As the three leading trade and professional associations
for the nation's surface finishing industry, we work to
advance the viability and critical economic contribution of
approximately 5000 manufacturing facilities, which range from
small ``job shops'' to Fortune 500 companies. The National
Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) represents the
interests of finishing companies and owners, the American
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society (AESF)
represents technical, research and scientific personnel
associated with the industry, and the Metal Finishing
Suppliers Association (MFSA) represents a wide range of
vendors of equipment, chemicals and environmental consulting
expertise.
As you know, our work during the '90s with USEPA on the
reinvention front has led to better environmental performance
for the finishing industry and constructive regulatory
change. It remains our view that one of the most significant
environmental regulatory challenges in the coming years will
be the management of the ever-increasing weight and
complexity of reporting burdens, particularly for small
business. Your legislation takes sensible, incremental steps
to address issues with which the Agency continues to have
great difficulty.
A key project undertaken by our industry and USEPA under
the ``Common Sense Initiative'' is the so-called ``RIITE''
study. This effort applied a Business Process Reengineering
approach to identify and evaluate environmental reporting
burdens across the entire federal system. The results were
compelling, and pointed to the overwhelming need for
consolidating and streamlining the reporting system. We have
strongly encouraged the Agency to attack these issues in the
context of its ``Reinventing Environmental Information''
initiative, and agency officials appear to be making an
attempt in concert with involvement from the states,
including New Jersey. However, discrete and meaningful
changes are still on the far horizon.
Accordingly, we commend your work and that of your staff,
Nikki Roy, in advancing sensible discussion on this issue,
and look forward to working with you on your legislative
effort in the coming months.
Sincerely,
Christian Richter,
Director, Federal Relations.
____
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Association
of State PIRGs.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express U.S.
PIRG's endorsement of your bill, ``The Streamlined
Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act 1999.''
This bill presents an important opportunity to advance
environmental protection while reducing the burden associated
with environmental reporting requirements.
The bill will require EPA, within four years, to provide
businesses with one point of contact for all federal
environmental reporting requirements. This `one-stop'
reporting system will use a common nomenclature and language
understandable to businesspeople, not just to environmental
specialists. Its electronic version will also provide
pollution prevention information to businesses.
By helping businesses identify environmental reporting
requirements to which they are subject, this new system will
make it easier for businesses to comply both with those
requirements and with other environmental laws. Using a
common nomenclature and simpler language will also improve
the accuracy of the environmental information reported. In
addition, by providing information on pollution prevention to
businesses as they report their environmental information,
this system will promote pollution prevention. These are all
objectives for which U.S. PIRG has long advocated.
Thank you for your leadership in demonstrating once again
that government can advance environmental protection while
helping business.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah Baumann,
Environmental Advocate.
____
Environmental Defense,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2000.
Dr. Manik Roy,
Office of Senator Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Nikki: I am writing in support of the intent and
approach of Mr. Lautenberg's draft bill to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
establish an integrated environmental reporting system.
Integrating environmental reporting is a common sense way
to make government work better for regulated entities as well
as those who seek to use public information to advance
environmental protection. When properly structured, these
reforms can lessen the administrative burden on reporting
entities while using the ``teachable moment'' of reporting to
illuminate pollution prevention opportunities.
With continued careful attention to specific language,
Senator Lautenberg's legislation will make good sense for
both the environment and the economy.
Sincerely,
Kevin Mills,
Director,
Pollution Prevention Alliance.
____
National Environmental Trust,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the National
Environmental Trust, we wish to thank you for sponsoring
``The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution
Prevention Act of 1999.'' NET will fully support enactment of
this legislation because it will improve environmental
protection and at the same time reduce the administrative
burden associated with environmental reporting.
This proposed legislation demonstrates that it is possible
to achieve a cleaner environment and maintain a strong
economy at the same time. If enacted, this legislation will
provide business with ``one-stop'' reporting through a single
point of contact for all federal environmental reporting
requirements, which will reduce redundancies and paperwork.
By making it easier to report, compliance should improve. The
provisions for pollution prevention ``feedback'' through the
new system will assist businesses in achieving cleaner
operations.
We thank you for your leadership in introducing this
important legislation which will reduce businesses' costs of
environmental reporting and compliance and at the same time
result in vast improvement in environmental performance.
Sincerely,
Patricia G. Kenworthy,
Vice President,
Government Affairs.
____
National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable,
December 22, 1999.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing on behalf of the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (National
Roundtable), to express the National Roundtable's endorsement
of your bill, ``the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and
Pollution Prevention Act of 1999.'' The bill advances
concepts included in the National Roundtable's proposed
amendments to strengthen the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990.
The bill will require EPA, within four years, to provide
each business with one point of contact for all federal
environmental reporting requirements. This ``one-stop''
reporting system will use language understandable to business
people, not just to environmental specialists. In addition,
the ``one-stop'' reporting system will simplify reporting due
to the use of common nomenclature. The electronic version
will also provide pollution prevention information to
businesses.
Obviously, a law that streamlines environmental reporting
will benefit industry by allowing them to spend less time on
reporting and more on actually preventing pollution and other
substantive environmental improvements.
Mainstream business decision-makers--those who design the
business's products, decide how to make it, then proceed to
produce it and instruct customers on its use and disposal--
make the vast majority of environmental decisions in our
society. Unfortunately, many times such decisions are made
without consideration of their environmental consequences.
This is largely due to the complexity of environmental
regulations, which typically lead businesses to hire
environmental specialists, who often act in isolation of
product and process designers.
Streamlining environmental reporting will make it easier
for mainstream business decision-makers to understand their
environmental obligations and incorporate environmental
considerations into the design and production of their
products. Streamlined reporting is a critical tool needed to
meet the challenging pollution problems of the 21st century.
If you have any questions about our comments or about the
National Roundtable please have your staff contact either
Natalie Roy or Michele Russo in our Washington D.C. office at
202/466-P2P2. We look forward to working more closely with
you on this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Patricia Gallagher,
Chair, Board of Directors.
[[Page S5910]]
____
The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of
2000--Summary
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlined Environmental
Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000.''
Sec. 2. Definitions
Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Integrated reporting system means the system established
under section 3 of this Act.
Person includes both private and government facilities.
Reporting requirement means a routine, periodic,
environmental reporting requirement. The term refers neither
to most emergency information, nor to business transaction
information (e.g. information submitted by EPA contractors).
Sec. 3. Integrated environmental reporting
(a) Within 4 years of enactment, EPA integrates and
streamlines its reporting requirements in accordance with
subsection (b), to the extend not prohibited by Act of
Congress, and in a manner consistent with the preservation of
the integrity, reliability, and security of the data
reported.
(b) The integrated reporting system has the following
attributes:
(1) EPA establishes one point of contact through which
reporting persons may submit all information required by EPA
reporting requirements. The information may be submitted in
paper form or through electronic media, such as an EPA
webpage. This provision operates at the discretion of the
reporting person. (See subsection (c).)
(2)(A) Each State, tribal, or local agency that receives
information on a reporting person which it then must report
to EPA (for example, under a delegation agreement) is allowed
to submit such information to one point of contact at EPA.
This provision operates at the discretion of the State,
tribal, or local agency, and facilitates such agencies'
efforts to streamline their own reporting requirements. (See
Section 5.)
(2)(B) Each State, tribal, or local agency that reports
through the integrated reporting system has full access to
the data reported to EPA through the system.
(3) A reporting person has full access to any information
it reports to EPA and to State, tribal, or local agencies
that is subsequently reported to EPA. In order to ease future
reporting, EPA provides the person the information in a
modifiable format, allowing the person to update the
information on the form and send it in to comply with a
current reporting requirement.
(4) The reporting system directs the reporting person to
information on applicable OSHA reporting requirements and
environmental reporting requirements administered by other
Federal agencies.
(5) The reporting system uses consistent units of measure
and consistent terms for chemicals, pollutants, waste, and
biological material. It also uses a standard method of
identifying reporting facilities. EPA develops such ``data
standards'' in consultation with State and tribal
governments, reporting persons (i.e. industry), environmental
groups, and information technology experts. (If EPA prefers,
the data standards may be developed through a negotiated
rulemaking with the stakeholders.)
(6) The reporting system uses a nomenclature that uses
terms understandable to reporting persons that do not have
environmental expertise.
(7) Information that would otherwise be reported at more
than one point in the same data submission is reported only
once.
(8) The reporting system uses protocols consistent with the
Government Paperwork Elimination Act and public-domain
standards for electronic commerce.
(9) EPA establishes a National Environmental Data Model to
use as the framework for EPA databases on which reported data
is kept. The data model is made available for use by other
Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, as their
discretion.
(10) Reporting persons may receive technical assistance
from an electronic commerce service center that is accessible
through the reporting system.
(11) Reporting persons may receive scientifically-sound
publicly-available information on pollution prevention
technologies and practices through the reporting system.
(12) EPA may develop different ``interfaces'' for the
reporting system to facilitate use by different sectors,
sizes, and categories of reporting persons.
(13) Each reported data element receives protection
equivalent to that provided under current law to protect
confidential business information and privacy.
(14) EPA develops and disseminates software, to the maximum
extent practicable, that helps the reporting person in
assembling necessary data, reporting information, and
receiving pollution prevention information under paragraph
(11).
(15) The reporting system uses an ``open data format''
(such as ASCII format) that allows persons to download
information from their own internal data management systems
directly to the integrated reporting system. This provision
operates at the discretion of the reporting person.
(c) Existing regulatory definitions are not modified by the
data standards and nomenclature implemented under paragraphs
(5) and (6) above unless amended by regulation.
(d) Nothing in this Act requires any person to use the
integrated electronic reporting system instead of an
individual reporting system.
Sec. 4. Interagency coordination
(a) EPA coordinates with State, tribal and local efforts
that EPA believes consistent this Act, at the request of the
State, tribal or local agency. (See section 3(b)(2).)
(b) Under subsection (a), EPA may coordinate with a State,
tribal, or local agency to establish a reporting system that
integrates reporting to both EPA and the other agency.
(c) To ease reporting by persons with facilities in several
jurisdictions, EPA encourages the use of a common data format
by any State, tribal, or local agency coordinating with EPA
under subsection (a).
(d) Other Federal agencies provide EPA information on their
reporting requirements.
(e) EPA may design the integrated reporting system to allow
a reporting person to use it to comply with some requirements
and not others.
Sec. 5. Regulations
EPA may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to
carry out this Act.
Sec. 6. Reports
Within 2 years of enactment, EPA reports to Congress those
provisions of law that prohibit or hinder implementation of
this Act.
Sec. 7. Savings clause
(a) Nothing in this Act affects any provision of Federal or
State law or the obligation of any person to comply with any
provision of law.
(b) Nothing in this Act affects the obligation of a
reporting person to provide the information required under
any reporting requirement.
(c) Nothing in this Act authorizes new reporting
requirements or requires the elimination of existing
reporting requirements.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 2801. A bill to prohibit funding of the negotiation of the move of
the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States
until the Secretary of State has required the divestiture of property
purchased by the Xinhua News Agency in violation of the Foreign
Missions Act; read the first time.
the chinese news agency divestiture act of 2000
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Washington Times reported last week
that the Chinese Government-owned news agency, Xinhua, had purchased
property on Arlington Ridge Road in Virginia a location that overlooks
the Pentagon and has direct line of sight to many of our key Government
buildings including this Capitol and the White House.
In fact, the property is so appealing that the East Germans bought it
in the early 1980s, which led Congress to amend the Foreign Missions
Act.
The Secretary of State, through the Foreign Missions Act, has broad
authority to oversee the purchase of buildings in the United States by
foreign government entities. Under the Act certain identified
governments are required to notify the State Department of their intent
to purchase property in the United States. China is one such country.
The Secretary of State then has 60 days to review the sale, and
receive input from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the
FBI. She has the option to disapprove the sale during this period.
None of this occurred--despite the fact that China was notified in
1985 that its news agency was required to follow these procedures--and
on June 15 the sale was finalized.
The Foreign Missions Act provides the Secretary of State with the
authority to remedy this violation of law. Under section 205 of the
act, the Secretary may force the news agency to divest itself of the
property.
The legislation I am introducing today will ensure that this broad
authority is used.
The legislation has two basic requirements: First, it requires the
Secretary of State to report to the Intelligence and Foreign Relations
Committees whether she intends to force the news agency to divest
itself of the property.
Second, the bill prohibits any State Department funds from being used
to negotiate with the Chinese on the relocation of the Chinese Embassy
in Washington until she certifies that she has instituted divestiture
proceedings and will ensure that any further purchase of property by
the news agency will be pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act.
By prohibiting funds for further negotiations until this violation of
U.S. law is resolved, this second provision
[[Page S5911]]
will also ensure that this issue is handled separately from on-going
negotiations to relocate both the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the
Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC.
The potential for this building to be a source of unparalleled
espionage is not a theoretical matter. While there is nothing new about
PRC spying, as an emerging economic and military power, China
increasingly challenges vital U.S. interests around the globe through
its aggressive security and intelligence service--employing both
traditional intelligence methods as well as non-traditional methods
such as open source collection, elicitation, and exploitation of
scientific and commercial exchanges.
In December 1999, the Director of Central Intelligence and the
Director of the FBI reported to the Intelligence Committee, in
unclassified form, that:
As the most advanced military power with respect to
equipment and strategic capabilities, the United States
continues to be the [Military Intelligence Department of the
People's Republic of China]'s primary target.
The DCI went on to report:
During the past 20 years, China has established a notable
intelligence capability in the United States through its
commercial presence.
And added that China's commercial entities play a significant role in
pursuit of U.S. proprietary information and trade secrets.
One of China's greatest successes has been its collection against the
U.S. nuclear weapons labs. As the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded
last year:
China obtained by espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons
information, [including] at least basic design information on
several modern U.S. nuclear reentry vehicles, including the
Trident II (W88).
The special advisory panel of the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board PFIAB concluded:
[T]he nature of the intelligence-gathering methods used by
the People's Republic of China poses a special challenge to
the U.S. in general and the [DOE] weapons labs in particular.
. . . The Chinese services have become very proficient in the
art of seemingly innocuous elicitations of information. This
approach has proved very effective against unwitting and ill-
prepared DOE personnel.
In another example, an investigation by the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence concluded that U.S. officials ``failed to take
seriously enough the counterintelligence threat'' in launching U.S.
satellites on PRC rockets. Technology transfers in the course of U.S.-
PRC satellite launches:
Enable the PRC to improve its present and future space
launch vehicle and intercontinental ballistic missile.
But the Chinese are also active in traditional methods of
intelligence gathering, which brings us to the subject of my
legislation. Especially in the wake of U.S. military success in the
Gulf War, the acquisition of advanced U.S. military technology has been
a primary thrust of PRC espionage and intelligence collection efforts.
If you want money, and if you are so inclined, you rob a bank
because, as a bank robber Willy Sutton famously observed: ``that's
where the money is.''
If you want information on the most advanced military power in the
world, the Pentagon is where the information is.
I am hopeful that this bill can be taken up and passed quickly by the
Senate and the House in order to ensure that the divestiture occurs in
an orderly and speedy manner.
Mr. President, this is a serious matter.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 2802. A bill to amend the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status
Act of 1994 to add White Earth Tribal and Community College to the list
of 1994 Institutions; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
designation of white earth tribal & community college as a 1994 land
grant institution
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today
which will add the White Earth Tribal & Community College of Mahnomen,
Minnesota to the list of 1994 Land Grant Institutions. Designation as a
1994 land grant institution would give White Earth Tribal & Community
College access to critical federal funding and resources made available
under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 as well
as providing eligibility for other programs.
Tribal colleges provide their students and their communities at-large
with otherwise non-existent opportunities. They serve as library
facilities for historical tribal documents--things like the oral
history of elders that might otherwise be lost in time. They promote
pride in their shared tribal background, and they provide unique
opportunities for learning about this background. They are a center of
learning for the entire community--not only learning about their tribal
history, but also the basic learning that enables some to continue
adult education, some to go on to 4-year institutions and some to
finish graduate school. The colleges also offer a place for alcohol
abuse workshops, job training seminars, and in some cases even day care
centers. These colleges can offer benefits for all people in their
communities, which is why we should offer our help to those tribal
colleges who demonstrate their ability to serve their students and
their community in this way.
The purpose of the 1994 land-grant act was to enable tribal colleges
to receive funds to build their programs, enhance their infrastructure,
and educate their communities. However, new tribal colleges, founded
since 1994 are not automatically eligible for land grant status, they
must be so designated by legislation. One such college is the White
Earth Tribal & Community College in Mahnomen, Minnesota. Founded in
1997, this college is now the center of learning for approximately 100
students. Their courses cover a wide range of material including math,
history, computer science, and business communications. The college is
currently seeking accreditation and is a member of the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). White Earth Tribal & Community
College is also recognized by its peers as an important place of higher
learning. Other local colleges, such as Moorhead State University,
Northwest Technical College, and Northland Community and Technical
College, accept its transfer credits.
Mr. President, we should offer this college the opportunity it
deserves to expand and strengthen its efforts to enhance the lives of
everyone around it. Giving White Earth Tribal & Community College the
same federal land-grant status that we gave other tribal colleges in
1994 is a matter of basic equity. Adoption of this legislation would
signal a willingness to continue our support of new tribal colleges in
their efforts to enhance education in their communities.
____________________